"Dubya" as a Second Term President: What does the future hold? - Paul Gunstensen

George W. Bush was sworn in for his second term in January in the most expensive inauguration in American history. The ceremony took place against a backdrop of global concern that many of the policies that became indicative of Bush's first term would continue into his second and that the swaggering Texan would continue where he left off.

But how will “Dubya” and his increasingly neo-conservative inner-circle, further strengthened by the departure of Colin Powell and the promotion of Condoleezza Rice, take such policies forward during the next four years and what impact will this have on the developing countries and the world's poorest people? The last four years have been a bumpy ride for many of the world's poorest countries and there is little to suggest that the next four years will be any easier.

Aid, trade and debt are three interlinking development issues that are central to the potential growth of any developing country. In all three, the Bush administration has adopted positions that will do no favours to those countries that perhaps need all the help they can get.

In terms of trade, the US has centred its policies on the pursuit of free trade and has aggressively negotiated several free trade agreements in recent years. The irony of free trade is that there is nothing free about it and that while arguing that smaller economies should open to foreign competition the US hides behind protectionist tariffs and import barriers. One of the best examples of this is the imposition of a 30% import tariff on steel imports into the US , a tariff that broke World Trade Organisation rules. The Bush administration ignored calls for the abolishment of the tariffs for 18 months and a major trade dispute was only avoided when the EU threatened to apply its own tariffs to a long list of US imports.

It was the economic strength of the EU that eventually forced the arm of the US and led to the tariffs being removed. However, developing countries are not in the same enviable position. The US has a real distrust of the WTO and has frequently sought to bypass the organisation through negotiating bilateral trade agreements with many developing countries. Many of these countries lack the political or economic strength to ensure that the terms of such agreements are favourable to their own economic needs.

One excellent example of the bullying tactics used by the US in recent months was the use of pressure by officials from the US treasury to give up their right to produce cheap, generic anti-AIDS medicines in return for bilateral trade agreement that in fact strengthens the protection of costlier brand name drugs. India and Thailand have been particular casualties of this policy. It is notable that the US pharmaceutical companies have consistently backed Bush and Dick Cheney with generous donations.

The contentious issue of foreign aid takes on a new dimension with the Bush administration. Renowned for giving foreign aid to countries of geopolitical and strategic significance (Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan are among the top five recipients of US aid, while not one of the Least Developed Countries features) the religious right which gives the Presidency its moral dimension have effectively ceased funding for HIV/AIDS and reproductive health programmes in developing countries.

The White House press office points to the $15 Billon Global AIDS fund designed to fight the spread of AIDS in developing nations as a demonstration of their real commitment to addressing the AIDS pandemic. Admittedly, no other country comes close to matching such a fund. However, there is a catch. Any grant made from Bush's AIDS fund can only be used to purchase brand-name drugs made in the US – another victory for the large pharmaceuticals who clearly have a friendly ear in the administration.

In addition to this, the first bill that George W Bush signed as the 43 rd President of the United States was to reinact the ‘Global Gag' rule - a law which prohibits non-governmental organisations, both American and foreign, from speaking out against American policies if they accept American family planning funds. ‘Accept the money and tow the line' has become the message from Washington and several large reproductive health NGOs have lost sizable grants because they will not sign such an ‘unconstitutional' piece of legislation.

Bush has claimed that his executive order would end ‘taxpayers funding overseas abortion', despite the fact that US foreign aid money has not been used to directly fund overseas abortions since the 1970s . What is perhaps most distressing about this whole situation is that Bush has managed to reduce what was once one of US foreign aid's most successful long term efforts to almost nothing through the removal of funding.

This is undoubtedly one of the most alarming policies that the Bush Administration has adopted given that the AIDS pandemic is sweeping across Africa at an alarming rate and that rates of detection are on the increase in the world's largest democracy, India . In cutting funding to reproductive health programmes in the developing world, many have accused George Bush of imposing the death penalty on the women of developing countries.

It would appear then that the Bush administration has little concern for the people of the developing world instead representing national and corporate interests. This is unsurprising given the influence of large corporations and businesses within the administration. Will the situation change in the next four years? Probably not. Second term presidents tend to be less radical and adopt more liberal policies as their tenure winds down. The last two years are often dominated by the race to be the next Republican candidate. Sadly, as Bush fades from the limelight the real worry will be whom will the neo-conservatives push forward next. It has not gone unnoticed that Jeb Bush, the younger brother, was sent to assess the damage caused by the Tsunami in Southern Thailand . Cynics have argued that this has been a well-calculated move to improve the profile of the US in the region while at the same time raising the international standing of yet another Bush.

Bush imposes death penalty on women in developing countries by Fran Snedeker