Historical amnesia appears to be the single most determinant of USA's dwindling 'image', particularly in countries who have gone through the humiliation of being ruled by the colonial powers, be it Great Britain, France, Germany, Portugal and the over-stretched Empire of the former Soviet Union. 'Colonial' power had assumed notoriety for the loot and plunder of the countries rich in resources, but utterly 'weak' being divided among themselves to safeguard their liberty and freedom. The World War II despite all human tragedy that it entailed, the most gruesome being that of nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by USA, who had joined hands with Great Britain and USSR to defeat the rising tide of Nazism under Hitler, the countries under shackles of colonialism were liberated, particularly a vast category of Muslim countries. That was the 'dawn' of a new era, when the 'colonialised' not only got their freedom, but there was a great realisation that USA was instrumental in their liberation which would pave conditions for their 'consolidation' and ultimate emergence as democratic countries. In other words, USA stood as a symbol of human values of justice, equality and freedom. When Pakistan emerged on the map of the world, it became a natural ally of USA, being a religious country for the reason that in the bipolar world, the USSR, being a Godless state was not to the liking of Pakistan. Moreover, India's leader Jawaharlal Nehru had a romantic attachment with Socialism and had thus the main leaning towards Soviet Union, which was the arch rival of USA. The democratic ethos and the support it extended for liberation of nations under colonial rule had an abiding sense of gratitude for USA. No doubt, Pakistan benefited immensely by way of acquiring military equipment and weapons plus economic aid, which enabled Pakistan to consolidate itself as a viable nation. The global image of USA was one of a liberator against oppression and tyranny of the authoritarian states and its leadership was never resented. It's commitment to ideals was a distinguishing feature as against the great Empire builders, notably Great Britain and France who possessed exploitative mindset. It was due to USA's military interventions in 1917, that both France and Great Britain were saved, otherwise they would have been wiped off by Germany. What is ironical that the Americans have forgotten that during the past centuries America was subjected to attack by Great Britain, with the explicit objective of destroying the very existence of USA. Sigmund Freud went to the extent of saying that the very creation of America was a fatal mistake. Apart from the prejudices, what is lamentable that in the very first attack on USA known as 'Indian war' was organised by French as well as the British agencies. The second one was the War of Independence (1776-1783) and the third consisted of series of attacks targeted against the United States popularly known as - war of 1812. Finally, the fourth on was the famous Civil War, and the conquest of Mexico, in which Great Britain, France and Spain had collaborated. The survival of USA against these empire builders, driven by greed and rapacity, was not an easy accomplishment. George Washington, the first president defeated the nefarious designs of the state terrorists, by putting a tough resistance, which helped protect the freedom and integrity of USA. It was President Abraham Lincoln, who made the country militarily unimpregnable and therefore Great Britain had no choice but to engage in 'Financial Warfare' and subversion. They planned to suck the overwhelming financial power of USA into a sort of 'Common Wealth States' within a British system. This vicious game to involve by persuading the US private financial institutions was in order to achieve their foothold. The British East India Company, under Lord Shelburne was the main proponent of the force under a deranged philosophical system euphemistically called 'Eighteenth Century Enlightenment'...What is paradoxical that despite Churchill's clever manoeuvre to enlist the cooporation of F D Roosevelt in order to win the war against Germany, they differed on fundamental principles of governance and even the image of man. F D Roosevelt was fully committed to a pro- developmental stance - the famous New Deal. Under his influence was the expected successor of Democratic Party Henry Wallace. He had written a very profound book The Century of the Common Man. The British on the other hand were for promoting political and financial alliance' to achieve global fascism. The proponent was Henry Luce, who advanced the idea of 'American Century' which was also the obsession of the neocons; Dick Cheney was the 'dark force' of history, to rule the world through an oligarchy of elite/financial Moghals. Wallace got defeated because the British intensely supported Truman to become the president. Truman had promised that he would not recognise Israel, but covertly he did so within 18 minutes of Israel came into being. Truman and British mind had a symbiotic relationship. It is worthwhile to extract a few lines from Wallace's book. He says: "Some have spoken of the 'American Century'. I say that the century on which we are entering - the century which will come out of this war - can be and must be the century of the common man... Everywhere the common man must learn to build his own industries with his own hands in a practical fashion. Everywhere the common man must learn to increase his productivity so that he and his children can eventually pay to the world community all that they have received. No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialisation, but there must be neither military nor economic imperialism. The methods of the nineteenth century will not work in the people's century which is now about to begin. India, China and Latin America have a tremendous stake in the people's century. As their masses learn to read and write, and as they become productive mechanics, their standard of living will double and treble. Modern science, when devoted whole-heartedly to the general welfare, has in it potentialities of which we do not yet dream..." (EIR Nov 7, 2003, Vol 30 No 43 p 38). Just as Martin Luther King Jr dreamt a great dream, which turned into reality, this dream of Wallace, Obama must pursue to achieve - to rebuild global paradigm on peace and cooperation which the Republican President Bush had brushed aside and followed what the zionist-neocon cabal had set to rule and control the world. Under British influence of empiricism of Darwin, Huxley et al: "Man was taken to be the descendant of ape and therefore he cannot transcend his beastly nature. Roosevelt held a different view of man as propounded by Plato and others, which held that man was not made for war, rather to pursue peace." Uri Avnery - an ardent Israeli peace activist, very rightly appreciates the most beautiful phrase in Obama's inaugural speech on January 20, 2009. Addressing to the audience he said: "You are on the wrong side of History." He has the gift to make the U-turn to ensue that not only USA but also Israel is on the right side of history, transcending the vestiges of 'colonialism'. A great transition is the imperative. How to manage it is a great challenge for Obama, as historically a great transition is often preceded by war; he has to facilitate the process of change without it. That will reflect his acumen. The Muslim World and Pakistan in particular, is not yet convinced that the plight of the Muslims will change very much. The Drone-driven policy in the tribal areas of Pakistan is making adverse reactions, particularly the sagacity of having Robert Gates, as defence secretary is seriously being questioned. But as an optimist, one feels he should be given some time to reshape history. According to Nixon in his book Leaders: "The lessons on leadership that de Gaulle encapsulated in the Edge of the Sword were remarkably simple yet equally trenchant. If a leader has mystery, character and grandeur, he can acquire prestige. If he can combine prestige with charisma, he can command authority. And if he can add prescience to authority, he like de Gaulle, can become one of those few leaders, who make a difference in history." Will Obama be one such leader? It is too early to give a verdict. A black global leader must not fade away into the darkness of history. Providence has provided him an opportunity to create a new 'Dawn' - a dawn that radiates hope for the big family, comprising the humanity. The writer is a political analyst. E-mail: fr786pak@isb.comsats.net.pk