It is two years since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon Building had triggered the chain of global violence, that became known as the "War on Terror".
At the very start of that "war" it was clear to us, that this "war" would not achieve its stated purpose of eliminating terrorism in its intended way. But that it will lead to elimination of terrorism by its failure, which will convince Mankind that wars and politics cannot bring security to the world. This is because wars and politics are the main causes of terrorism.
Now, two years on, we see that terrorism has not disappeared, but from occasional incidents, has turned into a regular part of daily life.
Attempts to hunt down and kill terrorist leaders has lead to boosting their popularity and prestige. And, if any had been killed, they have been replaced by others.
The "regime changes" under the slogan of "democratization" in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in American appointed provisional governments recognized by foreign politicians, but having no popular support and no effective powers in their own countries. Nor have these provisional governments and the foreign military administrations succeeded in establishing normality at least to the pre-invasion levels - both the countries are still in chaos.
The Americans are hoping to improve the situation by spending more money and sending more troops (preferably from other countries under American control), but are these increases going to be enough? And will they not have the effect opposite of that intended? Will they not encourage more resistance and provide more targets for terrorist attacks?
And, what if the occupation forces are increased to saturation level, such that the number of occupation troops will make any resistance physically impossible, like a few American soldiers per every Iraqi, watching his every movement 24 hours a day? Would that solve the problem? Or would the result be a time bomb, which would explode the moment the vigilance of the occupiers is slackened, or becomes so intolerable that the whole nation will rise up against the occupiers in a desperate bloody mass revolt?
And can such saturation-level occupation be practically sustained for a long time, or even be established at all?
It is clear that normality cannot be achieved either in Iraq or Afghanistan, without establishing governments which will be accepted by the people of these countries as their own governments. Such governments cannot be imposed by force.
The ideas that the Americans can succeed in imposing on other countries governments of their own choice, or even that holding a general elections in any country will result in an American-friendly government are wishful thinking of the present American Administration. The most they can achieve is military rule by occupation forces, or occupation-forces-backed puppet governments. But either of these will be very costly in lives and money and cannot be maintained indefinitely - sooner or later the occupation will have to be abandoned, and the puppet governments will be replaced by governments hostile to the occupiers. And the harsher and longer the occupation, the stronger will be the hostility.
Nor will the aims of American Administration be achieved by use of troops of other countries under American control, and not even if such use is backed by a UN resolution. Such troops will meet with the same hostility as the Americans.
Governments of other nations understand this situation. And there is increasing talk about the need to move from American occupation to UN-controlled peace keeping. But is the UN ready for such role?
Is the UN of today an impartial supra-national institution, having universally accepted authority and trust? Well, certainly, not yet. And it will take time before it either becomes such, or is replaced by such institution.
Not only the UN is not ready to play the role of the supra-national government, but the governments of the nation states are not ready for such government either.
Most of the national governments are still ethnic and nationalistic. That is, governing on behalf of some ethnic groups. And, if their area of governance includes other ethnic groups, and these ethnic groups do not see themselves as being represented by such governments, ethnic conflicts arise. And if such conflicts cannot be resolved by peaceful means, terrorism follows. This is clearly seen on the example of Chechnya.
For historical reasons the Chechens distrust and hate the Russians. But the territory of Chechnya was part of the former Soviet Union (dominated by the Russians), and is now part of the Russian Federation. And President Putin wants to "preserve the integrity of the Russian Federation", while the Chechens want to be independent of the Russians whom they hate and mistrust. Because, at present, there is no peaceful solution to this conflict, the Chechens continue to resist the Russians and the Russians fight the Chechen resistance. Chechnya is not the only non-Russian part of the Russian Federation, and while there are no major currently active conflicts in other non-Russian areas of the Russian Federation, there is always fear that such conflicts can flair up at any time.
But what, if President Putin rose above his Russian nationalism, and renamed his Russian Federation into "The Eurasian Federation", and made some other arrangements which would make the non-Russian areas of that federation feel that they are equal partners in that federation, rather than "being part of Russia and being ruled by the Russians"?
This is because, there are two tendencies in the world today. On the one hand various ethnic areas of multi-ethnic countries seek independence and self-government. On the other hand nations seek to unite into multi-national entities and diminish or even loose their "national sovereignty". This is seen in Europe where Wales and Scotland seek greater independence within the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia broke up into a few independent countries, but they all want to be part of the European Union as equal partners.
What we see in this process is that no people want to be ruled or dominated by other nations or ethnic groups, but all are willing to be equal partners of a non-ethnic supra-national entity.
It is in this willingness of people to be citizens of the Whole Earth, without being imposed upon anybody else's culture or way of life, rather than in the American attempts to Americanize the rest of the world, that lies the hope for a world free from wars, terrorism and politics.
But neither the UN, nor the US, nor the other national governments are ready for such world. So, in the meanwhile, the "War on Terror" is taking its natural course of global violence. And it is this violence that will continue to teach people the need to abandon wars and politics and to establish supra-national government.
And, once people have learnt that lesson the hard way, they will live in a single free and peaceful world governed not by lawless political demagogues, but by honest and competent administrators, not by the fraud of politics, and the violence of wars, but by Truth, Honesty and Justice.