HOW TO HIDE FROM THE MONSTER

With Bush back, what is the world to do? (Paul Buchanan, New Zealand Herald, November 17th, 2004)

But what is the rest of the international community to do? There are five non-terrorist responses to Mr Bush's re-election.

Countries can attempt to curry favour with the US by joining (however quietly) the Coalition of the Willing (Australia, Colombia, Denmark, El Salvador, Britain, Israel - the tail that wags the dog - Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia and South Korea).

They can adopt a "business as usual approach" by maintaining diplomatic relations while trying to steer clear of the pressures to join the Coalition (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, India, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey). This may involve offering military and diplomatic assistance to US efforts in areas other than Iraq or Afghanistan, but with far less public fanfare.

If not that, countries can fundamentally disagree with the US but hunker down and "grin and bear it" in an effort to survive unscathed the four remaining years that Mr Bush has in office (most of the Muslim world, Mexico and Venezuela).

Countries may try to move between those positions, as has happened with defectors from the Coalition of the Willing such as Hungary and the Philippines, and which may well be the future approach of front-line Muslim states such as Indonesia and Pakistan.

They can be defiant and attempt to achieve a deterrent that will ward off US pre-emptive aggression or serve as leverage for the extraction of negotiated concessions with the West (Iran and North Korea), or they can thumb their noses at the US given their strategic unimportance (Cuba and Zimbabwe).

Finally, they can show independent resolve, individually or together, to increase the costs to the US of its foreign adventures, as done by Belgium, France, Germany, Greece and Spain. However, this last stance involves certain costs on their part as well, which augurs poorly for a united response that can withstand the divide and conquer tactics the US will use against those who oppose it.

The US has leverage on its side.[...]

The best international position to be in is off the US security radar screen. The blueprint for invisibility is made of three conditions: general underdevelopment, geo-strategic irrelevance and no exploitable industrial minerals. Hence most small African, Caribbean and South Pacific island states continue unhindered in their own affairs (for the time being).

A true story: In 1981, An ultra- progressive couple from Vancouver concluded that the election of the warmongering Ronald Reagan meant general nuclear war was imminent. They decided to sell their home, cash in their chips and move their family to the remotest, least interesting place they could find in the hope they could sit the conflagration out safely. Where to go? For weeks they pored over maps and amassed information on alternatives. Finally, they found what they believed was the safest place, farthest from the attention of any potential combatants.

They moved to the Falkland Islands.