Bush�s National Security Doctrine: A Declaration Of Empire by Dr James Putzel
The new NSS is a declaration of US intentions to use its overwhelming military supremacy to rid the world of threats from �rogue states� and their �terrorist clients�. In this document, the White House, appropriates to itself the right to attack anyone, anywhere at anytime � whether a state or non-state organisation - that in its estimation poses a potential threat to US national security. While the US has always prevaricated around treaties and international laws that might constrain its ability to act alone, the Bush strategy represents a qualitative shift away from multilateral governance of the international system.
Pre-emptive Action Free Of Constraints
In the world as defined by the NSS, the US will determine who is friend and who is foe, which states are �rogue� and which are �civilised�, who is terrorist and who a freedom fighter. The doctrine puts aside a central emerging principle of international law, which justifies military action primarily in defensive terms (Article 51 of the UN Charter), when it proclaims that the US will �act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed�. Although the US will consult its allies in identifying potential threats and will �strive to enlist the support of the international community�, the NSS states, �we will not hesitate to act alone�.
In carrying out its responsibilities to define and defend freedom, the US is dead-set against subjecting its interventionist actions to scrutiny by international organisations. While the Clinton administration actively contributed to the birth of the International Criminal Court, the Bush administration has made it absolutely clear that it will not subject its citizens to this instrument of international law. The NSS reiterates US determination to withdraw military aid from any country unwilling to exempt US personnel from the jurisdiction of what an aide to the Republican majority whip in the US House of Representatives last August called a �rogue court�.
US Freedom To Develop Its Own Nuclear Arsenal
The NSS celebrates the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, signed by Presidents Bush and Putin last May, as heralding �an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides�. In reality that simple 500-word agreement, following on the US withdrawal from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999, gives the US the flexibility to develop its nuclear arsenal as and how it wishes. While Washington claims for itself the right of total flexibility in its future nuclear programme, the NSS proclaims that the US will pursue a policy of �proactive counterproliferation� and �strengthened nonproliferation� towards �rogue states and terrorists�. Although the Bush administration has not yet included China on its list of rogue states, the NSS strikes a threatening tone toward the rising Asian power, �In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness�.
The tearing up of the nuclear test ban treaty, the abandonment of disarmament through the treaty with Russia and the pursuit of its own National Missile Defence system are ultimate expressions of unilateralism that will undermine future efforts to pursue non-proliferation.
Iraq Is The Test Case
As the Bush administration beats the drums of war, Iraq is a test case both for Washington in the implementation of its new strategy and for those who hope to pursue a multilateral approach to governance of the world community. Few would argue that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant at home with aggressive ambitions in his region. This has been known since the US and Britain supported Saddam in his war against Iran in the 1980s. The problem for the international community is how to, on the one hand, ensure the enforcement of UN resolutions to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and, on the other, encourage the emergence of a less repressive political regime.
The evidence of the need to move immediately towards massive military intervention to accomplish these goals is simply not there, while the argument in favour of exhausting a renewed UN sponsored arms inspection effort is overwhelming. Three factors must be considered: the death toll of military action will be enormous for an already beleaguered population; the political alternatives within the country are almost entirely unknown; the risks posed by military action for provoking political instability in the region and far beyond, like in Pakistan or Indonesia, are enormous, especially when placed beside western complacency towards Israeli defiance of UN resolutions and its aggressive posture toward the Palestinians. If Tony Blair�s dossier published in September, which offers no hard facts of any kind that might warrant such a destructive course, is an indication of the kind of evidence needed for the pre-emptive action called for by the NSS, then we are indeed living in a dangerous world.
Britain�s Posture
What the Prime Minister should realise is that there is a great deal of support within the US for multilateral means of dealing with Iraq and other threats to international security. In the wake of the tragedy of 9/11, the Republican right has stifled those voices. A strong and unified European voice opposed to unilateral action could do much to bolster the multilateralists in the US. The BritishPrime Minister will be missing an historic opportunity if he eventually goes along with US action against Iraq without the sanction of the UN.
Now e-mail us and tell us what you think.
|
||||||||||||||||||
The British Prime Minister makes much of the influence he has had since September 11 in getting the US to act with the international community, first in Afghanistan and now in preparations to force Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions demanding its disarmament. While there is little doubt that Britain has helped to delay US unilateral military action against Iraq, the publication of the NSS demonstrates the Republican administration�s determination nevertheless to move in a more unilateral direction.