President George W. Bush?s state of the union address last week was predictable in its content and similar in style to his inaugural speech made in January. The address has caused concern among a section of international opinion which believes that Mr Bush may be even more adventurist in foreign policy matters during his second term in office. While this may mean reading too much into the address, there clearly is an ideological component that drives Mr Bush and will continue to inform his foreign policy. The state of the union speech focussed essentially on four issues. They included the need to strengthen the American economy, reforming the social security system, the need for decisive action to win the war against terrorism and the campaign to spread freedom and democracy.

Domestically, the plans to reform the social security system will cause intense debate and are likely to widen the divide between supporters of Mr Bush and his detractors. Internationally, however, it is Mr Bush?s foreign policy, as reflected in the address, which has caused maximum concern. There are three aspects to these apprehensions. First, Mr Bush has focussed on Iraq and Afghanistan, and suggested that these are examples of the success of American policy. In Iraq, the recent elections were given as an example of the movement towards normalization. Similarly, in Afghanistan, the presidential elections and the adoption of a detailed constitution were cited by Mr Bush as a demonstration of the speedy restoration of normalcy in that country. In both cases, the reality, however, continues to be more complex. Both states are plagued by instability and continued violence. Indeed, it is too early to declare the success of American policy in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In Iraq, particularly, there is near-total alienation of the Sunni population, which continues to wage a fierce resistance against the American occupation. In Afghanistan, the writ of the president, Mr Hamid Karzai, still does not extend much beyond Kabul, and there are reports of growing al Qaida and taliban presence in the south and west of the country.

The second aspect of Mr Bush?s address that caused concern was the emphasis on promoting democracy and peace in west Asia. Although Mr Bush supported an independent state for the Palestinian people, there was a focus on extremism and terrorism in west Asia, which has caused serious apprehensions about American plans. Finally, there are great reservations about Mr Bush?s grand objectives to spread liberty and democracy, and the fear that Iran could be the next target of such a campaign. It is quite clear from the debates that followed that Mr Bush will have continued domestic problems, particularly on social security issues. He may not have the time or the freedom to pursue a strident foreign policy.