Financial Times Editorial - Bush changes style more than substance
Bush changes style more than substance
Published: March 17 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 17 2006 02:00. Copyright by The Financial Times
Whether we should interpret the US National Security Strategy that President George W. Bush unveiled yesterday as shifting away from its ground-breaking and controversial forerunner of 2002 or merely as restating it in a more diplomatic form is open to question. Certainly the language has softened. The 2002 document starkly set out Mr Bush's doctrine of military pre-emption against hostile regimes whether they were harbouring terrorist groups or developing weapons of mass destruction. The US would "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary" in pursuit of national security, it said.
This time round the Bush administration strikes a more positive tone about the world with a clear emphasis on "the path of confidence" over "the path of fear". Central to this is the aim of spreading democracy as the most effective way of defeating both terrorism and pressurising rogue regimes to change their ways. In marked contrast to 2002, Mr Bush's strategy sounds almost cheerful about how much of this America can achieve by co-operating with the international community using good old-fashioned diplomacy.
Yet context is everything. The original Bush doctrine was published within a year of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and just seven months before Mr Bush launched the US-led invasion of Iraq. Much of the rationale for the 2002 strategy was to prepare US and global public opinion for America's coming war with Saddam Hussein, whether it got approval from the United Nations or not. Today, Washington's immediate priorities are different. Having embarrassingly failed to discover any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, America's overriding goal is for a stable democracy to take root there. In this, the US needs all the diplomatic help it can get.
America also needs the continued help of others to overcome its second biggest challenge today - forcing neighbouring Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. It is on Iran that the document comes closest to the language it used for Iraq in 2002. Described as an "ally of terror" and an "enemy of freedom", Iran is presented as the "single country" that most threatens America's goals - undermining stability in Iraq, working against democracy in the Middle East, funding terrorist groups abroad and developing weapons of mass destruction.
In spite of the reluctance of Russia and China to agree to a strongly worded warning at the UN, Washington is still investing in diplomacy. But hope of a peaceful resolution is diminishing. This month Dick Cheney, US vice-president, threatened "meaningful consequences" if Iran refused to comply with America's demands. Although proclaimed less brazenly than in 2002, yesterday's document subtracts nothing from Washington's willingness to consider the military option: "The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same."
That democracy is a goal worth pursuing around the world is indisputable. But as a tactic towards Iran, Washington's increasingly unsubtle hints of regime change are more likely to fuel defiance than compliance. It seems that Mr Bush has not fully digested the lessons of Iraq. Meanwhile, Washington's response to the recent election victories of Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Islamists in Iraq suggests a view of democracy less principled than it sounds. Mr Bush's latest strategic thinking does little to persuade us he has successfully resolved the contradictions of the last four years.
Published: March 17 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 17 2006 02:00. Copyright by The Financial Times
Whether we should interpret the US National Security Strategy that President George W. Bush unveiled yesterday as shifting away from its ground-breaking and controversial forerunner of 2002 or merely as restating it in a more diplomatic form is open to question. Certainly the language has softened. The 2002 document starkly set out Mr Bush's doctrine of military pre-emption against hostile regimes whether they were harbouring terrorist groups or developing weapons of mass destruction. The US would "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary" in pursuit of national security, it said.
This time round the Bush administration strikes a more positive tone about the world with a clear emphasis on "the path of confidence" over "the path of fear". Central to this is the aim of spreading democracy as the most effective way of defeating both terrorism and pressurising rogue regimes to change their ways. In marked contrast to 2002, Mr Bush's strategy sounds almost cheerful about how much of this America can achieve by co-operating with the international community using good old-fashioned diplomacy.
Yet context is everything. The original Bush doctrine was published within a year of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and just seven months before Mr Bush launched the US-led invasion of Iraq. Much of the rationale for the 2002 strategy was to prepare US and global public opinion for America's coming war with Saddam Hussein, whether it got approval from the United Nations or not. Today, Washington's immediate priorities are different. Having embarrassingly failed to discover any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, America's overriding goal is for a stable democracy to take root there. In this, the US needs all the diplomatic help it can get.
America also needs the continued help of others to overcome its second biggest challenge today - forcing neighbouring Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. It is on Iran that the document comes closest to the language it used for Iraq in 2002. Described as an "ally of terror" and an "enemy of freedom", Iran is presented as the "single country" that most threatens America's goals - undermining stability in Iraq, working against democracy in the Middle East, funding terrorist groups abroad and developing weapons of mass destruction.
In spite of the reluctance of Russia and China to agree to a strongly worded warning at the UN, Washington is still investing in diplomacy. But hope of a peaceful resolution is diminishing. This month Dick Cheney, US vice-president, threatened "meaningful consequences" if Iran refused to comply with America's demands. Although proclaimed less brazenly than in 2002, yesterday's document subtracts nothing from Washington's willingness to consider the military option: "The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same."
That democracy is a goal worth pursuing around the world is indisputable. But as a tactic towards Iran, Washington's increasingly unsubtle hints of regime change are more likely to fuel defiance than compliance. It seems that Mr Bush has not fully digested the lessons of Iraq. Meanwhile, Washington's response to the recent election victories of Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Islamists in Iraq suggests a view of democracy less principled than it sounds. Mr Bush's latest strategic thinking does little to persuade us he has successfully resolved the contradictions of the last four years.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home