Dramatic U.S. policy shift: First strike, not deterrence
By Sumana Chatterjee
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 12:22 a.m. Pacific
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration yesterday declared a muscular new foreign policy and military strategy that pit the world's sole superpower against a small number of terrorists and hostile countries armed with weapons of mass destruction.
In a world where terrorists are the main enemy, the United States will use its unequaled strength and act alone, if necessary, to make sure that an enemy never can deliver a devastating blow, according to the new National Security Review, a document that each president submits to Congress every four years.
Bush's National Security Review marks a radical departure from the strategic concepts of containment and deterrence that have guided foreign policy since the end of the World War II. Some scholars said the new strategy amounted to an elaborate justification for attacking another nation in the absence of an immediate threat, amounting to a preventive war that would violate international law.
"History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act," the 35-page administration review says. "In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action."
"The distinctly American internationalism recognizes that as the strongest nation in the world, the United States has a responsibility to sponsor a balance of power that favors freedom," said a senior Bush administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
One concept in the doctrine is to ensure that America has no competitors for superpower status. "We will not allow an adversarial military power to arise," the administration official said.
But the official conceded that countries that share American interests would be asked to help shoulder the military burdens to protect and expand those freedoms. "In fact, we would welcome states that share our values, for instance the Europeans, devoting more resources to the military side, so that there is more ability to share some of the security burdens in pressing for a balance of power that favors freedom."
In spelling out the doctrine, first outlined by the president at West Point, N.Y., in June, the Bush administration also promises it will not use American power as a "pretext for aggression" and that it will try to spread American values of freedom, open markets and trade, and human rights.
Bush is seeking "a balance of power that favors freedom," the senior administration official said. "We are not going to change all countries into democracies overnight," the official acknowledged, but said bringing about democracy would be the goal.
The administration is throwing out Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment, saying it will rely instead on "pre-emptive war" as a means of destroying or disrupting terrorists and rogue states, said Richard Shultz, an international security professor at Tufts University.
"Pre-emption is not a new concept. Anticipatory self-defense is not a new concept," the senior administration official said. "You have to explain why it would be common sense if we sit and wait to be attacked if we can do something about the threat before we are attacked."
But the Bush administration has used the term "pre-emptive war" and anticipatory self-defense in its doctrine to shroud what essentially is preventative war, said John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor.
Under international law, he said, it is acceptable to conduct a pre-emptive war when there is direct evidence of an imminent attack. But according to the doctrine, the Bush administration wants to act when it perceives a threat, even before clear evidence of an imminent attack. Mearsheimer said that would amount to preventative war, which is not accepted under international law.
Mearsheimer said the U.S. had contemplated launching preventative war against Russia and China during the Cold War. The difference is that the Bush administration has announced that it is willing to act unilaterally and without direct provocation, he said.
"The question is: Does it make good sense to stand on the rooftop and announce that? The answer is no," Mearsheimer said. "It alienates states across the globe. They begin to think long and hard about whether they will be a victim" of the American military reach.
_______________________________
Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.
Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company
seattletimes.nwsource.com |
