|
The
Bush Doctrine: A Lesson in the Arrogance of Power
America’s
nascent neoimperial grand strategy threatens to rend the fabric of
the international community and political partnerships… It is an
approach fraught with peril and likely to fail. It is not only
politically unsustainable but diplomatically harmful. And if history
is a guide, it will trigger antagonism and resistance that will
leave America in a more hostile and divided world.1
(John Ikenberry – Professor of Geopolitics, Georgetown University)
In
a new statement of US strategic priorities, President Bush declared
Friday, September 20, that the US must maintain unchallenged
military superiority to win the battle against “terrorism” and
weapons of mass destruction that now pose the greatest threats to US
national security.
In
a detailed, 31-page document, titled “The National Security
Strategy of the United States of America,” President Bush
officially laid to rest post-World War II strategic concepts and
doctrines, and initiated a dramatic revision of US national security
policy that is unparalleled in half a century. The report is the
first Bush issued under a 1986 law requiring the president to
present Congress with an annual strategic assessment.2
In
historical retrospect, every US administration since World War II
focused on two main strategies: “a realist policy organized around
containment, deterrence and maintaining a global balance of power;
and a more liberal, internationalist policy based on constructing a
set of multilateral institutions and alliances to promote free
trade, open economies and democratic values.”3
Instead,
the new Bush doctrine abandons both strategies at the same time and
grants the US a unilateral, messianic, imperial role in world
politics and adopts a doctrine of preemption against potential
threats and adversaries. In other words, the notions found in the
report “form a neoimperial vision in which the United States
arrogates to itself the global role of setting standards,
determining threats, using force, and meting out justice.”4
Unilateral
Messianism
With
the end of the Cold War, the notion of multilateralism and
collective security became a cornerstone of US foreign policy. This
was clearly manifested in American alliance-building efforts that
preceded the 1991 Gulf War, and the necessity that states join in an
international coalition against any state deemed a threat to
international stability. The end of the Cold War also raised hopes
that the role of the United Nations would be augmented and allowed
to thrive in pursuing international justice.5
On
the contrary, the new Bush doctrine tends to belittle the importance
of multilateralism and discredit collective security, suggesting
that “while the United States will constantly strive to enlist the
support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act
alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting
preemptively.”6
Thus,
rather than working with the “international community,” the US
can, at its own discretion, work independently of it.
Moreover,
the new strategy begins with a fundamental commitment to maintaining
a unipolar world in which the US should reign unchallenged. After
mentioning some common interests between the US and other great
powers, the Bush doctrine stipulates that the US “will strongly
resist aggression from other great powers – even as we welcome
their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural
advancement.”7 The report
illustrates vividly the concept of Manifest Destiny, the notion that
the US was ordained to assume a leading role in world affairs as a
result of its unique position of power:
The
United States possesses unprecedented – and unequaled – strength
and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of
liberty, and the value of free society, this position comes with
unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The
great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of
power that favors freedom.8
In
addition, the doctrine is fraught with references that illustrate
President Bush’s belief in historical determinism, discrediting
other developmental models and insisting that the American model
represents the “single sustainable model for national success:
freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.”9
The
new doctrine insists that every nation’s strategic importance is
not derived from its geopolitical position or its political and
economic status in the international hierarchy of states, but rather
from its ability to adhere to the American model of progress or its
ability to undertake the responsibilities set forth by President
Bush in his so-called “war on terrorism”:
Chinese
leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of
national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political
freedom is the only source of national greatness… the United
States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important
responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight
terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help
prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.10
[Italics added]
The
Bush Doctrine and the Muslim World
The
Bush doctrine signifies the beginning of a dangerous chapter in the
relationship between the US and the Muslim world. In comparison to
other regions, the Muslim world seemed to have occupied top priority
for the Bush administration. The report was colored by the thinking
of US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who has spoken in
the past of America’s “imperial but not imperialist”
responsibilities in the world.11
She has also argued for the necessity of the so-called “march of
freedom in the Muslim world.”12
In
addition, right-wing power players such as both Rumsfeld and Cheney
had a critical role in shaping the general policies of the Bush
administration. They are mainly radical conservatives with close
ties to Jewish neoconservatives, the Likud Party in Israel, and
leaders of the Christian right.13
The
report contains many clauses that indicate the new American
administration’s intention of restructuring the future of the
Muslim world and supporting passive or so-called “moderate” and
“modern” forces that work for US interests. The Bush
administration does not seem to grasp the complexity of US-Islamic
relationships, nor does it acknowledge the injustices that were
created by US foreign policy over the decades. Rather than seeking
to address Muslim grievances, President Bush blames the Muslim world
for not conforming to American ideals, and seeks to manipulate
forces within the Muslim world for his own purposes. The Bush
doctrine suggests that:
The
war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however,
reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of
the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area
where America must excel… We will also wage a war of ideas to win
the battle against international terrorism… This includes
supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim
world.”14 [Italics added]
Concepts
such as “martyrdom” and “jihad” – integral parts of the
Islamic belief system – are rebuked in the new doctrine. Rather
than seeking to solve the tensions that lead many Muslim youth to
sacrifice their lives, the report criticized those “so-called
soldiers [who] seek martyrdom in death.”15
In
reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all previous
agreements between both sides, UN resolutions, and the concept of
“land for peace,” were totally ignored. The report simply
legitimizes Israel’s formula: “security for peace” and makes
the establishment of a Palestinian state conditional on meeting a
list of Israeli requirements: “If Palestinians embrace democracy,
and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror,
they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian
state.”16
As
for Israeli obligations, the report simply calls upon Israel to
withdraw to positions held prior to September 28th, 2000, and stop
building new settlements, but only after there is progress towards
“security.” The importance of Palestine is only viewed from the
Zionist prism, stemming from “America’s close relationship with
the state of Israel… and because of that region’s importance to
the global priorities of the United States.”17
Israeli occupation is not seen as a crime in its own right, but
rather because it “threatens Israel’s identity and democracy.”18
The
new Bush doctrine is bound to bring the clash of civilizations
closer to materialization in the near future. It has made many
Islamic societies demonized and loathed in the West, and especially
in the United States. Iraq, Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria,
are all countries directly targeted for some form of regime or
societal change under the new strategy. In addition, most of the
wars going on around the world today involve some Muslim population
seeking independence, on one hand, and the US and/or one of its
allies on the other. This is true from Chechnya in Russia, through
Israeli-occupied Palestine to the Basilan Island in the Philippines,
where local troops and American special forces are chasing a couple
of hundred Islamic guerrillas.19
The
Consequences
Wars
are major events that lead to the transformation of international
politics.20 Certainly,
America’s so-called “war against terrorism” has resulted in
major conceptual and strategic changes in international relations.
