| |
Humble no more
...
By Mushahid Hussain
ISLAMABAD - The newly-released US National
Security Strategy is a far cry from George W Bush's
statement before he became president that the United
States must have a "humble" foreign policy.
In
the strategy unveiled last week, the Bush administration
has finally made public its view that the war on terror
is actually a "battle for the future of the Muslim
world" - one that will be fought by the United States,
alone if necessary, using its military might in a new
strike-first-and-fast doctrine.
Unveiling Washington's worldview through the 31-page
National Security Strategy paper, Bush made it clear that the
US would not allow any country to "surpass, or even
equal, its power", the linchpin of this doctrine of
dominance. This emerging strategy, which has already been
applied in Afghanistan, and is being applied to Iraq, has a
three-fold strategic significance.
First,
although the new doctrine says that the "enemy is not a
single political regime or person or a religion or
ideology", America's "greatest danger lies at the
crossroads of radicalism and technology", a clear
reference to Islamic radicalism that is now at the heart
of US security concerns.
This new threat is to
be countered by "supporting moderate and modern
governments, especially in the Muslim world". The
doctrine takes pains to state that "the war on terrorism
is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however,
reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the
future of the Muslim world".
Second, the Bush
doctrine seems to compartmentalize the world into
categories according to their power and ability to help
or hurt the United States. At the apex is of course the
"unparalleled" military power of the United States,
followed by the "three great potential powers", namely
India, China and Russia, then the problem area of the
Muslim world, and finally the rest of the world.
The India factor is a key component of the new
Washington worldview since India is listed alongside
Russia and China as one of the "potential great powers".
India's democracy is cited as its strength, and
underpinning these "common strategic interests" is a
larger-than-life role for India. From protecting the
"vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean - to fighting
terrorism - and in creating a strategically stable
Asia", India's role in a "stable Asia" is implicitly
linked to China.
When the doctrine attacks China
for "pursuing advanced military capabilities that can
threaten its neighbors", it is easy to discern the
unmistakable reference to India. The growing
Indo-American intimacy can be thus seen in perspective.
Regarding Pakistan, the doctrine acclaims that
the post September 11 about-turn in Afghan policy has
"bolstered bilateral relations" and the "move toward
building a more open and tolerant society". This is a
reference to the second about-turn - the January 12
speech of President General Pervez Musharraf - when the
jihadi organizations and extremist religious groups were
banned.
While disputed Kashmir is not
specifically mentioned, a possible US involvement in
this row is predicated "first to concrete steps by India
and Pakistan that can help defuse military
confrontation".
Although there is greater
clarity regarding the Middle East, where the United
States supports a "democratic and independent
Palestine", there is little evidence of even-handedness
or pressure on Israel. Israeli forces' withdrawal from
newly occupied territories of the Palestinian Authority
is contingent on "progress towards security". Permission
for Palestinians to "resume work and normal life" is
also coupled with the phrase "as violence subsides". The
onus is entirely on the Palestinians, not Israel.
Third, this doctrine is also a proclamation of
the assumption of a new American global role. Accepting
its imperial status, the United States is now ready to
reform countries, change regimes, eliminate enemies and
threats, striking at will, caring little for either
concerns expressed by others or consequences that may
flow from its actions.
In a world of Pax
Americana, the United States is attempting nothing short
of a political restructuring of the Muslim world.
According to the Washington Post on September 21, the
doctrine "gives the United States a nearly messianic
role in making the world 'not just safer but better'."
But the tone is not just messianic but
aggressive: "We will not hesitate to act alone" and "our
military must dissuade future military competition".
Likewise, "we will be prepared to act apart when our
interests and unique responsibilities require", the
security paper says, adding that "the United States
possesses unprecedented - and unequaled - strength and
influence in the world".
Shorn of the verbiage,
this amounts to a
we-will-do-it-our-way-whatever-others-may-say approach.
Indeed, the most dangerous aspect of the Bush Doctrine
is its contention that the United States can and will
"act pre-emptively" to counter "emerging threats before
they are fully formed". In effect, the distinction
between an actual and a potential threat is lost, and
preemption could provide a pretext for the strong to
attack the weak, setting a dangerous new precedent in
international affairs.
What many also may find
disturbing about the new doctrine is not what it says
but what it fails to mention. For instance, there is an
unwillingness to even reflect upon even the possibility
that US policy or conduct in the past may have
contributed to spawning terrorists and tyrants in the
present. Osama bin Laden was America's own jihadi when
the enemy was Soviet Union, and some of Saddam Hussein's
worst crimes were committed when he was an active
American ally in the Gulf.
Also missing from the
document is the one word that is at the root of all
problems that US foreign policy faces in the Muslim
world - injustice. Even some of America's closest
friends - Canada, Germany and Japan - do not share
Washington's vision of the world. Recently, Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien said Western "arrogance"
was a factor in the alienation and hostility prevalent
among outsiders to the West.
On Monday, former
US Vice President Al Gore presented a scathing critique
of the Bush foreign policy, saying that the United
States had "squandered" the goodwill garnered after
September 11. Now, "instead of targeting the terrorists,
people are questioning America's intentions in the war
on terror," he said.
(Inter Press
Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
