While the sentiments President Bush has expressed are bold and laudable, they may reflect a certain level of American overconfidence, if not arrogance, that could stir up opposition among both rivals and allies abroad and interfere with the advance of the realistic goals such as the containment of international terrorism.

It's true that almost all of the American presidents of the 20th century expressed in their addresses strong commitment to strengthening the foundations of political and economic freedom around the world. But those commitments were integrated into a larger and realistic vision of US place in the world that was based on the recognition of the limits operating on American diplomatic, military and economic power. Indeed, for most US presidents, considerations of national interest and security almost always override lofty commitments to democratic values, which explains why the United States allied itself with the Soviet dictatorship as part of a strategy to defeat German Nazism and Imperial Japan, or why US containment of the Soviet Union was grounded in Realpolitik fundamentals - and why the United States and its allies had won both World War II and the Cold War.

The problem with President Bush's call for a global democratic crusade is that it does not set forth a pragmatic strategy to achieve coherent goals that are based on a lucid reading of the political and economic realities. The interests of the US and its allies lie today in dealing with the threat of international terrorism and in strengthening the global economy. Indeed, fighting terrorism requires building partnerships with non-democratic regimes in South and Central Asia as well as with the authoritarian governments in China and Russia. Ensuring that the process of economic globalisation is successful entails continuing American engagement with nations in Asia, Latin America and Africa that are moving very slowly and at their own pace on the road towards democracy.

In fact, all the leading pro-American governments in the Arab world - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco - are non-democratic. If anything, a free and open elections in those countries would almost certainly bring to power anti-American religious fundamentalist parties.

Moreover, as the American occupation of Iraq is demonstrating now, the United States does not have the means to impose a democratic system on nations. In a way, the United States also has neither the obligation nor for that matter, the right to engage in such a costly exercise.

Leon Hadar is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and the author of the forthcoming book Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.

This article was originally published in Business Times, January 25, 2005. Copyright 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.