|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Bush Reasserts Pre-Emptive Doctrine in Face of Domestic, International Criticism By David Ruppe The Bush administration has persistently pushed the policy despite recent international criticism that the policy is destabilizing and undermines the rule of law, as well as domestic concern that the administration is considering applying the doctrine beyond Iraq. Bush restated the policy Thursday in a speech before families of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, in North Carolina. “By our actions, we serve a great and just cause. We will remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of mass murderers. Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another September the 11th, this time perhaps with chemical or biological or nuclear terror,” he said. Bush also argued the approach in a major address just prior to the war, saying, “The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or one day nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. “The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it,” he said. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as such states, and labeled them an “axis of evil.” A senior administration official in May last year also identified Cuba, Libya and Syria as “other rogue states,” and alleged they also support terrorism and are developing weapons of mass destruction, though he did not directly threaten them (see related GSN story, today). International Protest A number of countries directly and indirectly criticized the U.S. approach at a meeting of the U.N. Disarmament Commission last week in New York. “We stress the special importance of refraining from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” Indonesian Ambassador Mochammad Hidayat said, speaking on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement. Countries that appear to believe they could be targets of the doctrine levied the most direct criticism. Cuba and North Korea, for instance, criticized the United States by name, with North Korea saying it fears a pending attack by the United States, calling the war on Iraq “arrogant and outrageous” behavior and the aim to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “typical state terrorism.” Iran did not identify the United States directly, according to a U.N. summary of the speech, but instead criticized the “unilateral” policies of “one powerful state,” which it said would undermine nonproliferation efforts such as multilateral agreements. “Despite achievements in disarmament, the emergence of unilateralism had reversed the hopes such achievements had encouraged. Setbacks began when one nuclear-weapon state questioned many previous undertakings and issued a new doctrine on the first use of nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attacks,” the U.N. summary said, describing Iran’s statement. The Russian representative called the attack on Iraq a political mistake and said the unilateral use of military force in contravention of the U.N. Charter and in violation of the principle of international law could undermine the system of international security and encourage individual countries to possess weapons of mass destruction, according to a U.N. summary. Leaders from France and Germany also have criticized the approach, arguing for nonmilitary strategies for dealing with proliferant states. “I can’t and don’t want to imagine that we are facing a series of disarmament wars. Rather we should be making sure that the instruments for peaceful solutions, above all the U.N., are developed further,” German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said in a March 23 interview. Domestic Criticism of the Doctrine Recent criticism of the doctrine in the United States has come from Democratic presidential candidates Senator John Kerry (Mass.) and New Hampshire Governor Howard Dean, as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). “I believe the Bush administration’s blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world,” Kerry said in a January speech. Kerry drew fire from U.S. conservatives last week after calling for “a regime change in the United States,” while criticizing the administration for going to war without explicit U.N. Security Council approval. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently called for a congressional review of the doctrine after the conflict with Iraq is ended. The doctrine has lately received significant Republican support by such leaders as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.). “We’re talking about a concept of eliminating threats, threats that we know are real, that are increasing over time, that apply throughout the world,” said Frist, Bush’s reputed top advocate on the Hill, in a recent interview with the BBC. However, while Bush and others in the administration have frequently evoked the Bush Doctrine, suggesting it might guide U.S. policy, some conservatives have argued that applying the doctrine to justify using force beyond Iraq might be impractical. “Yes, they have a broad doctrine. … Whether or not and how far one would carry this doctrine to other examples is unclear,” according to Henry Sokolski, a former nonproliferation official with the first Bush administration. He said it is unlikely preventive force would be used on North Korea, which the administration believes to have nuclear weapons. “I don’t think at the end of the day you are going to see more fighting than you have already seen. I think that has to do with both the logic and logistics of what they’re up against. When a country gets as far along [in developing nuclear weapons] as Iran and North Korea have, your choices are much, much less. The reason we went into Iraq is because we could,” he said. Sokolski said administration officials might be divided over applying the doctrine to North Korea, saying, “there are just as many [administration] speeches where they have said this case is different, we are not going to use military force in this case, and they have said it explicitly, at the level of [national security adviser] Condoleezza Rice, in print and on TV.” Secretary of State Colin Powell also has disputed the notion the administration is aiming to apply the doctrine to North Korea. “I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say that now this one’s pocketed, on to the next place,” he said, as reported in a recent New York Times article. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, considered a leading advocate of the doctrine, said yesterday the Bush administration would like to bring change to a number of other countries, but said military action would not necessarily be the primary tool in future cases. “We’d like to see change in a lot of places, but it’s going to come about by different means in different places,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “The circumstances in North Korea are very, very different from the circumstances in Iraq. In even Iran, which is a next-door neighbor, the circumstances are different,” Wolfowitz said. To sustain international cooperation for U.S. efforts to combat terrorists, “it’s important ... that we make it clear that the military is not the only instrument — it isn’t even necessarily the main instrument,” he said. Threatened Force Sokolski said that by continuing to invoke the doctrine without specifying future targets, the administration may be hoping to discourage countries from pursuing weapons of mass destruction and aligning with terrorists, while not necessarily obligating a U.S. attack. “They want people who are supporting terrorism and who are building weapons of mass destruction that are hostile to think twice about whether or not that is a smart security move,” he said. Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, however, contends that policy will only drive declared rogue countries and others to accelerate their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. “The idea is that now North Korea and Iran have a greater interest in acquiring nuclear weapons to deter us, as do other countries, so that they can then implement their national security objectives independent of the United States,” he said. “That includes not just rogue nations, but allies, such as Japan or Brazil,” Cirincione said, adding that Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said he wants to reconsider his country’s position relative to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea, in a statement yesterday reported in the Washington Post, said it needs a “tremendous military deterrent force” to prevent what it believes is an eventual U.S. attack (see related GSN story, today). Wolfowitz Sunday argued the potential for U.S. intervention could have the opposite effect on global proliferation. “A lot of countries, including Syria, will eventually get the message from this [the Iraq conflict] that it’s much better to come to terms peacefully with the international community, to not acquire these weapons of mass destruction, to not use terrorism as an instrument of national policy, and to take care of your own people,” he said. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton echoed Wolfowitz’s statements over the weekend. “We are hoping that the elimination of the dictatorial regime of [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein and the elimination of all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would be important lessons to other countries in the region, particularly Syria, Libya and Iran, that the cost of their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially quite high,” Bolton said in an interview with U.S.-funded Radio Sawa, according to United Press International.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
