The cold war reached its climax in Cuban missile crisis and the subsequent tantrums of Nikita Khrushchev at the United Nations. It was a clash of nerve and the eventual victor was decided by who blinked first. The blockade of West Berlin was another typical case of testing the will, which has been made memorable by the famous lines of President Kennedy in 'Eich bin Berliner'. However it was during the time of this peaceably sensible President, the Vietcong and North Vietnam started pressing hard on the fragile South Vietnamese regime of Ngo Dinh Diem. During President Johnson's rule, America first sent its troops to South Vietnam on 16 March 1965. The involvement became much larger with troops strength reaching 500,000 soldiers in 1967 during Nguen Van Theiu's regime. It started taking heavy toll of American lives.

The whole of the sixties saw the world caught in the vitriolic exchanges of cold war politics. America talked of the domino theory about the vulnerabilities of free societies against the subversion of communist insurgency. On the other hand Russia sternly chastised the erring socialist countries, sending tanks to Czechoslovakia bringing to an end Anton Dubcek's 'Communism with a human face'. Both the powers treated countries on the merit of their alignment with them. They were equally averse to the idea of countries courting their favour and dallying with the other. Bilateral relationship with one of the powers prospered to the detriment of relationship with the other. Only very few democracies, the notable example being India and France (albeit grudgingly), could succeed in remaining acceptable to both the camps. It appeared that the bi-polar world would remain as long as the world would last, unless a nuclear holocaust obliterates the human civilization. The world did not have a dream.

The seventies brought hopes of constructive engagement. Richard Nixon the archconservative became the peacemaker. He embarked on détente with Russia. Ties with Mao Ze Dong's China were established. Sadat made peace with Israel. Hopes started sprouting among foes and belligerents and in once forbidden territories. The hope suffered a setback in 1979 with Brezhnev's Russia sending troops to Afghanistan. Even though he saw evil in communism Reagan kept talking to Russia. KGB chief Yuri Andropov's protégé Gorbachev's arrival started blowing a wind of change. The belief became stronger that the spectre of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) through nuclear warfare has been lifted. Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika added hope to the belief. It is the developments of the late eighties that set the world on the course of peace through greater exchange. The Berlin Wall was brought down in 1989 and marked the end of communism in Europe and controlled economy was discarded as an obsolete concept.

In the nineties, perestroika and glasnost led to a concept that visualised a world bringing countries and nations into an integrated economic system through unfettered exchanges and contacts. Powered by the remarkable advances of IT sector, globalisation became the premier agenda of the world. The world that had always known antagonistic paths and goals started sharing a common dream. It started talking and acting on things that was seen even one decade ago as an infringement of sovereignty. Many countries of Europe now have a common currency and a unified visa system. One day the whole of Europe may not have any restrictive frontier. A dream appeared real and attainable. The faith that the mankind has one fate, a common path, a shared journey grew in strength to foresee a future where the world would function like a single entity with countries acting as facilitators.

In the present context of the world the dream has lost its urgency, its importance and the fervour of its advocates. 9/11 and Iraq War witnessed the return of the tyranny of the simplistic logic of 'if you are not with me, you are against me'. It is an irony that the leader who was to lead the dream is now passionately occupied with his own rancorous rhetoric. There has never been such a time in the history of human civilisation, where a single assertive global power is the unquestioned leader of the world. The shift of Russian priority from military supremacy to economic restructuring transformed a comparable contender into a partner for American leadership. This does not lessen in any way the worthiness of America as the world leader.

America never had any colonial ambition and neither did it indulge in it. Rather blessed with a bountiful land, its people in general were averse to foreign entanglement and were content with its insular role. Woodrow Wilson after much deliberation and owing to the considerations of its traditional ally England joined the World War I. America dithered on joining the World War II and it is the Japanese unwarranted bombardment of Pearl Harbour that forced America into it. America cannot be faulted for colonial avarice or designs of annexation of foreign territory. On the other hand it played a paramount role in the reconstruction of post war Europe through Marshall Plan.

Understandably, the 9/11 carnage deeply wounded America's national pride. It plunged the whole nation into a righteous rage and developed a frame of mind occupied with concerns of terrorist attack. Because the last time a foreign force launched an attack on its mainland and occupied its capital took place almost two hundred years ago in 1812, and the perpetrator was its former colonial ruler England. The 9/11 attack was principally aimed at denting American pride. It is also plausible that the perpetrators wanted to destabilise America in its comprehension of terror and possibly in its anticipatory response. There is a saying that prized swords are best used if sheathed well and used with wisdom. Only America's enemies wanted and want America to go berserk in its retaliatory response and bleed in overkill. The events and discoveries following the fall of Saddam's Iraq are making the perception stronger that President G.W. Bush's stubborn rush into Iraq and its aftermath of heavy toll of human lives, both American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians, are the result of the impetuous action of a driven President. A President more focused on mastering the situation would have halted at Afghanistan and would have worked hard at forming a world alliance in combating the common enemy.

Saddam was a tyrant to his people, but was equally a committed secular ruler in dealing with the Islamic zealots. He had little love for religious firebrands. And the facilities for weapons of mass destruction were long destroyed after 1991 Gulf War. Iraq War is a disappointing case of overkill. The noose was around Saddam's neck and it could have been further tightened. His father the Senior Bush would have definitely pursued Saddam to his downfall had there been a compelling ground for it. He did not because he believed that there was no point in it, so long Saddam remains clipped within two no fly zones and under the burden of economic sanctions.

Iraq War is casting lengthening shadows over the world. Today's world looks like a brooding Greek god with his chin resting on his palm, absorbed in doleful thoughts beholding the state of the world with concern. The dream of an integrated world looks so remote. Even the articulation of genuine concern is held back in muffled regret. Every country prefers following a course of quiet contemplation and bilateral deliberation. The United Nations has been relegated to the state of inaction or of actions without substance. Only Kofi Annan could at last muster the courage to speak out what he always believed, knowing that his term is coming to an end. America has chosen its own agenda in its aversion of leading the world through shared effort under the auspices of United Nations. Any global action or programme in order to be credible needs America. To make matters worse, G.W. Bush's America looks on the United Nations in the role of usurper of its supremacy. The world is therefore stagnating.

The harshness of the fulminations of the present American administration and the wholesale nature of its summation that 'it's either black or white' has in its practical application characterised the Muslim countries of the world as the natural nursery, or a willing sanctuary or the patrons of world terrorism and fundamentalism. It is not a wild imagination that the negative characterisation is rubbing on to the Muslims as individuals. On a secondary level the dissenting allies in the western world are rebuked for ingratitude and ethnic chauvinism. In the process, the fact that America has steadfast and proven allies in the Muslim world and that its dissenting allies are not renegades are not taken into consideration.

It should not be forgotten that America has succeeded in putting Osama and his religious firebrands on the run and in overpowering Saddam's Iraq because of its Muslims allies in Musharraf's Pakistan, the Saudi ruling family, the Emirs of UAE and Qatar and the NATO ally Turkey. One should understand that overwhelming number of Muslim countries, even Iran, are Islamic in faith but are wedded to the enlightenment of western civilisation. If America could fight a civil war to give equal rights to the black Americans and make them useful citizens of USA, given a genuine understanding of their separateness in religious beliefs and practices, even the Muslim countries can prove to be the most steadfast and trusting allies of America in fulfilling the dream of the 21st century. Let us hope that the next American administration will embark on a new course of conciliation and shared effort, thus leading the world to the dream that unites it. A requiem for a dream, after all, may not be necessary.

Syed Maqsud Jamil is General Manager of Summit Group of Companies.