When Bush talks of democracy, just remember Guantanamo Bay

SINCE he started the war in Iraq, the nearest George Wubya Bush came to being under fire — friendly or otherwise — was the 41-gun salute he was given on arrival in London.

For a man who has on more than one occasion proclaimed his love of freedom of speech and democracy, he may have been proud to see tens of thousands of people express that sentiment on the streets of London during his visit.

But I doubt it.

George Wubya's allegiance to democracy is fragile and very selective. Basically what it amounts to is that if he decides something is good for himself and America, then any action that flows from that decision is democratic. And he has the persistence of a three-card trick merchant and the neck to go with it in trying to convince the rest of the world that he's right.

The policy of members of his administration is to consider any criticism of President Bush, especially in relation to Iraq, as an unforgivable attack on America itself.

Of course, it's not.

The problem is that for countless millions of people around the world who admire what America has always stood for, it was disconcerting to see Mr Bush trample over the United Nations in his stubborn drive to invade Iraq.

Even his overt stance in waiting to see if the UN would sanction it was a charade because it was patently obvious that he intended to go to war anyway with or without world approval.

And that's exactly what he did, with the collaboration of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in pursuit of their joint ambition to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat from the infamous weapons of mass destruction.

They accomplished neither, except to prove the folly of embarking on a war without UN support and, in the process, creating an incredible mess from which they won't be able to extricate themselves for years.

It sounded rather hollow when President Bush stressed in London that US has backed international institutions since World War II and would continue to do so although he did not add only when it suited him.

Seeing that this multilateralism was one of three pillars he revealed for world peace, we should not be too sanguine about his commitment to them and, if anything, we should be even more worried about world peace. At least while he's in the White House.

The second pillar was that countries must use force to defend peace and values, and the third is to be the spread of democracy. Strange, is it not, that promoting the cause of democracy can be twisted into a convoluted reason for going to war? It obviously has not dawned on Mr Bush, or his belligerent aides, that this concept of democracy is something that might not receive universal approbation. What we saw on the streets of London was not a form of paranoid anti-Americanism, but a protest to underline the fundamental injustice of the invasion of Iraq and what flowed from it.

One thing that helps to shatter our belief in Mr Bush's love of democracy is the appalling way suspected terrorists are being held in Guantanamo Bay with absolutely no rights, having been transferred there after months of detention at Bagram airbase in Kabul.

Whatever about their guilt or innocence, the conditions under which they're held are more characteristic of a banana republic rather than of a country which proclaims itself to be democratic.

If, and when, their trial begins, it will be before a military tribunal with relaxed rules of evidence.

Relaxed, that is, to facilitate the certain conviction of those that the US wants to make an example of in Mr Bush's zealous crusade against terrorism.

Amid allegations of being subjected to torture, the Guantanamo Bay detainees are denied contact with their families or lawyers, and this has been rightly condemned throughout the world.

NOTABLY, the US Supreme Court last week decided to examine whether the detainees could challenge their status in the courts. Immediately, the Bush administration suggested the court had no right to do so and, consequently, we can assume they believe themselves superior to the highest court in the land.

Among those being held in Guantanamo Bay are eight Britons and the British legal system has collectively condemned their treatment and the conditions under which they are detained.

Their underlying fear is that they will not get a fair trial, apart from a show trial, before being convicted.

That is another reason why there was so much hostility to the Bush state visit and his being given the red carpet treatment with all due pomp and ceremony and banquets.

Hopefully, the protesters got their message across, despite the multi-million pound security regime that was put in place to keep them well away from the president. It's ironic that the biggest threat could have been inside Buckingham Palace with the revelation that the Daily Mirror had an undercover reporter working there as a footman for two months.

The world knows that the royals have a lot on their silver plate at the moment when do they not? so the employment of a lowly footman would probably be beneath them.

The carpet wasn't the only thing that was red when it was realised that Ryan Parry had had a fair run of the palace and was able to titillate the readers of the Mirror with some interesting details of how their betters live.

He was able to relate intimate and top secret details like the queen fed her corgis toast under the table and that the Duke of York has the odd off-day.

Riveting stuff, but we were definitely not amused at this royal cock-up.

Neither were the police and the political establishment. Having spent something like £5 million and drafting in 14,000 policemen, it transpired that the palace itself was potentially the biggest threat to Tony Blair's best buddy.

Typically, Buckingham Palace and the police said that a "vigorous" investigation into the "alleged breach" had begun, after the Mirror man had bolted. Rather late in the day for it, as is Home Secretary David Blunkett's address to the Commons about the incident, in which he will, no doubt, berate the newspaper for being mischievous and irresponsible in invading the privacy of the royal family.

As Ryan Parry said: "Had I been a terrorist intent on assassinating the queen or American president George Bush, I could have done so with absolute ease."

What he did was to illustrate a glaring gap in the palace security and the royal family should be gracious enough to acknowledge that, for once, a tabloid actually did them a favour.