However, what the newly released Bush doctrine failed to grasp are
some of the more important lessons of September 11. A key surprise
of that event was that the “impregnability of the American
territory was a myth and that massive military spending was not
enough to shelter the nation from its enemies.”21
The
Bush doctrine, nevertheless, pushes for a heightened American
militarism worldwide and calls for an increase in defensive
capabilities to even higher levels. Spending more money on the tools
and approaches that did not work on September 11 is certainly a
surprise.22
Another
lesson that the US must learn is that the most important aspect of
public diplomacy (propaganda to win over the hearts and minds of
reluctant Muslims) is public perception. Propaganda will not
persuade populations in reluctant countries to support war, as long
as Western motivations are seen as being imperial or
self-interested. Post-September 11 public diplomacy has failed to
deliver information convincingly, since there is no attempt to
engage in dialogue or listen.23
Successful “public diplomacy – should be about building
relationships, starting from understanding other countries’ needs,
cultures, and peoples and then looking for areas to make common
cause.”24
The
current US administration has demonstrated that it values coercion
above everything else, and hence people in the Islamic world will
never be responsive to messages emanating from the American
propaganda machinery. On the contrary, they will legitimately feel
that they are targeted as potential terrorists, as opposed to
reasonable individuals.25 This
would definitely lead to a popular backlash in the Muslim world
that, on the long run, would not be favorable to the US.
In
addition, the doctrine of preemptive action poses a significant
problem. Once the US has legitimized such a concept, nothing will
stop other countries from doing the same. Israel already has a long
history of preemptive attacks against Arab states from the 1967 war
to the 1981 bombing of the Osiraq reactor in Iraq. The new Bush
doctrine will give Israel a free hand in applying preemptive action,
anytime, anywhere, at its own discretion. Other states such as
India, Pakistan, Iran, China or Russia could also be tempted to
attack their adversaries without restraint. This would definitely
usher in an era of unprecedented chaos and hostility, where every
state would take the law in its own hands.
Finally,
the new Bush doctrine is dangerous for the US itself. Once the most
powerful country in the world starts to assume coercive unilateral
control, unconstrained by rules or norms of legitimacy, it risks a
backlash from other great powers who would, at some point, rise up
against the dominant power and work to restructure the system on
more equal terms.26 Moreover,
the classic problem of imperial overstretch comes into mind, where
the costs and obligations become too high for the US to maintain its
unilateral military and economic hegemony throughout the world.27 In other words, the US would have then “spread
itself too thin.”
Kareem
M. Kamel is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo,
Egypt. He has an MA in International Relations and is
specialized in security studies, decision-making, nuclear
politics, Middle East politics and the politics of Islam. He is
currently assistant to the Political Science Department at the
American University in Cairo.
1-
John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign
Affairs (September/October 2002)
2-
Karen De Young and Mike Allen, “Bush Shifts Strategy from
Deterrence to Dominance,” Washington Post September 21st, 2002:
A01.
3-
Jim Lobe, “US and the Triumph of Unilateralism,” Asia
Times
4-
John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign
Affairs (September/October 2002)
5-
Bruce Russett and James S. Sutterlin, “The U.N. in a New World
Order,” in International Politics: Enduring Concepts and
Contemporary Issues (New York: HarperCollins, 1992): 102-11.
6-
“The National Security Strategy of the United States of
America,” The
White House
7-
Ibid.
8-
Ibid.
9-
Ibid.
10-
Ibid.
11-
Peter Beaumont, “Worldview: Now for the Bush Doctrine,” Buzzle.com
September 22nd, 2002
12-
James Harding and Richard Wolffe, “US Will Rebuild Iraq as a
Democracy,” Financial Times September 23rd, 2002.
13-
Jim Lobe, “US and the Triumph of Unilateralism,” Asia
Times September 10th, 2002
14-
“The National Security Strategy of the United States of
America,” The
White House
15-
Ibid.
16-
Ibid.
17-
Ibid.
18-
Ibid.
19-
Richard Gwyn, “A Dangerous Clash of Cultures,” The
Star.com September 10th, 2002
20-
Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981).
21-
Moises Na’im, “Seven Surprises on the First Anniversary of
September 11th,” Foreign
Policy (September/October 2002)
22-
Ibid.
23-
Mark Leonard, “Diplomacy By Other Means,” Foreign
Policy (September/October 2002)
24-
Ibid.
25-
Ibid.
26-
John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign
Affairs (September/October 2002)
27-
Ibid.
|
