US foreign policy

The US Secretary of State's article (The Sunday Times, September 14) leaves more questions unanswered than it has clarified. It has left a gaping hole in what US foreign policy actually stands for, while it puts Colin Powell himself under the spotlight for the scrutiny of public opinion.

Wanting to be a brother to all nations is a noble aim. Deep down many of us long for the day when all nations can call themselves brothers, with each retaining their own cultural and religious identity. However I believe that at this point our views start to diverge, especially where the implementation of policy is concerned. Mr Powell has left me somewhat confused.

The Middle East Partnership initiative stresses educational, economic and political reform throughout the Arab world.

Does this mean that all Arab countries require political reform, and if so, to which political standard should they adhere to? Why and who decides which nations need political reform? Are the Arabs being pinpointed while other nations, possibly closer to the US, are being sidelined?

The President's strategy includes efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Time has proved that an equal amount of weapons owned by opposing sides is no guarantee for peace. However while accusing other nation states of possessing weapons of mass destruction, the US is in fact one of those states owning such weapons.

Does Mr Powell see a time when, in line with disarming other nations, even the US will disband its own arsenal? Is the US so concerned about "regional conflicts", that we will soon see President Bush signing the anti-landmine treaty (landmines being a major weapon used in regional conflicts), and in doing so align his country with all those making an effort to limit the effects of war?

We want to help people raise themselves from poverty now.

This would make the world a much better place to live in. Today one person will die every 15 seconds just due to diseases associated with water (add to these those dying of malnutrition and war). But this year the US will give Israel $2.1 billion in military financing alone. If the US is serious in reprimanding Israel on the Middle East process, surely these funds (not to mention a further $600 million in economic support) can be restricted and passed on to a more worthy cause that the US so greatly wants us to believe that it supports.

Relations with major nations will shape the future of international security.

The way the US treated other members of the Security Council earlier this year and the complete defiance of the UN as an institution to which so many people look upon as a catalyst for peace makes one wonder whether the US wants to shape the future of international security on its own.

Yet again, the US has now vetoed a UN decision that would have asked Israel for the cessation of any threats to exile or murder President Arafat (a legitimately elected leader). Besides the moral implications, this would upset the Arab world but with the same breath would like to see the fruition of the "road-map".

The blueprint for any peace process was written in 1963 by Pope John XXIII under the title of Pacem in Terris. Any attempt at intra-state or inter-state peace can only be achieved if the guidelines outlined in this document are followed. Any other activity is either a pure waste of resources or a charade to cover up our deep down willingness not to succeed due to ones personal agenda.

I do not know what Mr Powell's article had in mind. But from his eloquent writing to the facts, U-turns, side-steps and somersaults that we have seen in US foreign policy, there is a gaping hole that clearly calls for Mr Powell to address or revise.