| |
COMMENTARY
The militarization of American
foreign policy
By Ahmad Faruqui
The White House has issued its vision of a
National Security Strategy for the United States.
Written by a team of advisors headed by National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, the document
enunciates the Bush doctrine. In marked contrast to US
foreign policy over the past half century, the Bush
doctrine states that the US will never allow its
military supremacy to be challenged. On June 1 Bush told
graduating cadets at West Point, "We fight, as we always
fight, for a just peace - a peace that favors liberty.
We will defend the peace against the threats from
terrorists and tyrants." The doctrine outlines how that
mission will be accomplished. "We do not use our
strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek
instead to create a balance of power that favors human
freedom."
The militarization of American foreign
policy is a key theme of the Bush doctrine. It was first
laid out in a document published in September 2000 by
the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New
American Century (PNAC). Entitled "Rebuilding America's
Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources For a New
Century", the document was written for individuals who
now hold senior positions in the Bush administration,
including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Neil Mackay published
excerpts from the PNAC document in the Sunday Herald; it
says, "The United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC document supports a
"blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping
the international security order in line with American
principles and interests." This "American grand
strategy" must be advanced "as far into the future as
possible", the document says. It also calls for the US
to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous
major theater wars as a 'core mission'".
In
plain English, the document describes American armed
forces abroad as "the cavalry on the new American
frontier". The PNAC blueprint builds on an earlier
document written by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy,
that argued that the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role".
Seeking to deflect criticism that the US was
pursuing a self-centered agenda of global domination,
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that the US had
consistently worked for the advancement of good over
evil during the 20th century. He seemed to gloss over
the fact that these very same US policies made "Yankee
Go Home" a household phrase throughout the third world,
and produced a best selling book and movie, The Ugly
American.
Not much else could have been
expected, given that the US chose to install tyrants
such as Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Augusto
Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia and the Shah of
Iran, and to fight on behalf of the corrupt regime of
South Vietnam.
The doctrine singles out the
Muslim world as an incubator of terrorism, and pledges
to support "moderate and modern government, especially
in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and
ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile
ground in any nation". It does not mention
state-sponsored terrorism as a source of regional
instability, nor does it urge world governments to
protect the human rights of their citizens.
The
doctrine is focused on fighting wars with enemies. Since
"we cannot let our enemies strike first", it states that
the US must adopt a strike-first policy against
terrorist threats "before they are fully formed". The
policymakers in Washington have concluded that enemies
will forever remain enemies, and should be taken out. It
also presumes that the US can accurately detect
terrorist threats, and that it can guarantee the safety
of civilian populations while pursuing military action
against the terrorists.
While the US will seek
allies in the battle against terrorism, it "will not
hesitate to act alone, if necessary". That includes
"convincing or compelling states to accept their
sovereign responsibilities" not to aid terrorists. When
the US began its war against terrorism, British
historian Sir Michael Howard cautioned that it was a
mistake to call that program a war. As evidence of
civilian casualties in Afghanistan mounted, American
historian Howard Zinn noted that fighting terrorism was
a just cause, but the White House had confused a just
cause with a just war.
When President George W
Bush orders the UN to show some "backbone", he
indirectly undercuts his commitment to promoting the
cause of democracy around the globe. Such edicts have
more in common with those of imperial Europe during the
18th and 19th centuries, than with those of the founding
fathers of the United States of America.
When
the Bush administration has been asked why no ally
except Britain is supporting US policy on Iraq, it
responds that the allies will ultimately come around to
supporting US policy. When asked why German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder was opposed to any attack on Iraq,
Cheney said that Schroeder was being forced to make
these statements because of pre-election pressures.
Ironically, others are saying the same about the
Republican party. MSNBC TV program host Phil Donahue
noted on his program recently that winning the war had
become a political issue. He cited a top White House
aide who hectored a meeting of the Republican party that
everything should be done to prevent the economy from
becoming the focus of the fall elections. If Americans
began to focus on the failure of corporate governance at
major corporations such as Enron and World Com, or on
the shrinking size of their pension funds, the
Republicans would lose. Donahue also cited another Bush
aide who had concluded that August was not the time to
introduce new "political" products, such as a war
against Iraq. That might explain why the administration
has chosen to make Iraq the single point on its agenda
during September.
