|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Washington Needs New “Strategic Vision,” Senator Says By Mike Nartker The optimism for peace and security generated after the end of the Cold War has not been fully realized, Reed said yesterday at a conference held by the Center for Defense Information and Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The global village still has some very tough neighborhoods,” he said. To counter the growing threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, the United States needs to adopt a new strategic vision that focuses on three areas — pre-emptive action against terrorist groups, the containment and interdiction of WMD proliferation and the encouragement of collective security and arms control agreements, Reed said. Such actions cannot be sustained through a unilateral approach and will need the involvement of U.S. allies, he said. While there has been debate over the necessity of pre-emptive action against Iraq, such a course is needed to defeat the threat of terrorism because it cannot be countered merely by deterrence, Reed said. He noted nostalgia for the Cold War, when the global security environment was akin to a game of checkers, as there were only a few moves each side could play. Now, the current situation, with terrorism a front-line concern, is more similar to a game of chess, where “a pawn can take a king,” Reed said. The Bush administration, however, has gone too far in extending the threat of pre-emptive action to every country the United States has some sort of conflict with, which disrupts the strategy’s usefulness against terrorism, Reed said. He warned that other countries might take a similar approach to the use of pre-emptive action, noting the support Indian officials have offered because of the value of possible pre-emptive action against Pakistan. WMD Proliferation The threat of pre-emptive action could also help increase the risk of WMD proliferation, rather than reduce it, Reed said. For example, North Korea has cited what it perceives as threatening comments by the United States, such as its inclusion in the “axis of evil” as a rationale for the relaunch of its nuclear program. Another proliferation concern is the lack of adequate funding for U.S. nonproliferation programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, Reed said. While such programs were virtually stalled during the first two years of the Bush administration, due to a review and lack of certification, the White House now appears to be taking the issue more seriously and there is an increased momentum, he said (see GSN, Jan. 28). Reed suggested that Bush, as a Republican president, might be able to achieve more success with arms control against a resistant Republican-led Congress, akin to a “Nixon goes to China” moment. A number of Bush appointees, however, seem to view the concept of arms control itself as failed, he said. International Cooperation The United States also needs to work to develop an international consensus to address the threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, which should be done through international organizations, Reed said (see GSN, Feb. 21). While the Bush administration, has shown an “ideological distrust” of such organizations, it needs to recognize that security requires more collective action and not less, he added. International cooperation is especially needed to address proliferation concerns, Reed said. He noted that arms control treaties often use measures such as sanctions, which would require international cooperation for enforcement, as a method of enforcing compliance. The Bush administration has also made it more difficult to obtain international cooperation and support through its penchant for abandoning treaties, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Reed said (see GSN, June 13, 2002). Such a stance sends a signal to the international community that the United States does not need its assistance, when in fact, it should be asking for it, he said. The apparent lack of respect for treaties also damages U.S. credibility when Washington is attempting to persuade other countries to abide by such agreements, Reed said. For example, the United States lacks credibility in attempting to convince India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons, when it has itself failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said (see GSN, Feb. 21).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
