-Caveat Lector-
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Andras Riedlmayer
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: We'll strike first
The Boston Globe's Washington correspondent Robert Schlesinger examines
the future of war, international law and diplomacy in the age of the
"Bush doctrine."
"With asymmetric warfare, there are no rules," [John] Hulsman
[research fellow in European affairs at the Heritage Foundation
and a supporter of the new doctrine] said. [...]
"The framework of international laws is still relevant, but the
fine print is no longer applicable,'' said Paul Williams, a professor
of law and international relations at American University and a
former State Department lawyer.
Andras Riedlmayer
========================================
The Boston Sunday Globe
June 30, 2002
We'll strike first
Under the emerging Bush doctrine, the US could launch preemptive attacks
against suspect nations at will, and in so doing override half a century
of international accords
By Robert Schlesinger
WASHINGTON -- As president, George H. W. Bush presided over the end
of the Cold War and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Now his son, President
George W. Bush, is preparing to meet the threats of a new century with a
national defense policy that would supplant the system of international
laws and compacts in place for more than 50 years.
The new strategic doctrine to guide US foreign policy will call for
unilateral preemptive action against perceived threats and enemies and
will not, as in the Cold War, rely almost exclusively on multilateral
cooperation and massive retaliation for deterrence and containment.
''New threats also require new thinking,'' Bush said, when first
articulating the emerging policy earlier this month at graduation
ceremonies at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. ''If we
wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.''
The newly-articulated doctrine of preemptive solo action - ''the Bush
doctrine,'' as the president called it last week - marks a significant
break from the US posture of the latter half of the 20th century that
was, in the hair-trigger days of confrontation with a robust Soviet rival,
of necessity more cautious and defensive. Specialists in international
relations, whether they support the policy or find it troubling, agree
that such a break is likely to force a reordering of the international
system.
''The framework of international laws is still relevant, but the
fine print is no longer applicable,'' said Paul Williams, a professor
of law and international relations at American University and a former
State Department lawyer.
For, while Bush's speech was widely perceived as a spade's stroke in
laying the groundwork for US military action against Iraq, it is also
the expression of a broader strategic vision that puts a lower premium
on the complex web of treaties and multilateral organizations - the
North American Treaty Organization, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization,
the Organization of American States - that was put in place in the
post-World War II era to fence in China and the Soviet Union and contain
communist aggression.
''How does it fit into multilateral institutions? It doesn't,''
said Joseph Cirincione, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. ''There's no room for such a doctrine in NATO, the
UN, because our alliance structures have been defensive. It assumes
that we do not strike first, we are not the attackers.''
It was more than mere doctrine, it was part of the American creed for
the World War II generation: We were the good guys, and the good guys
didn't launch surprise attacks like the enemy, whether it was the Japanese
strike at Pearl Harbor, the Italian incursion into Ethiopia, or the Nazi
invasion of Poland. And though the United States later reserved the right
to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a Cold War crisis, it was in
the context of defending allies from foreign armies.
But John Hulsman, a research fellow in European affairs at the
Heritage Foundation and a supporter of the new doctrine, said that a
reordering of US policies and international institutions is necessary,
given new circumstances. ''Will this doctrine create controversy for
the international institutions? Sure,'' Hulsman said. ''It won't
destroy our multilateral relations, but it will change them. It will
codify the change that is already occurring within them.''
Many foreign relations specialists fear that preemption could backfire
by stirring resentment among other nations, setting a dangerous example
for other states, and fundamentally undermining the concept of national
sovereignty in place since the 17th century.
For proponents of preemptive action, it is a logical course to navigate
in a world where the Cold War's rules are no longer relevant, where the
enemy is a shadowy bunch that can strike from the other side of the world
by raising money in one group of nations, plotting the terrorist act and
training troops in another country, launching the strike from a US ally,
and using America's own airliners as weapons.
''With asymmetric warfare, there are no rules,'' Hulsman said.
''You have to move quicker, you have to be more aggressive to protect
your people.''
The concept of preemptive action against an imminent threat is not new.
It dates back at least as far as the mid-19th century when British troops
attacked and sank an American ship that was aiding Canadian rebels. Israel
has employed preemptive action on several occasions, starting the 1967 war
against its Arab neighbors, bombing an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981 to
prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons, and invading Lebanon
in 1982.
''There's a reason Israel does it, and nobody else does,'' Williams
warned. ''They've had very mixed results.''
But there is a significant difference between Israel and the world's
lone remaining superpower, and between using preemption as an occasional
tool or as a major component of stated policy.
International specialists say one major problem is the new doctrine's
potential to undermine the concept of national sovereignty, which has
usually served to restrain countries from acting or meddling in the
internal affairs of other states, and instead to respect the concept
of boundaries.
''Most nations feel that boundary is an important one, because if
sheer military power allows any country to override the legal territorial
sovereignty of national governments, then you've put at risk the basic
ordering of international politics,'' said Stephen Cimbala, a professor
of political science at Penn State University. ''Sovereignty's a valid
legal principle to continue to uphold, and we should uphold that principle
even while making an exception.''
Several scholars saw the roots of this kind of preemptive action
in the US military intervention into Kosovo under the Clinton
administration - action that was taken without UN approval and in
apparent contravention of international laws. ''Everyone decided it
was illegal to have an air war in Kosovo, but it was the right thing,''
Williams said.
Foreign relations specialists said great danger lies in the United
States taking similar actions without broad international support.
''Preemptive strikes, without some sort of legitimating theory behind
them, go against the fundamental precept of the 20th century, which is
that there were limits on the use of force,'' said Esther Brimmer,
director of research for the Center for Transatlantic Relations at
Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
What if, some specialists said, China cited the policy to attack
Taiwan? Or India used it as a basis for an attack against Pakistan?
''If other countries were to adopt a similar doctrine, I can't picture
our government really sitting still for it,'' said Bill Hartung, a senior
research fellow at the World Policy Institute. Implicit in the new policy,
he said, ''is the concept that the United States can set its own rules
because it's powerful enough.''
One option for the United States would be to make clear that only
the remaining superpower is in a position to take unilateral action.
''There's no doubt that the US is the ordering power in the world.
Whether we like it or not, that's a fact,'' said Hulsman of the
Heritage Foundation. ''As the ordering power, the United States
can say we will do things that will promote general global stability.
It isn't fair, but it's not a debating society.''
Nevertheless, invoking America's preeminent position in the world
holds dangers. Such a course could risk alienating allies and pushing
other states further into enemy camps. ''You really cannot do this stuff
by yourself. As strong as our military capability is, we depend on
other countries for vital intelligence,'' said Cimbala. ''There is
just not a successful go-it-alone policy out there.''
Administration officials say that preemptive action does not
necessarily mean direct military intervention. It could involve a mix
of economic sanctions, clandestine intelligence operations, blockades,
or embargoes. Nor, White House officials say, does the current rethinking
mean that the United States will always prefer to act unilaterally, and
the officials point to another section of Bush's West Point speech,
where he spoke of the great nations of the world working together.
''We must build strong and great power relations when times are good
to help manage crisis when times are bad,'' Bush said. ''America needs
partners to preserve the peace, and we will work with every nation
that has this noble goal.''
Bush reiterated the point Wednesday while appearing with British
Prime Minister Tony Blair at an economic summit in Canada.
''I said we'd use all resources, all available resources, to fight off
terror,'' Bush said. ''And that includes working with our friends and
allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure to convince those
that think they can traffic in terror that they're going to face a
mighty coalition. And sometimes we'll use military force, and sometimes
we won't.''
This story ran on page H1 of the Boston Globe on 6/30/2002.
<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