A small number of congressmen
and senators have voiced their concern that a
pre-emptive war against Iraq - while Israel is still
engaged in a campaign of occupation in the West Bank and
Gaza - would make a terrorist attack more likely. This
concern comes across strongly in a recent US poll, where
eight out of 10 Americans express this view.
As
expected, the White House has shrugged off these
concerns by saying that nothing succeeds like success.
They say that when the Arabs see Saddam's army deserting
him in large numbers, they will see the wisdom of the
Bush doctrine. Republican strategists say that similar
concerns were cited during the war in Afghanistan, and
were quickly alleviated when the Taliban were deposed.
Attacking Iraq may break the global coalition
against terrorism. The US needs to deal with the menace
of terrorism before taking on new challenges. It may
benefit from listening to its newfound ally, President
General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Speaking last
October at a globally televised press conference at the
beginning of the war against Afghanistan, Musharraf
compared terrorism to a tree. One can pluck off its
leaves, or even cut off its branches, but the tree will
grow them back again unless one cuts off its roots. The
root causes of terrorism have to be tackled, and they
are more often than not political. They cannot be solved
through military means, but need to be addressed through
a political and economic process.
Sir Michael
Howard makes a similar point. In dealing with the
problem of transnational terrorism, "the rhetoric and
expectations of 'war' are counter-productive and much
military experience irrelevant. With skillful political
management and patient police work, backed up where
necessary by armed force 'in aid of the civil power',
this particular conspiracy can, perhaps, be eradicated.
But 'the war against terrorism' cannot be won, for
terrorism will always be available as a weapon in the
hands of people desperate and ruthless enough to use
it."
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has
chosen to emphasize the military dimension of strategy
almost exclusively. Like imperial Rome, the US is the
superpower of the day. Its military budget of $400
billion exceeds that of the next nine countries
combined. Its navy is unchallenged wherever it goes,
because it is equipped with 12 aircraft carrier battle
groups capable of launching 1,040 strike aircraft on a
few day's notice. The carrier groups are integrated into
five major fleets that are stationed in Europe, the
Middle East, the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Notes
Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, "There always has
been an imperial streak in American foreign policy. For
some historians, the founding of America and its 19th
century push westward were no less an exercise in
empire-building than Rome's drive to take charge of the
Mediterranean." This point is seconded by Yale's Paul
Kennedy, who notes, "From the time the first settlers
arrived in Virginia from England and started moving
westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering
nation."
Today, the US has military bases, or
base rights, in some 40 countries across the world -
giving it virtually the same global muscle it would
enjoy if it ruled those countries directly. According to
author Chalmers Johnson, these military bases, numbering
in the hundreds around the world, are today's version of
the imperial colonies of old. Washington may refer to
them as "forward deployment", says Johnson, but their
presence effectively converts the host countries into US
colonies. They cease to have an independent foreign
policy. On this definition, there is almost no place
outside America's reach. Pentagon figures show that
there is a US military presence, large or small, in 132
of the 190 member states of the United Nations.
Observes Paul Kennedy, "The American military
revolution, astounding though it is in so many ways, is
of limited application when fighting a war among the
shadows. In today's fractured, war-torn, neo-medieval
world, it is quite inadequate to guarantee lasting peace
and security, even in the American homeland itself, let
alone in the protection of US interests abroad. One
wonders, though, how many of President Bush's talented
strategic advisors fully realize that fact?"
Regaining American primacy
The US
accounts for a 20th of the world's population, generates
a third of its gross domestic product and owns about
half of its financial wealth. As noted above, it has no
military equal. Culturally, it is the world's leading
film and television exporter, and its colleges and
universities attract the most foreign students each
year. But, as noted by Harvard's Joseph Nye in his new
book The Paradox of American Power, "the largest
power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives
unilaterally in a global information age".
On
September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked symbols of
American primacy in broad daylight on American soil,
causing massive loss of human life and property. Their
barbaric acts were condemned throughout the world, and
garnered empathy for America's plight. In many ways,
they helped soften the image of a superpower that was
arrogant, unilateralist and self-centered.
A
year later much of the goodwill generated by the attacks
appears to have dissipated. According to Sebastian
Rotella of the Los Angeles Times, the accumulation of
this goodwill may have been "a mere pause in a steady
rise of disillusionment with the world's only remaining
superpower. With a few important exceptions, foreign
leaders and voters say the US may have missed a historic
opportunity to forge a broad international coalition and
revamp its increasingly negative image." This same point
was stressed in former Vice President Al Gore's address
to the Commonwealth Club of California.
