|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
International Response: Debate Over Pre-Emptive War Sharpens as Iraq Showdown Nears By Bryan Bender Australian Prime Minister John Howard, saying for the first time that his country may have to resort to pre-emptive military action against terrorists, called on the international community to consider adjusting traditional legal norms to allow for pre-emptive action in the face of potentially catastrophic attacks. As the United States prepares for a possible military invasion of Iraq, however, there is no international consensus on the circumstances under which it would be acceptable for one nation to attack another believed to be harboring terrorists or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The stormy reaction from Asian countries to Howard’s comments underscored the widespread disdain of such a policy. Pre-empting an imminent and potentially catastrophic terrorist attack — if it can be known in advance, however unlikely — is widely considered the moral responsibility of any nation seeking to defend its citizens. Yet the Bush administration has sought to expand the conditions that would justify an offensive — to include, for example, the right to defuse a threat before it has fully materialized — but its efforts have instead ignited worldwide opposition and even outrage at what is viewed as U.S. disregard for international law, according to diplomats and foreign policy experts. They are urging the Bush administration and its allies to more clearly delineate the special circumstances under which they would resort to pre-emptive or preventive attacks. They contend that the policy is confusing and that by talking too openly about it the United States has attracted unnecessary criticism. They also warn that the rhetoric could force potential enemies to hide their capabilities or use them before losing them. Seeking International Acceptance The doctrine of pre-emption, as outlined in the National Security Strategy of the United States published in September, is gaining little support even as al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups continue to mount successful attacks in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and East Africa and their appetite for chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons remains unabated. Suspicion that the policy is being used as a cover for Washington to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has fed those who oppose the new U.S. policy. Nevertheless, Howard said this week that the defining characteristic of national security in the past — that nations were threatened primarily by other nations — has been replaced by the threat of subnational actors such as terrorist groups that have the potential to cause devastating damage and are unlikely to be deterred by the threat of massive retaliation. “That’s different now,” Howard said Dec. 1, according to the Australian Associated Press. “What you’re getting is nonstate terrorism which is just as devastating and potentially even more so,” Howard said. “All I’m saying, I think many people are saying, is that maybe the body of international law has to catch up with the new reality,” he added. Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill, in a speech last week, called for reforming the U.N. charter to reflect the threats of a new era. “In a world of spreading terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the international community should review the limits of self-defense and the right of national governments to take pre-emptive action,” he said at the University of Adelaide. Australia was one of the first and only countries to applaud the new U.S. security strategy when it was first announced, but Canberra has taken on an even more hawkish stance in the wake of the terrorist bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, in October that killed dozens of Australians. “Article 51 of the U.N. Charter permits the use of self-defense if a criminal attack occurs,” Hill said. “But this has not settled the debate between those who adopt a literal interpretation and those who argue that contemporary reality demands a more liberal interpretation.” Different Interpretations While welcomed by U.S. President George W. Bush, Howard’s statements were quickly criticized by several of Australia’s Asian neighbors. Malaysia threatened to pull out of its counterterrorism pact with Australia and the Philippines said it would reconsider plans to ink a similar agreement. “I say it is an act of arrogance that disregards the right of nations, and prejudices our friendly ties,” Philippine Vice President Teofisto Guingona said today. Added Foreign Secretary Blas Ople, “This proposal has no ghost of a chance to be supported by the U.N. General Assembly.” Indonesia, which has been accused in recent weeks of dragging its feet on the Bali investigation, also criticized Howard. Outside of Asia, opposition to the pre-emption doctrine is even more widespread. With the exception of Russia and the United Kingdom, most European countries have been lukewarm at best to the new Bush, and now Howard, doctrine. In Canberra, opposition Labor Party leader Simon Crean said, “The Australian people are rightly entitled to be worried that these dangerous and reckless statements are placing us in danger.” Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer tried to clarify Australia’s position in a meeting yesterday with the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but the government refused to back away from the policy. “I said what I said very carefully,” Howard insisted earlier today, “I have been invited to [retract the policy statement] and I have declined that invitation. You only apologize if you have something to apologize for.” He said he was only maintaining the principle of self-defense. Pre-emption vs. Prevention Still, how to define the parameters of pre-emption has been one of the major points of contention. On the one hand, its application to terrorists such as the al-Qaeda network appears to be largely accepted because pre-emption can be the only way to stop terrorists from launching attacks, which are difficult to detect in advance. Given the stealthy nature of terrorist groups, it is unlikely that that a specific attack can be identified in advance and thus thwarted by pre-emptive action. Therefore, terrorists’ past practices and public statements provide sufficient rationale to use force on foreign soil to prevent attacks. The Bush concept, however, “is not limited to the traditional definition of pre-emption — striking an enemy as it prepares an attack — but also includes prevention — striking an enemy before it is even in a position to attack,” according to a forthcoming report by the Brookings Institution’s James Steinberg, former U.S. deputy national security advisor, and Senior Fellows Michael O’Hanlon and Susan Rice. Prevention, they said, is a far less accepted concept of international law. “The idea principally appears to be directed at terrorist groups as well as extremist or ‘rogue’ nation states,” according to the Brookings study. “The rationale for the shift appears to be twofold: to deal with actors who cannot be reliably deterred, and to address the enormous threat posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction.” They added, “It also allows the administration to argue that its focus on Iraq is part of a broader security concept and does not represent preoccupation with a specific regime.” Policy Risks It may not work though, according to experts and former government officials. Without clarifying the policies of pre-emptive and preventive war, the new U.S. security strategy could do more harm than good — particularly if the United States goes ahead with a military assault on Iraq. “Other states also might copy the dangerous American example,” Alan Kuperman, assistant professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, wrote Tuesday in USA Today. For example, “The Indian government long has considered attacking Pakistan’s small nuclear force pre-emptively, but has been dissuaded at least in part by U.S. exhortations and fear of international condemnation. Bush’s new policy would undercut” such diplomatic efforts in the future. “Bush imagines that by smashing Iraq, the U.S.A. will coerce other aspirants to regional power to abandon their ambitions,” he wrote. “Rome had similar visions, as has every momentary hegemony. Nearly all undermined their power by abusing it in that manner.” An attack on Iraq “could encourage some to acquire weapons of mass destruction as their best guarantee against a U.S. attack,” Kuperman wrote. The Brookings report echoes some of those concerns. “Elevating the pre-emptive option to a policy doctrine has serious negative consequences,” it says. “For one, it reinforces the image of the United States as too quick to use military force and to do so outside the bounds of international law and legitimacy. This will make it more difficult for the United States to gain international support for its use of force, and over the long term, may lead others to resist U.S. foreign policy goals more broadly, including efforts to fight terrorism. “Elevating pre-emption to the level of a formal doctrine may also increase the administration’s inclination to reach for the military lever quickly, when other tools still have a good chance of working,” the report concludes. In being too public about their intentions, moreover, the United States and its allies might make their job harder by giving potential enemies forewarning of what is to come. “I don’t think it should be an announced centerpiece of national strategy,” former U.S. Senator Gary Hart told Global Security Newswire this week. “Advocating pre-emption warns potential enemies to hide the very assets we might wish to take pre-emptive action against, or to otherwise prepare responses and defenses,” according to the Brookings experts. “In this tactical sense, talking too openly about pre-emption reduces its likely utility, if and when it is employed. “Finally, advocating pre-emption may well embolden other countries that would like to justify attacks on their enemies as pre-emptive in nature.” Building a Consensus If there is a growing consensus regarding the pre-emption it is that there is a lack of one and the Bush administration needs to do a better job of clarifying its new and potentially destabilizing policy. Some say it Washington must lay out a high threshold for taking pre-emptive or preventive action. “Recent history has been that you don’t attack, even though threatened, until attacked,” Hart said. “The [new] standard must be opponents with weapons of mass destruction, the ability to delivery them and intent to use them. Those are pretty high standards to meet,” he said Tuesday. In Iraq, “the first has been clearly met, but not the second or third.” Others say the policy should be clearly reserved only for terrorists and their sponsors. “Less clear is the need for an expanded approach with respect to rogue states,” according to the Brookings report. “One problem is that the strategy fails to distinguish between eliminating dangerous capabilities and overthrowing dangerous regimes. Pursuing regime change has broad consequences for the overall stability of the international system and is less widely accepted as a legitimate objective than eliminating weapons of mass destruction.” Regime change cannot be ruled out, but global public opinion must take into account that is not the primary objective of the new policy, the report says. “On balance, policy should not rule out regime change in extreme cases, but it should only be considered when there are no alternative means of eliminating unusually dangerous capabilities,” the report adds. The Brookings report concludes, “Given that the doctrine has now been promulgated, the Bush administration should clarify and limit the conditions under which it might be applied.” The most vocal proponents of the new U.S. policy also see the lack of international consensus. “The issues and uncertainty remain unresolved,” said Hill, the Australian defense minister, in his speech last week. “Some would argue that it is time for a new and distinct doctrine of pre-emptive action to avert a threat. A better outcome might be for the international community to seek an agreement on the ambit of the right to self-defense better suited to contemporary realities.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
