Issue No. 609
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
24 - 30 October 2002 Issue No. 609 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The Americans are coming
Bush's new doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes carries with it manifold dangers, argues Ayman El-Amir*
The Bush administration has made Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "an offer he cannot refuse". The options before him are to commit suicide or be liquidated. This has been the thrust of the US administration's policy for resolving the issue of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). What is more alarming is that the policy makes Iraq a convenient test- lab for the US's new security doctrine outlined in "The National Security Strategy of the United States" -- a paper that the White House unveiled last week. If the test is successful, it will mark the beginning of a process to reconfigure the Middle East according to the US's strategic interests as outlined by the paper. Other Arab regimes will be candidates for a declawing, too, under various US national security concerns. History has shown that world wars, and even regional ones, have fostered major geopolitical changes in a manner similar to the way scientists attribute the creation of the universe to the "big bang" theory. Israel will be watching at close range and probably helping to put together the pieces of the new jigsaw puzzle.
The fact is that the Bush administration has never wavered from its goal of unseating President Saddam Hussein. In his statement before the United Nations General Assembly on 12 September, Bush professed the desire to work with the world community to complete the task of disarming Iraq. But he did not disguise the fact that the US considers removing President Saddam Hussein, not his WMD, its most important goal. Nothing else could explain the administration's exasperation after Iraq declared its agreement to the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. It also explains why the US is exercising inordinate pressure on the Security Council to pass a resolution that would impose new and crippling conditions on Iraq prior to the departure of the inspectors. In this way, the administration would have the fig-leaf it needs to fault Iraq and launch a devastating military strike against it on the flimsiest excuse. In one of his many vitriolic attacks against Hussein, President George W Bush said "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."
Curiously enough, President Bush has admitted in speeches that the US does not know whether Iraq has acquired nuclear or biological weapons. However, the guiding principle of US policy towards Iraq has been "better safe than sorry". Consistent with this line of thinking, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was quite serious when he admonished Hussein to seek exile, with his family, in another country while the opportunity remains.
The following are key features of President Bush's definition of US national security.
1) The US will not allow the military supremacy it has maintained since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, to be equalled or surpassed -- a veiled warning to China.
2) The US will launch pre-emptive strikes against countries that are suspected of developing WMD and which could be perceived as a threat to the US. It will also attack, disrupt and destroy terrorist organisations that have a global reach before they penetrate its borders or those of its allies, in what it calls "proactive counter-proliferation".
3) In its policy of "hot pursuit" of both terrorists and "rogue" states, the US will try to enlist the support of its allies, but failing that, it will not hesitate to act unilaterally. US NATO allies are on notice.
4) The US will support moderate and modern governments, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation.
5) The US will use its influence in international institutions and its aid programmes to support the principle explained in the paper, "people everywhere want to say what they think, choose who will govern them, worship as they please, educate their children -- male and female -- own property and enjoy the benefits of their labor."
In the 35-page document, the regime of President Saddam Hussein, while not mentioned by name, appears to be culpable of every crime, every threat and every violation that the US has to fight in order to defend its strategic national security interests. US senators and congressmen have gone to extremes in describing the mortal danger Iraq poses to the US and its allies.
In as much as the root-causes of terrorism have been dissected and explained, an equal measure of introspection must be extended to President Bush's definition of the US's strategic national security interests. The underlying rationale of the paper suggests that it is framed by the mind-set of 11 September 2001 and its aftermath. The threat of terrorism, and the abiding fear that WMD will someday be used by terrorists against the American people, is a national concern. The paper starts with the premise that the United States, being the world's unchallenged supreme military power, should exercise its power proactively and in a pre-emptive manner. In revealing his thinking prior to the publication of the document, President Bush told cadets of West Point military academy in a speech on 1 June, "If we wait for threats to fully materialise, we will have waited too long."
In the US analysis, the terrorists that committed the heinous acts of 11 September were spawned by a fertile ground of repressive political regimes and extremist religious dogmas. Weak political structures, lack of freedom of speech and democratic practices and extreme poverty would serve to constitute violence and terrorism. The paper also strongly endorses the long- standing perception of terrorism as an abstract evil that could not be justified in any way or given credit under any circumstances.
This is not the first time the US has considered a strategy of pre-emptive strikes. It should be recalled that in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson, then US president, considered the option of a pre-emptive military strike against China to prevent it from deploying nuclear weapons. He later dropped the idea. At the peak of the Cold War, US policy towards the former Soviet Union was based on the strategy of containment and deterrence. President Bush's definition of how to secure US national strategic interests is so far the most aggressive, difficult and dangerous course of action proposed by any US president, including Ronald Reagan.
The may US faces difficulties owing to the likelihood that its allies will not always see eye-to-eye on every conceivable threat or perceived "clear and present danger" that authorises the US President to go to war. Again, Iraq is a case in point. With the exception of the Labour government of Tony Blair, which has always followed the shadow of US foreign policy, other NATO allies have varying strategic interests that are strongly influenced by regional considerations and tactical balances. More often than not, the US will probably be faced with the prospect of taking unilateral action -- an option that would lead to increasing isolation within its own Western alliance.
The new strategic interest concept is dangerous because it provides other powerful countries with a licence to interpret freely threats to their national strategic interests and act on them with pre-emptive military strikes. Israel did exactly that when it launched a pre-emptive strike to destroy Iraq's Ozirak nuclear reactor in 1981. It may well, at some point, seek to create a convenient environment to justify and launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. The US will have little problem with Israel's free-wheeling definition of the threats to its national security, including those allegedly coming from the defenceless Palestinian people it is murdering. In volatile south Asia, India or Pakistan might be impressed by the possibility of using the same approach to their own advantage. Additionally, the US's document gives little clue to how it would deal with changing situations such as the assumption of power in Pakistan by a regime hostile to the US or if the unstable Middle East geopolitical situation were to change in a way that could threaten US oil interests in the region -- an overriding strategic consideration in the US's global policy. How the US will deal with undemocratic regimes, traditional forms of authority and human rights violations in the region are also big question marks.
President Saddam Hussein's best option would, consequently, seem to be to attempt to take the wind out of the US military sails by cooperating fully with the team of inspectors. In this way he would build up sympathy for his country which also translates into increasing opposition to US military action against it. The game of "hide and seek in Iraq" will have to end. The silver lining is that President Hussein's compliance would also dampen Israel's incitement to yet another war against the suffering people of Iraq.
* The writer is a former corespondent for Al-Ahram in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: weekly.ahram.org.eg Updated every Thursday at 20.00 GMT, 10 pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
