An American invitation to deter America
William Pfaff IHT
Thursday, October 24, 2002
Nuclear proliferation
VIENNA When the U.S. government sets forth a national strategy statement declaring its aim to be permanent military domination of the world, so that no rival should "even think about" challenging it, the inevitable result is to make people think the hitherto unthinkable. They don't think about challenging the United States. They think about deterring it.
The policy statement issued last month risks doing more for nuclear proliferation than anything that has happened since 1945. A government might reasonably consider - as North Korea now says it has done - how to construct a minimal nuclear deterrent that raises enough uncertainties to keep any hostile foreign power at bay, even the United States.
Consider Washington's different reactions to North Korea's newly announced nuclear program and Iraq's supposed one. Washington is eager to go to war against Iraq, but not against North Korea. There are some 40,000 American troops in South Korea, and a single North Korean nuclear missile could kill a very large number of them. That is not to mention South Korean victims and the North Koreans who would die in retaliation.
Such a scenario is highly improbable and implausible. It is not a fully rational one. But it is enough to make even the flock of hawks currently in residence at the Pentagon and White House think again. That has undoubtedly made Saddam Hussein and others think, as well.
Nuclear nonproliferation currently is only for those who do not already have nuclear weapons. That is the weakness of the policy. When the United States announces that it has no intention of giving up its nuclear advantage, but rather intends to enlarge it, as George W. Bush has said, then any prudent government has cause to consider purchasing for itself a small but secure nuclear deterrent. No one envisions a military challenge to America, which would be hopelessly expensive and provoke wholly unpredictable reactions in the American political class. It would also be a waste of money for quite another reason: This kind of military power is only marginally relevant in today's world. People are being forced to think about the nature of power, and to wonder if the United States is really as powerful as it claims to be. They note that since Bush was elected and began to assert military "hard" power, America's "soft" power has shrunk.
Soft power encompasses diplomatic influence and political persuasion, cultural influence and prestige, and additional factors that cause others to respect a country and wish to become associated with it and to accept its values and views. Joseph Nye of Harvard University has recently written about this in terms of the importance of soft power to the United States itself. But soft power can also be used against America, particularly when America is in its Bush administration hard-power operational mode. France has been using its soft power to block the American demand for a single UN Security Council resolution that would authorize the United States to attack Iraq whenever Washington judged this appropriate. The French maintain that international law requires that the Security Council authorize whatever retaliation follows Iraqi obstruction of inspections.
The American position was never popular with other governments, and in a low-key but persistent and unyielding way, the French mobilized that international opposition. France has UN veto power but does not threaten to use it, understanding that veto power, like nuclear power, is much more important unused than used. The United States now has provisionally agreed to return to the United Nations before any attack on Iraq, although at this writing negotiations (notably with Russia) continue on the wording of a resolution acceptable to the five permanent Security Council members. As for hard power, no other country imagines trying to construct as huge and versatile a military force as the United States possesses. What purpose would it serve? No government today imagines fighting a full-spectrum war against America. No other government except the American has the least interest in deploying its forces worldwide, with bases in scores of countries.
The U.S. reaction to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included establishing new military bases and deployments in Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, while naming as new enemies a variety of Islamic extremist movements or factions in these regions, as well as bandit and kidnapping gangs and separatist groups, all described as part of a vast axis of terrorism.
This served chiefly to multiply the number and geographical distribution of identified enemies, not previously perceived as important forces even in their own countries.
This certainly has not improved matters for the United States, which risks becoming identified as at war not only with the Muslim world but with the non-Western world as a whole. International Herald Tribune Tribune Media Services International |
