-Caveat Lector- http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/attack/bal-te.diplomacy10mar10bull.story?coll=bal%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
>From the Sunday Sun U.S. foreign policy takes aggressive turn Bush administration sees attacks as proof of need to change tack By Mark Matthews Sun National Staff Originally published March 10, 2002 WASHINGTON - The terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have propelled American foreign policy along a new course, shifting away from a desire to be a friend to the world and toward an almost single-minded drive to eliminate threats to American lives and to U.S. interests overseas. With a dazzling display of military power in Afghanistan, the United States forced foes and allies to recognize that the United States is the only world power of any consequence. Having crushed the Taliban government in Afghanistan, U.S. forces are assisting counter-terror campaigns elsewhere while pummeling the remaining Taliban and al-Qaida guerrillas in mountain hide-outs. And President Bush is laying the diplomatic groundwork for confronting hostile nations that possess chemical and biological weapons and that seek to become nuclear powers. A prime target is Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But as they acknowledge American resolve and the military's demonstrated skill, critics question whether the Bush administration's emphasis on military muscle will really make the West safer in the long term. Critics also say that the anti-terrorism campaign fails to address the vast disparities in wealth and festering hatred that help fuel terrorism. They also see the United States making too little effort to end bloodshed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, another fuel for terrorism. "Should we reduce all the world's problems solely to the battle against terrorism?" said French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, who has taken the lead among Europeans in criticizing what he calls America's "heavy-handed tendency." "Must this be waged solely by military means, ignoring the deep-seated causes and roots? That is what would be too simplistic, dangerous and ineffectual." The attacks of Sept. 11 jolted Americans into a sense of their own vulnerability. For many in the Bush administration, the attacks reinforced previous judgments about what needed to be done and what they saw as the flawed outlook of the Clinton administration. In place of a vision of expanding opportunity and reduced tension, American policy-makers now see a world of dark corners hiding agents of hatred, a world divided into good and bad, "us vs. them" as at no other time since the Cold War. Where President Bill Clinton sought out economic partners, Bush seeks junior officers in a U.S.-led war on terror. In place of free-trade zones and development aid, Bush emphasizes military cooperation. Rather than try to resolve regional conflicts, he wants to combat extremism. Hostile regimes with ambitions of becoming nuclear powers can't merely be contained, in his view; they constitute parts of an "axis of evil" that must be weakened and, in at least one case, toppled. Regional wars aren't an American problem unless they directly affect U.S. interests. Longtime allies get consulted, but they don't get a veto. Bush puts U.S. economic expansion over a drive against global warming, is far from enamored of the concept of international justice and values good intelligence and threat of punishment, rather than treaties, in curbing weapons proliferation. The attacks confirmed for the Bush team the dangers lurking in the world. Administration officials recognized quickly that they couldn't defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan, let alone in the more than 60 countries where it operates, without broad support and diplomatic, intelligence and law-enforcement help from old and new partners overseas. But the United States left no doubt who was in charge. "Mr. Bush's is a policy very different from that of the Clinton administration," said Josef Joffe, editor of the German newspaper Die Zeit. "Clinton, [Vice President Al] Gore and [Secretary of State Madeleine K.] Albright often confused schmoozing with tough choices." "W., Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell behave more like 'adults' - laying down the law and sticking to it," he added, referring to the president, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Even allies who chafed at that approach now acknowledge that it got results and that Bush weighed his decisions carefully. "The president has made no mistakes since September 11," a senior European diplomat said. The original mission is far from over, however. With a new government beginning to take shape in Kabul and al-Qaida and Taliban fighters mounting fierce resistance, U.S. forces might have to stay in Afghanistan longer than Bush expected, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "It's very difficult to tell the American people that we have to continue to take actions that may cost American lives," the Delaware Democrat said. "The president has some very difficult decisions to make." Osama bin Laden's ability to orchestrate colossal acts of terror might have been disrupted by the destruction of his camps in Afghanistan and the death or imprisonment of many of his followers, but bin Laden remains at large. The search for him will test the resources of American intelligence. Although spy agencies operate in the shadows, what the world has seen in the past six months is a U.S. foreign policy with a military cast. Nothing puts the administration's priorities into sharper focus than the president's budget for next year, calling for a $50 billion, 12 percent defense increase - the largest increase in two decades. The increase in military aid to poor countries - $457 million - would be more than twice the rise in economic aid, in Bush's plan. Beyond military aid, the United States has dispatched trainers and advisers to the Philippines and plans to send more to Yemen and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia to help quell Islamic insurgencies. No time limit has been placed on those commitments, and some analysts fear that in the case of the Philippines, the United States could get caught up in a "dirty war" against anti-government Muslim rebels who have only a loose connection to al-Qaida. The war on terror has prompted the United States to reach out to regimes that hold onto power through military force: It tapped Uzbekistan for a military base and Syria for intelligence on Islamic militants. The war in Afghanistan is just the "first theater," as Bush describes it, using the language of war. In his State of the Union speech, he merged the terrorist threat with the danger posed by Iraq, Iran and North Korea, each of which is believed by U.S. officials to be trying to develop nuclear weapons. A nuclear-armed Iraq or Iran could pose a mortal threat to Israel and America's oil-rich gulf Arab allies. North Korea threatens vital American interests in Asia and the Pacific. Perhaps more dangerous still, each of those states might arm a terrorist group with chemical or biological weapons or even a nuclear device. As best can be learned from outside the administration, only Iraq is a potential military target. The use of force to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein could come in response to a refusal to admit United Nations arms inspectors. A division of labor between the United States and its major allies underscores the military emphasis in U.S. foreign policy. Because Americans bore the risk and the cost of the fighting in Afghanistan, the administration wants European allies and friendly Muslim states to take the lead in keeping the peace and supplying large amounts of aid to rebuild the country. Critics say a strong military response can't be the only action against terrorism or the hatred that drives it. Terrorism, after all, is the weapon of those without armed forces of their own, who draw their support from the powerless. A recent Gallup Poll revealed widespread antipathy toward the United States in the Muslim world, with even a large number of Kuwaitis, who are under U.S. protection, saying they don't believe Arabs were responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11. The United States ranks at the bottom of the list of Western industrialized countries in the proportion of its national income devoted to development aid overseas - about one-tenth of 1 percent. Although Powell acknowledged at the World Economic Forum last month that "we have to go after poverty, we have to go after despair, we have to go after hopelessness," the Bush budget allots twice as much money for increasing military as for economic aid. "As part of a long-term endeavor, we need to be concerned about economic and political development around the world as well," said Maryland's Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, a Democrat. "The terrorists operate within a context, and a lot can be done to shift that context." "The idea that we have a one-dimensional policy is just a caricature," said Richard N. Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning, noting that the United States has given a large amount of aid to Egypt. The key to economic development is not aid but "policies, laws and educational systems that encourage investment," he said. The relatively small amounts of aid and other forms of American "soft power" such as educational and cultural exchanges, is particularly evident in the Arab and Muslim world, where U.S. military might is a source of fear and resentment. Although failing to develop support among populations of many nations of the Muslim world, the United States has become even more closely identified with autocratic regimes in the region. American diplomats continue to stress the importance of human rights in speaking to leaders of the region, but that has assumed a lower priority in recent months. Popular resentment of the United States has been fed by the Bush administration's refusal to assume a stronger leadership role in trying to curb escalating Israeli-Palestinian violence, critics say. A senior administration official acknowledged that if the conflict continues to rage when the United States is about to launch military action against Iraq, "it could make it difficult to get the support we want and increase the chances of unrest" in the Arab world. But if Bush decides to attack Iraq, the official predicted, the administration will be able to bring about "significant regional support." Although such predictions are premature, the war on terrorism has paid surprising dividends for American foreign policy: a much closer relationship with Russia, an improved relationship with China and a revival of strong ties with Pakistan. In addition, a number of countries have taken actions to weaken terrorist cells and disrupt their finances. "Essentially, the world is a less congenial place for terrorists," Haass said. For American diplomats, there's another significant result of the terrorist attacks, he added: an increased interest in foreign policy. That might translate into a greater willingness to spend money overseas and tolerate American casualties. "Probably the biggest single change is not in the world but in American attitudes towards involvement in the world," Haass said. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
