One particular administration or its policies may spawn controversy at varying degrees depending on certain issues, but there is hardly any scope to dispute the near-unassailable influence of Washington in the global affairs. This has been further reinforced by certain recent developments that have caught world attention and unquestionably the Iraq crisis is at the top of all of them. The United States saw to it that its scheme of things is implemented no matter who supported or opposed. Even it by-passed the United nations in launching all out military assault in Iraq early last year and paid scant importance to the sentiments of its European allies France and Germany. The new-found democracy in the form of Russian federation also could not cut much ice while socialist China also did not approve American aggressive role in Iraq but nothing could deter president George W. Bush to abandon his military operation with the support of some allies like the Britain and Australia. This brings into sharp focus how the writ of the United States runs and finally it is Bush administration which carried its scheme through regardless of the views of the rest of the world -- albeit American perception that a number of countries stood by Washington in its Iraq policy.

That America virtually turned a Nelson's eye to sentiments of a vast majority of nations in launching the armed adventure against a much weakened country hardly needs elaboration. One does not need to overstress the fact that military action was not a policy that had broad support of the international community, this time against Sadam Hussain regime. In the earlier Gulf war, sparked by Iraq's occupation of its northern tiny oil-rich nation Kuwait, world's most countries supported the action as illegal annexation of Kuwait by sheer force had thrown international laws and ethics to the wind. This time the case is different as most saw the United States -- leader of the democratic world -- shaped the affairs in Iraq as it wanted by sheer military might. And this was done with considerable opposition in the United States itself while massive anti-war demonstrations in Britain and Australia were not lost in sight.

The point that is being driven home by all these illustrations is that American presidency is such a powerful position that it can effectively bring about qualitative changes in the global scene even if the rationale can be questioned. Gone are the days of two super powers when one could act as a deterrent to the other at least in some ways without giving a walkover to the other. With the collapse of the former communist giant Soviet Union, now it is basically a one-sided affair. True, in all matters it is not a cakewalk for the super power and not without challenge or opposition ,but definitely its say mostly is adhered to and Iraq is the biggest instance although few shed tears for Saddam Hussain. It was fundamentally a question of ethics governing international law. The democrat challenger to president Bush says he is not opposed to what America is broadly doing in Iraq but differed in approach since the UN and the country's most allies were not taken along with in the exercise of colossal ramifications.

The outcome of the polls automatically becomes the cynosure of all eyes on a global scale since for the next four years the elected person will call the shots not only in his nation's affairs but will be in a position to do so to a great extent internationally. Foreign policy does play a role along with the domestic issues in the American presidential elections but this time the foreign policies occupied a greater place in the electioneering evidently for the Iraq crisis, to some extent Afghan tangle and some other issues of lesser importance. But it is the Iraq situation that continues to remain the main headache of the United States, long time after the toppling of the Saddam regime and even after his arrest. A latest tape of fugitive Osama Bin Laden brings back the nightmarish memory of 9/11 and has also added a last-minute new dimension in the American election scene. This tape is creating some ripples on the eve of the polling and it remains to be seen who -- the incumbent president or the challenger -- is benefited by this latest developments as both have condemned Laden and vowed to crush "terrorists" at any cost although none missed the opportunity to hurl some mild accusations at the other centering the Laden issue.

Judging by the mood of the people in different countries, it appears that John Kerry enjoys clear edge over Bush in popularity and most Asian nations favour him even though governments of some of these countries sided with Bush administration on the Iraq issue like Japan and Australia, where people would like a change at the White House. If Australian prime minister John Howard has won a fresh term, it is mainly for his successful economic policies highlighted by the economic reforms. The most people in South Korea, a staunch ally of the US is also reported to have liking for the Democrat nominee. Most Muslim countries are clearly against the Bush administration. South Asian countries seem by and large neutral even though Challenger Kerry appears likeable among the people. However, this may differ from country to country. In Pakistan, people appear to favour Kerry while Bush is known to be close with the government, whose close rapport with the present American government on the issue of "terror" is well known.

Going by reports, the Asian voters in the US favour Kerry but they are not the deciding factor as their number is not big as voters. One analyst said Kerry would have been an easy victor if those live abroad were the voters. But it is the Americans who would vote in the elections. This situation notwithstanding, the American presidential election is supposed to be a "close call". None hopes that outcome remains shrouded in uncertainty for many days as it unfortunately and incidentally did last time.

Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist.