"America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish," the US President, George Bush, told graduating officers at the West Point military academy in June last year. "The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress," Mr Bush declared, but cautioned that democracy was not a vision the United States could "impose". Evidently, Mr Bush believes the war in Iraq has changed all that. In a major policy shift last week, Mr Bush presented a sweeping vision of a US-led "global democratic revolution". At stake in Iraq is not merely the liberty of the Iraqi people, but the global export of the ideology of freedom, as defined by Mr Bush's inner circle.

This is no simple extension of his "axis of evil", which singled out a handful of isolated, pariah states. Pointedly, Mr Bush included China in the company of such authoritarian regimes as Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are failing Washington's democracy test. Mr Bush lectured the Chinese leadership on their people's desire for "liberty, pure and whole". He dismissed substantial reforms which have accompanied China's free market transformation, as a "sliver" of freedom. Mr Bush's patronising tone will be most unwelcome in Beijing and will complicate diplomacy in Asia. Key US allies in the region, including Australia, are seeking to balance their historic allegiance to Washington with increasingly important ties to China, and its rapidly growing economy.

Where the global democratic revolution will take the US, in a practical sense, is unclear. Since World War II, successive US governments have pursued a dual-track foreign policy. One approach is liberal and seeks to build global order around alliances of free market democracies. The other is pragmatic, conceding America's strategic interests can, at times, be secured through warm ties with "friendly tyrants". In the Middle East, for example, America's expedient relationship with the oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia - a major oil supplier and host to US forces - has been a constant reminder of the contradictions of preaching democracy while accommodating autocracies.

"In the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Mr Bush declared last week, expressly repudiating more than half a century of selectively indulging dictators in the Middle East. Whether Mr Bush can close the yawning gap between idealism and "realpolitik" is questionable. Immediately, Mr Bush has put himself at odds with the realities of his "war on terrorism", which relies heavily on the co-operation of a string of autocratic regimes in the Islamic world. While Mr Bush insists Islam and democracy are not incompatible, he overstates token reforms in Saudi Arabia, for example, and underestimates the potential for terrorism there. The suicide bombings in Riyadh on Saturday make this point. More broadly he glosses over rising anti-US sentiment in the Arab world.

Mr Bush has recast Iraq as the centrepiece of his global democratic push. Yet, Iraq is also emerging as the battleground in a broader anti-American terror campaign. The rush of foreign jihadis into Iraq carries a potent warning to Washington of the risks of pushing further. This is a reality Mr Bush seems determined to ignore.

The bombing of the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad exposes yet again the absurdity of attempts to portray the wave of violence in Iraq as other than a vicious and calculated campaign of terror. The International Committee of the Red Cross is one of the world's most respected international aid agencies. It is not a foreign occupation force, much less an extension of American power. It is a humanitarian agency - one of the few left in Baghdad - attempting in difficult circumstances to provide needy Iraqis with food, water and emergency medical care.

The only conceivable aim of those involved in the suicide bombing of the ICRC's Baghdad offices was to disrupt, if not devastate, the humanitarian relief effort in Iraq: to maximise the death and suffering of Iraqis; to maximise the intimidation of those involved in rebuilding Iraq; and to maximise the chaos.

In anyone's language, this was an unconscionable act of terror.

So why are some of the world's media still walking on eggshells, groping for euphemisms such as "organised resistance" as if attempting somehow to legitimise these bleakest of atrocities?

Sadly, the media is really only reflecting the failure of the international system over many years to settle on a universal standard to define the crime of terrorism.

Asymmetric warfare against the power and symbols of the West appears to have become the strategy of choice in these early years of the 21st century. This imposes a new range of tests for all stakeholders in the international system.

However, the system is struggling to respond. We see, for example, the world go to all the trouble of setting up a new International Criminal Court without giving it jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism per se. Why not?

The way through the dilemma is to focus on the nature of the target. By this criterion, terrorism pretty much defines itself.
The reason is the lack of a consensus on what exactly constitutes an act of terror. As last month's report of the International Bar Association's Task Force on Terrorism acknowledged, all attempts to agree on a definition under international law have failed. The UN has been on the case for many years, with little progress.

The terms of the debate are by now familiar: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In the Middle East, this has become code language for extending a blanket exemption to Palestinian extremists who target Israeli civilians on school buses, at seaside cafes, shopping malls or nightclubs.

This is the conflict at the heart of the definitional dispute. But for how much longer can these semantics go on?

More than any other event, September 11 brought the global security debate - and, specifically, the phenomenon of mega-terror - into the day-to-day preoccupations of hundreds of millions of citizens in the developed world. In Australia, this was doubly reinforced by the Bali bombings. Many of the 88 Australians killed were young adults, and all were innocents in any meaningful sense of the word.

The post-September 11 obligation imposed by the Security Council requires that all member states "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts". Under the mandate of Security Council resolution 1373, they must shut down terrorist financing and training, as well as arrest or exclude the actors who seek to maim and kill civilians as a political stratagem.

It sounds straightforward enough. Not so.

It is worth noting a letter from Syria, a current member of the UN counter-terrorism committee, to the president of the Security Council in response to these attempts to frame a concerted international response: "Inasmuch as Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) lacks any clear definition of the concept of terrorism or of the terrorist acts or entities to be combated, the Syrian Arab Republic has based itself, in the present reply, on its commitments under the 1998 Arab Convention for the suppression of terrorism, which distinguishes between terrorism and the legitimate struggle against foreign occupation."

In effect, Syria, a serving member of the Security Council, elevates the Arab League Convention, adopted in Cairo three years ago, above its obligations to the UN. Syria is not alone.

In her recently published book attacking the Howard Government's controversial attempts to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws, Jenny Hocking provides a summation of what might be called the relativist approach to this debate.

In Terror Laws: ASIO, Counter-Terrorism and the Threat to Democracy, Hocking says terrorism is a term mired in ambiguity, its meaning culturally and politically defined. She cites approvingly an opinion published in the Alternative Law Journal last year, which insists that "terrorism exists only in the eye of the Western beholder; it has no independent reality".

Hocking goes on to complain that the use of the term by Western governments "abstracts specific instances of political violence from their political and social contexts" and "averts consideration of complex questions of causation".

In the spirit of Noam Chomsky, she argues there is a sense in which the war on terror "is all about language".

All this may pass for a worthy debate in some legal and academic circles but, in appraising events such as the bombing of the Red Cross offices, and in searching for consistent and coherent responses, this approach becomes not only circular but surreal.

The unwillingness to accept the application of a universal standard - or even to acknowledge the possibility of a universal standard - is long-standing, and unlikely to change.

But, surely, the way through the dilemma is to focus not on the nature of the cause, but the nature of the target. By this criterion, terrorism pretty much defines itself.

Any and all attempts either by state or non-state actors to plan or perpetrate the deliberate mass murder of innocent civilians with the calculated aim of advancing an ideological or political cause must be deemed terrorism, and a crime against humanity.

Anything less than a universal standard cast in these terms is almost certainly a double standard. And it is a double standard that has paralysed this debate for far too long.

US president George W Bush today told federal parliament the relationship between Australia and America was vital for the two countries, in a speech marred by the ejection of two Greens senators.

President Bush began his address by saying: "I want to thank the people of Australia for a gracious welcome. Five months ago your Prime Minister was a distinguished visitor of ours in Crawford, Texas at our ranch. You might remember that I called him a 'man of steel' - that is Texan for 'fair dinkum'."

"The relationship between America and Australia is vibrant and vital. Together we will meet the challenges and picperils of our own time," President Bush said.

During the address to the joint sitting of both the House of Representatives and the Senate Mr Bush said Americans saw Australians as "independent, and enterprising and good-hearted people" who had fought side by side during two world wars and in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq.

"We see something familiar here, and something we like," he said.

But Mr Bush’s speech was interrupted by Greens leader Bob Brown, who heckled Mr Bush as the president talked of the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Mr Brown reportedly questioned whether the US had shown respect for the Iraqi people.

"Today Saddam’s regime has gone and no-one should mourn its tures passing," the President said.

Mr Bush was again heckled as he talked of a free trade agreement between Australia and America.

Greens senator Kerry Nettle was told to leave parliament after she interrupted Mr Bush.

"Together my country with Australia is promoting greater economic opportunity. Our nations are now working to complete a US-Australia need free trade agreement that will add momentum to the free trade throughout the Asian Pacific region while producing jobs in our own countries," the President managed to say despite the interjection.

As senator Nettle left the building, Mr Bush said:

"I love free speech."

The president also lauded John Howard.

Prime Minister John Howard is a man of exceptional courage who exemplifies the finest qualities of one of the world’s greatest democracies. I am proud to call him friend," he said.

Mr Bush talked of the need to remain vigilant against terrorists.

"We saw the scope of their (terrorists) hatred on September the 11th 2001. We saw the depth of their cruelty on October the 12th 2002. We saw destruction atten and grief and we saw our duty. As free nations in parallel, we must fight this enemy with all our strength," he said.

Before Mr Bush’s speech John Howard told parliament that Australians and Americans shared similar values.

"The belief that the individual is more important than the state. That strong families are a nation’s greatest asset. That competitive free enterprise is the ultimate foundation of national wealth and that the worth of a person is determined by that person’s character and hard work, not by that person’s religion or race or colour or creed or social background," he said.

Labor leader Simon Crean also praised the US-Australia relationship but reiterated Labor’s opposition to the Iraqi war.

"Of course on occasions friends do disagree, as we did on this side with yoution on the war in Iraq. But such is the strength of our shared values, our interests, our principles that those differences can enrich rather than diminish. They can strengthen, rather than weaken the partnership. Our commitment to the alliance remains unshakeable, as does our commitment to the war on terror," he said.

United States President George W Bush today lauded Prime Minister John Howard as a man of exceptional courage.

In an address to federal parliament, Mr Bush said Mr Howard exemplified the qualities of one of the world's greatest democracies.

"Prime Minister John Howard is a leader of exceptional courage, who exemplifies the finest qualities of one of the world's greatest democracies," he said.

Mr Bush paid tribute to Australia and Australians for their contribution to the war against terror, and to previous wars. me
"Australians are fair-minded and tolerant and easy-going," he said.

"Yet in times of trouble and danger, Australians are the first to step forward, to accept hard duties and to fight bravely until the fighting is done.

"In a hundred years' experience, American soldiers have come to know the courage and good fellowship of the diggers at their side.

"We were together in the battle at Hamel, together in the Coral Sea, together in New Guinea, on the Korean Peninsula, in Vietnam.

"And in the war on terror, once again, we are at each other's side."

Mr Bush said Americans had seen first hand the work of terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Australians had seen the impact of terror in the Bali attack on October 12 last year.

Mr Bush said terrorists would not respond to negotiations.

"The nature of the terrorist threat defines the strategy we are using to fight it," he said.

"These committed killers will not be stopped by negotiations.

"They will not respond to reason. The terrorists cannot be appeased - they must be found, they must be fought and they must be defeated." con

Mr Bush said Australia, the US and other allies had driven terrorists from Afghanistan.

He said terrorists hoped ttact o gain chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The war against Iraq was aimed at stopping weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.

"So we are confronting outlaw regimes that aid terrorists, that pursue weapons of mass destruction, and defy the demands of the world," he said.

"America, Australia and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while tragedy drew closer."

Mr Bush said he could not imagine anyone believed the world was better if Saddam Hussein retained power in Iraq. "Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East," he said.

"Today, Saddam's regime is gone, and no-one should mourn his passing."

At this point in his speech, Mr Bush was interrupted by Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown, who was then ordered from the urchamber by the Speaker.

Mr Bush then continued his speech.

He said Australia and the US and its allies had sought to use the United Nations to enforce its motions against Iraq.

"If the resolutions of the world are to be more than ink on paper, they must be enforced," he said.

"If the institutions of the world are to be more than debating societies, they eventually must act."

Mr Bush paid special tribute to Australian SAS col member Andrew Russell who was killed in Afghanistan, saying he had paid the ultimate sacrifice in the war against terror.

The president said although there had been decisive victories, there was still much to be done.

"We cannot let up in our offensive against terror, even a bit," he said.

"And we must continue to build gent stability and peace in the Middle East and Asia as the alternatives to hatred and fear.

"We seek the rise of freedom and self-government in Afghanistan and Iraq for the benefit of their people, as an example to their neighbours, and for the security of the world."

Mr Bush said only the spread of hope and freedom would bring peace in the Middle East. "The advance of freedom will not be halted," he said.

"The terrorists and Taliban and Saddam holdouts are desperately trying to stop our progress.

"They will fail."

Mr Bush said Australia and the US had to confront the immediate threat of the spread of nuclear and other weapons, keeping pressure on Iran, North Korea and being vigilant on cargo shipments.

"The wrong weapons, the wrong technology, in the wrong hands, has never been so great a danger – and we are meeting that danger together," he said.

The two countries had a special responsibility throughout the Pacific to help keep the peace, ensure the free movement of capital and information, and advance democracy and freedom.

Chinese President Hu Jintao is also visiting Australia call and will address parliament tomorrow. Mr Bush said Australia and the US shared the same agenda with China.

Mr Bush said the US was working with China to ensure the Korean Peninsula was free of nuclear weapons, and was encouraged by China's cooperation in the war against terror.

"We seek a China that is stable and prosperous – a nation that respects the peace of its neighbours and secures the freedom of its own people," he said.

Mr Bush praised Australia for its assistance to East Timor and the Solomon Islands, but stopped short of repeating his comment to Australian journalists that he saw Australia as a regional sheriff.

"By your principled actions, Australia is leading the way to peace in Southeast Asia," he said.

Mr Bush said the free trade agreement being negotiated between Australia and the US would be of benefit to the whole region.

"Our nations are now working to complete a US-Australia Free Trade Agreement that will add to the momentum of free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region, while producing jobs in our own countries," he said.

