President Bush came into office earlier this year determined to pursue his missile defence programme. One of the countries objecting to his plans is China. To get China to drop its objection the Bush administration actually suggested that America would not object to Chinese expansion of its current nuclear missile arsenal, and to Chinese resumption of explosive nuclear testing. (See “The Economist,” September 8^th 2001, page 12).

Effectively, Mr. Bush is destroying the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty which his predecessors worked so hard to accomplish. The Economist concluded that it is “folly for America to spend billions on missile defences, while unraveling the rules which limit the weapons that may someday get through or around” those defences.

Subsequent to the catastrophes of September 11, the USA waived sanctions which had been imposed on both India and Pakistan because it was no longer in USA national interest to maintain them. Those sanctions had been in place because the couple of countries had refused to curb their intentions to develop nuclear weapons.

It seems to me more rational for the USA and the world at large to work towards the elimination and destruction of nuclear weapons that already exist rather than to encourage new tests and proliferation of nukes. Indeed, The Economist, which is no terrorist enemy, concludes that “the single-minded pursuit of missile defences makes America a danger to itself.”

If the USA continues this “curious defence policy”, somethings can conceivably happen to make the events of September 11, 2001 pale by comparison … God forbid.

In 1992, President Bush the Father signed a United Nations Treaty related to global warming. Bush the Son is determined to abrogate treaties of that nature even if the existence of his grand children depends on them. So he refused to accept the opinion of international scientists and appointed an all-American team to analyse and report on the matter.

“That panel has just produced its report, and, despite the many uncertainties, its conclusion is crystal clear: global warming is real, man’s role in it is real, and the dangers it poses are serious.” (The Economist June 16^th 2001, page 10). That report from his own panel did not motivate Mr. Bush even to hold out an olive branch to his European allies on that environmental issue.

But that was not all.

On January 2^nd, 2001 the Bush Administration announced it would not send to the Senate for ratification the treaty which established the International Criminal Court.

On July 21^st, 2001, it threatened to withdraw from the United Nations Conference to impose limits on illegal trafficking on small arms.