Confucian Asia subscribing to Lee Kwan Yew's views on freedom as having " a well ordered society so that every one can have maximum enjoyment of his freedoms (which) can only exist in an ordered state and not in a natural state of contention and anarchy" would have less difficulty in accepting American masculinism than say the Islamic Asian states, though historically suffering from democracy deficit, having been victims of American unilateralism. Regardless of the justification of American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq sizeable number of people in Asian Muslim countries continue to view the war on terror as war on Islam.

China, however, has seized the war on terror as an opportunity to tighten its control over the rebellious province of Xinjian but at the same time is playing a constructive role in the North Korean nuclear imbroglio. The North Korean crisis being dealt outside global focus is of critical importance to the security of North and Far East and had gripped the attention of both Clinton and Bush administrations. North Korea's October 2002 admission that the country was pursuing a uranium enrichment programme is in clear violation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1991 accord with South Korea declaring the Korean peninsula as a nuclear free zone, and 1994 framework agreement in which North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear programme in exchange of certain benefits to be provided by the US, Japan and South Korea. Therefore North Korea's admission of its truancy came as a shock to the entire world.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that the country is being ruled for half a century by successive reclusive, totalitarian and unpredictable regimes that have scant respect for welfare of its own people. This unpredictability, perhaps, prevented the Clinton regime to abandon a project of selective military attacks on North Korean nuclear facilities. Instead Clinton administration opted to bribe North Korea through the framework agreement in the hope that the dictatorial communist regime would either collapse or transform itself into something other than what it has been so far. Otherwise, argues Ted Carpenter (of Cato Institute) Iraq war becomes totally illogical because Iraq was invaded in suspicion of doing something that North Korea has already done. Perhaps the possibility of mushroom cloud over Seoul, Tokyo and US bases in South Korea and Okinawa has prevented Bush administration from undertaking preemptive and proactive counter proliferation measures against North Korea. This scenario has become more real in view of the recent North Korean declaration at the UNGA that it has turned plutonium from spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent.

One hopes that with China's active participation the four nations' talks on North Korea's nuclear question would be solved. President Bush has already identified North Korea as one of the three members of the axis of evil and has declared terrorism and nuclear proliferation as national security threats. On both these counts North Korea should prove to be guilty. It is therefore possible that the second Bush administration after finishing its patchwork on Iraq would give greater attention to the North Korean issue. Whether the next Bush administration would take military measures given strong opposition from South Korea and Japan against such measures and given the general conclusion of international jurists that intervention without UNSC approval is illegal remains to be seen. But at the same time it is difficult to overlook North Korea's serial breach of its international obligations and her role as a conduit of nuclear weapons proliferation and hence inaction to severely treat the problem would increase the risk of North Korea's growing menace.

If Bush doctrine of preemption shocked the Europeans it shook the seemingly peaceful foundation of the Islamic world. Yet the entire Muslim world stood alongside the Americans in their grief after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. So when the Talibans were decimated and driven out of Afghanistan the Islamic world supported the NATO actions against the Talibans. But when Iraq was invaded on what now appears to be on untenable and illegal grounds the Muslims as no less the Europeans and the less xenophobic part of the American people refused to sanction Anglo-American misadventure. Colin Powell's assertion of Bush administration's belief in a strategy of global partnership for the war on terror failed to calm the fear of a disbelieving world. Equally President Bush's West Point address of June 2002 urging the governments of the Islamic countries to listen to the hopes of their citizens for the same freedoms and opportunities as available in the West did not elicit uniform enthusiasm.

Historian Bernard Lewis interpreted the "Muslim Rage" in terms of millennial rivalry between the two world religions caused by the sense of humiliation felt by the Muslims over being defeated by the "inferior Christians and the Jews". Lewis' interpretation of inter-faith tension, despite his outstanding intellect, was criticized by Edward Said who accused Lewis of advancing political agenda under the cloak of scholarship .The Muslim point of view has been reflected in the recently published Arab Human Development Report (AHDR2003) which observed that the adoption of extreme security measures and policies by a number of western countries exceeded their original goals and led to the erosion of civil and political liberties diminishing the welfare of the Arabs and Muslims living in those countries. These freedom-constraining policies have also encouraged the adoption of the Arab Charter Against Terrorism allowing censorship, detention and torture. It is therefore not surprising that the American advocacy of redressing democracy deficit in the Islamic world is taken with a pinch of salt.