Mr Bush reminded parliamentarians of US General Douglas MacArthur's comments during World War II when the Philippines were about to fall and Australia faced the prospect of invasion.

General MacArthur said the two countries were united by a code of free people which embraced the right and condemned the wrong.

"More than 60 years later, that code still guides us," Mr Bush said.

"We call evil by its name, and stand for the freedom that leads to peace. Our alliance is still strong.

"We value, more than ever, the unbroken friendship between the Australian and American peoples.

"My country is grateful to you, and to all the Australian people, for your clear vision and strength of heart."

To bow or not to bow, that is the question. Is it nobler in mind to suffer the slings and arrows of one's torment at George Bush's foreign policy adventurism or should one take arms against it (figuratively speaking of course)? This challenge of conscience preoccupies a smattering of federal MPs invited to hear the President of the United States address the Australian Parliament next Wednesday. They give the question too much weight.

To accord Mr Bush due courtesy is to acknowledge respect for his office and through that office, to show Australian regard for the American people. It does not necessarily mean that Australians are applauding the incumbent, although many would. It is about saluting the rank, not the individual. That some Australians, including some MPs, are disgusted at the invasion of Iraq does not justify incivility towards Mr Bush in the very institution intended to reflect this nation's aspirations. Australia's elected representatives should show Mr Bush the same respect they expect for Australian leaders visiting overseas.

A Labor backbencher, Harry Quick, does not see it that way. He has been persuaded not to turn his back on Mr Bush during the President's address but he will wear a white armband to mark his opposition to the Iraq War, and says he will refuse to join in any standing ovation for Mr Bush. That is his right. But it will be interesting to see how Mr Quick and other like-minded MPs respond to the address to Parliament the following day by the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, whose regime could teach Americans a thing or two about oppression. And will Democrats, half of whom have threatened to stay away from the Bush address, feel the same pressure to boycott Mr Hu? The snubbing or heckling of Mr Hu by Australian MPs would be as grievously insulting to the Chinese people as would any wilful embarrassment of Mr Bush be for Americans.

This is not to urge standing ovations for either leader. The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, wants Labor MPs to applaud Mr Bush and to stand at the end of his speech. That is not the same as encouraging a standing ovation, as accorded to Bill Clinton seven years ago, but there is room within courtesy for MPs to fashion their own marks of respect.

By definition, parliaments are crucibles of diverse opinion. This should be reflected in the varying intensities of response to initiatives and individuals, so long as civility and courtesy are maintained.

Standing ovations are almost obligatory when US presidents address the Congress because US Republicans and Democrats consider it necessary to unanimously mark respect for the presidential office. But this is not the US. Here, standing ovations are characterised by spontaneity more than contrivance. They tend to be expressions of genuine enthusiasm. Mr Bush should not be insulted if congressional reflex is not mirrored in his Australian welcome. But he is entitled to be heard with the dignity and respect owed to his position.

The failure of the American-sponsored Middle East peace plan could push Israelis and Palestinians over the edge of a cliff. As a result of the devastating suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem on Tuesday, that cliff seems to be getting closer by the hour. Yesterday, an Israeli helicopter gunship killed a top leader of Hamas, the terrorist group that carried out the bus attack, leading Hamas and Islamic Jihad to declare that their seven-week-old cease-fire with Israel was over. Israeli troops moved into Nablus, Hamas rockets were fired into Israel, and militants were calling for the resignation and self-exile of the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

If the peace process — and Mr. Abbas's government — is to survive, Washington needs to redouble its efforts, and both Mr. Abbas and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, must realize that blaming the other will not suffice. Mr. Abbas had been hoping that the cease-fire would permit him to escape the difficult step of confronting Hamas and other radical groups. But these groups have only one goal — the destruction of the Jewish state — and need to be dealt with accordingly.

That said, Israel's assassination of one of Hamas's leaders seems counterproductive. Mr. Abbas and his security chief, Muhammad Dahlan, were clearly shaken by the terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and they had vowed to pursue the perpetrators. By taking pre-emptive action, the Israelis not only gave Hamas an excuse to rouse its faithful to more violence, but they also undermined Mr. Abbas's plans and leadership.

We acknowledge that the situation is not simple. The Palestinians asked for 24 hours to act, and the Israelis agreed to wait. Nothing happened. Still, it is far from clear what would have been lost by giving the Palestinians more time. It is true that Mr. Abbas and Mr. Dahlan have been weak-kneed in keeping commitments under the peace plan, known as the road map. But the Israelis have also failed to carry out their commitments on ending settlement activity. Both sides need to act now.

Mr. Sharon must realize that there is no alternative to Mr. Abbas, who is committed to a peaceful two-state solution. If Mr. Abbas is forced from power, it will probably be awhile before anyone else will step forward. That could be the end of the road map — and the road — for quite some time.