Hope lies in America's voices of dissent

A year ago today I was in Bogota struggling to write a letter of condolence. The letter was for the American guests of the hotel in which I was staying. The manager said his English wasn't up to the task and he asked if I would help. What on earth was there to say, except that we, the other guests and the management, were thinking of these Americans in their hour of sorrow. It was a moment for silence, the silence of incredulity, dread and awe. The last because each of us who watched the jets crash and the towers tumble was confronted with a spectacle that defied belief. We were being wrenched violently into a new age of global conflict.

Later that day I wrote from Bogota for this newspaper and spoke of the very personal fear I felt as somebody who lived in a city that might be a target of the fanatics. I was used to flying in and out of other people's wars – the mess and gore of the "other" world – but now I would have to recognise that my family, friends, and neighbours belonged to a vast new target group. Had not Bin Laden himself warned that in this war there were no innocent victims? A year on and I don't feel any easier.

The suicide bombers have been quiet but they are waiting for their chance. We count time in minutes and hours. These men count it out in years. For all the proud trumpeting that followed the fall of Kabul, al-Qa'ida has not been dealt the killer blow. They have taken to the hills and will ambush and snipe, and sooner or later they will do deals with some of those warlords who are ostensibly allies of the West.

All the information suggests Mullah Omar is alive and, in all probability, Bin Laden too. Trying to lead the government in Kabul is a patently good man, Hamid Karzai. He is brave, honest and isolated, surrounded by venal warlords who understand no concept of nationhood. The country is no longer ruled by the theocratic fascism of the Taliban but it is a mess, seething with hatred and intrigue and it is likely to drag in more and more foreign peacekeepers. The omens are poor for Mr Karzai and for honest, humane government in Afghanistan.

I wrote a year ago that a world as crowded with injustice as ours would continue to provide a breeding ground for fanaticism. This isn't an alibi for Bin Laden and his killers, merely a reflection of the self-evident. The masters of terror like Bin Laden give voice to the inarticulate rage of the masses and turn it into a weapon of fearful power. Some commentators have claimed that America has recognised this and is willing to lead the fight for a more just world order. Not so. Look at how the G8 summit humiliated Africa with peanuts while rewarding Russia's President Putin with billions and you can figure out the order of priorities.

Mr Blair makes a brave case for Africa but the White House is not interested. In the other critical area where President Bush might have tried to make a difference – the Middle East – there has been a ruinous drift. Mr Bush has failed to engage, and Arab antagonism against America has increased markedly in the past 12 months. Mr Bush's supporters rightly point out that the conduct of international affairs is not a popularity contest, especially when you have to deal with al-Qa'ida. In fighting this new war you are bound to offend sensibilities, inflame passions. But to alienate every single Arab government, not to mention the Arab street, in the past 12 months can hardly help America's aim of destroying Bin Laden's support base. The coming war against Iraq will doubtless send more holy warriors to the flag of al-Qa'ida. So it goes on and on. The question is not about America's right to pursue its enemies, but about Mr Bush's vision of a new world.

Twelve months ago when President Bush promised an unending war on terror, and Dick Cheney spoke of it lasting beyond his lifetime, we believed this was the rhetoric of shocked, wounded men. In time a broader policy would emerge. But a year later we are still trying to guess the limits of the new order. After Iraq who will be next to feel the steel glove of American military power? For all this week's talk about involving the UN, America's leaders will act unilaterally if they need to. Many of the men around Mr Bush regard the UN as at best a hindrance, at worst a swamp infested with America's enemies.

So what is there to be encouraged about? I think we should applaud the restless good sense of the American people. I am tired of listening to the country's critics deride Americans for their supposed insularity and lack of political sophistication. Check out the opinion polls on Iraq and you sense a people who know a lot more about the world than liberal opinion here allows.

Remember that Mr Bush was not elected with a strong right-wing mandate to go and sort out all of America's enemies abroad. The events of 11 September gave him a mandate to go after al- Qa'ida and any other group that might be thinking of attacking the US. And here lies the crux of his public opinion problem over Iraq.

The American people don't believe – at least yet – that Saddam poses a clear and present danger to them. If Mr Bush goes to war without convincing the American people he is risking his presidency. The qualms of people in Moscow, London and Paris, not to mention the Arab capitals, may count for little in the reckonings of Cheney and Rumsfeld. But the growing voice of dissent in America itself is something they would be foolish to ignore. America's vibrant democracy is the best guarantee we have against the excesses of American power.

The writer is a BBC Special Correspondent