Last week, by an interesting coincidence, while the world joined the USA in marking the first anniversary of the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington -- that wasted some 3,025 lives of nationals in 83 countries, the great bulk being Americans - Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Trade Ministers were locked in a meeting in Port-of-Spain with the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoelick.

Whatever may eventually emerge from the discussion with Zoelick on the particular issue of special and differential treatment being sought by CARICOM within the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), there has noticeably been no collective statement by the Community marking the anniversary of the "9/11 disaster" that has so much changed America. And not for the better.

Even before President Bush addressed the United Nations on Thursday with his dire threat of war against Iraq, without UN support if necessary, ordinary Caribbean folks were also openly expressing their fears of a world being endangered by the new unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary General Kofi Annan was quick to reaffirm, following Bush's UN address, that only the UN Security Council "has the unique legitimacy" to deal with international terrorism.

He pointedly warned against "any country acting on its own" against another sovereign state where a multilateral approach was clearly desirable.

For the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, his own fears over the strident, hawkish tones being struck within the Bush administration were clearly reflected in an article in the `Washington Post' last week.

Titled `The Troubling Face of America', President Carter, Chairman of the Carter Center, respected worldwide for its human rights advocacy and mediating roles, would have had in mind President Bush's decision to address the UN, on Thursday when he wrote:

"Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East process..."

"Belligerent and divisive voices", he noted, "now seem to be dominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the President, Congress or the Courts. It is crucial that the historical and well-founded American commitments prevail -- to peace, justice, human rights, the environment and international cooperation".

It would not have been comfortable for President Carter to remind Americans, as he did, that "formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about basic principles of democratic life...

"We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as 'enemy combatants', incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel..."

For their part, the Arab world, fearful of the destabilisation of their own governments, warned at a meeting of the Arab League that Bush's war against Iraq would "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East region where there is already widespread revulsion over Israel's destruction of Palestine and subjugation of the Palestinian people.

With the sole exception of Britain's Tony Blair -- whose echoing of and perceived submissive approach to Bush's war cries recall Margaret Thatcher's uncritical support for the USA in the Reagan years, if not worse so -- Washington today stands alone among its European allies in its 'war policy' on Iraq.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS FACTOR
Less some associate criticisms of Bush's arrogant, unilateralist policies that threaten peace and security, with being "anti-American", it may be useful to bear in mind the core issue involved, as the President himself keeps emphasising -- the removal of weapons of mass destruction in the control of an Arab "tyrant".

Personally, I am no admirer of Hussein or the dictatorial and ruthless regime he leads. But when Bush, who seems determined to treat the world with utter contempt on fundamental issues of war, the environment, the rule of law and human rights, tries to argue his case, then his apologists should remind themselves of a certain reality.

It is, that while the President is rallying his troops for war against Iraq, on the basis of a claimed stockpile of biological weapons of mass destruction -- a contention firmly challenged last week by former UN weapons inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, an American -- the USA has been exposed for its double standard on the inspection of its own stockpile of biological weapons.

Phyllis Bennis, the American author of "Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN", and a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, has, for example, recalled in a critical analysis of Bush's blast against so-called 'rogue states' :

"It was the United States that had walked out from an international conference on how to enforce the 1972 Treaty prohibiting biological weapons. Everybody agreed there needed to be stronger inspections of potential sites where germ weapons could be used -- what Washington is always accusing Iraq of hiding."

"But this time", wrote Bennis, "it wasn't the Iraqis, it was us, the U.S. delegation, that walked out because they refused to accept international inspections of American production facilities which the United States demanded for everyone else..."

This is the same U.S. President who has turned his back on the International Criminal Court; whose administration and military are responsible for almost 600 foreign prisoners being held under strongly criticised inhumane conditions at Guantanamo Bay without trial after one year, and as the civil liberties of Americans are being eroded at home under the guise of countering terrorism.

It seems that after the horrendous tragedies of September 11, 2001, President Bush wants to reshape the world into the image and likeness of the reactionary, conservative far-right of a USA yet to come to terms with the reality of restraint in the exercise of power, or the very impotence of that power.

Rather, after September 11, Washington's war of vengeance in Afghanistan, in which many more thousands of innocent lives were lost than in the horrors of September 11, is now to be extended to Iraq.

President Bush may yet surprise his critics in not being decisively influenced by the more extreme hawks in his administration, among them his Defence Secretary and the National Security Adviser, as he listens to some very sober, internationally respected voices.