Why did
this happen? Initially, the war in Afghanistan appeared
to be a spectacular success. Precision weapons and new
tactics resulted in the removal of the tyrannical
Taliban regime from power in record time, and in the
apparent destruction of the al-Qaeda network. In a few
months, it became evident that most of the senior
leaders of al-Qaeda were still at large, as was Taliban
leader Mullah Omar. And in the past several months, the
US campaign in Afghanistan has begun to look like a
failure. Musharraf, perhaps the strongest ally of the US
in the region, has openly voiced his concerns about the
manner in which the US is prosecuting the war. Afghan
President Hamid Karzai's authority is increasingly under
attack, and it seems to not extend beyond the boundaries
of Kabul. Without his American bodyguards, he would be a
dead man, having narrowly survived an assassination
attempt.
Others have begun to question the moral
premises of fighting such a war. Appearing on Fox TV,
the editor of a major British magazine noted recently
that the IRA's terrorist activities had resulted in more
than 4,000 deaths over the past several decades. He said
that there was ample evidence that much of the financing
for the IRA's terror campaign had come from areas in New
England, and asked rhetorically whether the UK would be
justified in sending in the Royal Air Force to bomb
Boston.
The US has lost further goodwill by
adopting an increasingly strident tone on seeking
"regime change" in Iraq. Writing in the Independent,
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has observed that US
foreign policy in the Middle East "is breathtaking in
its hypocrisy" and is totally counterproductive. He
notes that the much-awaited peace dividend since the
Cold War has been lost as the world's only superpower
has made its overriding objective the creation of a
global system in which its will goes unchallenged.
According to him, this is the only reason that the US is
pushing ahead with its missile defense program.
Frustration has turned out to disillusionment as
the world has seen the US abandoning one global
institution after another. A key example is the decision
by the Bush administration to "unsign" the treaty
establishing the International Criminal Court. This has
drawn much criticism, even within the US, where
Congressman Joseph Crowley and 44 of his congressional
colleagues wrote to Bush asking him to reverse his
decision.
Another prominent US decision that
drew international disapproval was the rejection of the
protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. This
protocol was designed to fill a major gap in
international arms control and security arrangements,
and had the support of every US ally and all of Europe,
Latin America, Japan and many other countries. US
officials said the treaty would have put US bio-defense
and business interests at risk, but the chief US
negotiator was not able to come up with a valid example
of treaty provisions that would have endangered the US.
Earlier, the Bush administration had rejected
the Kyoto Protocol. What was worse than the rejections
was the reasoning behind them. Washington argued that
the Kyoto Protocol was "fatally flawed" because it would
have been expensive to implement and did not apply to
developing nations. The protocol to the Biological
Weapons Convention would not catch all cheaters, and the
International Criminal Court might be used to harass US
citizens.
To make matters worse, US trade policy
has become increasingly protectionist. The US decision
in March to impose tariffs of up to 30 percent on
imported steel has led to a barrage of complaints to the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Two months later, Bush
signed into law a bill awarding US farmers up to $180
billion in subsidies over the next decade. The European
Union has warned of retaliation, and the subsidies have
been criticized by Australia and Canada. A WTO
arbitration panel has suggested that $4 billion of trade
sanctions should be imposed on the US.
There is
increasing apprehension over America's insistence that
all nations play by US rules. The backlash against US
unilateralism has begun. In May 2001, the US was voted
off the UN Human Rights Commission, a body that it
helped found. The US lost its bid for a third term on
the International Narcotics Control Board. In the same
month, a top-level delegation from the European Union
had to step in for the absent US in negotiations with
North Korea.
Washington, with a proud tradition
of democracy, has long advocated that all states with a
"command and control" type of government make a
transition to democracy. If a majority of a state's
citizens can be empowered to determine its policies, it
follows that a majority of the world's states should be
empowered to determine global policies. If Iraq is in
violation of UN resolutions, and poses a threat to
regional and international security, then it is the UN
that should authorize an attack on Iraq. The US needs to
persuade a majority of the world's countries to go along
with its decision. That is the only way for it to regain
its primacy.
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contactcontent@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