Yet the second Bush administration is expected to press on with the Greater Middle East Initiative because it is believed that: - (a) US support for democracy is extended as a matter of principle, (b) US will prosper more in a world of democracies than in a world of authoritarian or chaotic regimes, (c) history testifies that democracies do not wage wars against other democracies, (d) quantitative increase in democracy leads to qualitative improvement in diplomacy, and (e) democracy is closely linked with prosperity for which peaceful and predictable transition of power is essential. It is further surmised that the US will no longer tolerate "democratic exceptions" in parts of the Muslim world for the sake of its self-interest.

But the most recent decision of President Parvez Musharraf to continue as the head of Pakistan army violating the agreement he had concluded with the opposition parties that he would relinquish the post of army head at the end of this year does not speak very highly of American determination to bring about democracy in the Islamic world. Given Pakistan's close partnership with the US in the war on terror it is inconceivable that President Musharraf could have taken this decision without US blessings. It is therefore quite possible that one democratic exception could lead to many other autocrats to seek a way out of the American imposed pluralism.

It is generally accepted that one-size-fit-all cannot be a sustainable foreign policy option for any major power. However moralistic a policy can be it can never be purely altruistic and must always be self-interested. Therefore it is unlikely that the second Bush administration would push on with its mission of Greater Middle East Initiative if it were found to be in conflict with the war on terror. It is unfortunate but true that in the eyes of the ordinary Westerners al-Qaedaist terrorism is seen as being inspired by Islamists. Religious profiling of the Muslims in the US, reported job discrimination, verbal and sometimes physical abuse suffered by the Muslims living in the West are undeniable facts fuelling "spiraling progressive alienation" of the Muslims from the mainstream western society. This has prompted some Western intellectuals to conclude that Huntington's clash of civilization has already materialized. While another school of thought would deny that there is any clash of civilizations between Islam and the West.

They argue that the real battle is being fought within the Muslim civilization between ultra-conservatives and moderates and democrats for the soul of the Muslims who are caught in the crossfire between a westernized elite but oligarchic in character who hold effective power and the oppressed political opposition who take the form of apocalyptic nihilism striking out violently to expel the "infidels" who they believe are sustaining the oligarchs. That there is a crying need to democratise these islands of autocracy is to state the obvious. This need has been reinforced by the findings of the Freedom House survey (2001-2002) of free countries around the world that while the number of "free" nations increased by nearly three dozens over the past 20 years not one of them was a Muslim majority state.

Since lack of democratic pluralism has been identified as the primary cause behind Islamic extremism it is possible that the second Bush administration would not abandon its mission to bring meaningful freedom to the Muslim states whose population is still denied a voice in the governance in their own countries.

The Islamic world today is undeniably passing through a critical time in its history fuelled by prejudice, bigotry and various other forms of discrimination used by Western societies against Muslims worldwide. To blame the West for this kind of behaviour will not be helpful. After all the Western response has been caused in order to confront al-Qaedaist terrorism in the US, Europe, Africa and in several Islamic countries as well. A small venal group spreading lethality in the name of Islam has stigmatised Muslims. The depth of Western anger can be gauged by the fact that Senator Kerry is accused of waffling on Iraq and American public do not appear to see another Vietnam in Iraq yet despite increasing casualties of coalition forces. It is unlikely that the West would relent on the freedom-constraining regulations imposed on the Muslims or that Western society would feel comfortable with Muslims as neighbours and working in their societies along side them. It took Europeans almost fifty years to get comfortable with the Germans though Nazism was physically annihilated by the allied victors and totally rejected by the Germans in 1945. Despite German membership of NATO it took the Kosovo crisis for the NATO allies to invite Germany to participate in the Kosovo campaign.

One wonders whether Western rejection would not force the Islamic world, regardless of its lack of monolithic character and housing divergent philosophies, to be introverted and a part of it intuitively adopting violence as an expression of frustration. This grim scenario can become more terrifying if the West were to increase their violence, because the degree of violence is proportional to the instruments of violence used and the West has a surfeit of such instruments, by expanding their "area of operation" by including Iran, Syria and who knows which other country would be the next. The US has not fared well in Afghanistan and Iraq and is not expected to do so in future. What is essential to regain the lost confidence is to have inter-faith dialogue or something like the South African Truth Commission and opening doors to people of all races and religions and not to shut the door only because a few non-covenanted would sneak in through the open door.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.