Military

September 23, 2002

"BUSH DOCTRINE" VIEWED AS FUNDAMENTAL POLICY SHIFT

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

**  Commentators saw the promulgation of the National Security Strategy as representing a fundamental change in international security policy.

**  Many writers complained that the strategy reflected U.S. unilateralism and worried about the future relevance of the UN, EU and even NATO.

**  Some observers called the new policy of the "preemptive strike" dangerous and unpredictable and worried that the notion would spread.

 

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS

 

'The Bush Doctrine' represents an historic turn in international security policy.  Most writers agreed that the National Security Strategy--or "the Bush Doctrine"-- represented what one termed "a paradigm shift" in postwar security policy.  Some Europeans saw merit in the logic of preemptive strikes:  "The threat against America's national security...has changed," said France's center-right Les Echos.  The new enemy, argued an Italian writer, is "neither rational nor predictable" and thus not controlled by deterrence.  There was less sympathy outside of Europe.  China's official China Daily declared the new strategy part of the Bush administration's desire to consolidate "a unipolar world by maintaining its military superiority."

 

Europeans worry about lost influence; what future for the EU, UN?  Even writers who sympathized with the goals of the strategy warned that the U.S. was "taking the risk of building a fortress and leaving [its] allies behind."  Europeans especially worried about the future relevance of the EU and UN.  Germany's center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine advised Europeans to "build up strength" if they hoped for partnership with the U.S. while Die Welt echoed that Europe has to "make an effort to complement" the U.S. with its own strategic initiatives.  Other papers said the strategy reflected U.S. unilateralism, "cowboy diplomacy" and a "simplified" foreign policy.  Australia's Canberra Times complained that "the U.S. under Bush...has done little to show itself as interested in being a good international citizen."

 

Preemptive strike a 'dangerous' doctrine that can spread unpredictably.  Many writers worried that other countries would adopt the preemptive strike as part of their security policy.  The Netherland's liberal De Volkskrant editorialized that "a world in which the principle of preemptive attack becomes rule rather than exception only becomes more dangerous."  Though agreeing that the U.S. has special responsibilities, the Irish Times intoned:  "That responsibility includes acting in concert with the civilized world."  Russia's reformist Vremya Novostei, possibly with Georgia on its mind, declared that the new U.S. doctrine "would seem [to give] Moscow the right for a resolute struggle against terrorism."

 

EDITOR: Steven Wangsness

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This analysis is based on 40 reports from 23 countries, September 21-23.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Riding The Wave Of Warmongering"

 

The Evening Standard published this account by Alex Brummer (9/23):  "At the West Point army academy in the summer, Bush first laid out a new doctrine for America.  No longer would the regime of 'deterrence and containment' which has kept Saddam Hussein apparently under control since the Gulf War be enough.  Bush told the young military leaders of tomorrow: 'We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.'  America would be prepared to pre-empt future attacks by waging war on those states who threaten her.

 

"This muscular doctrine is now, for the first time, enshrined in America's 'National Security Strategy' just dispatched to Congress.  Bush junior is a President in the Ronald Reagan mold.  He has an instinctive feel for what he believes to be the right course of action.  But his limited strategic experience means that he relies heavily on the defense establishment.  This is now fashioned in his own, right-wing ideological mode.  Cleansed from the upper reaches of power are the multilateralists who dominated during the eight years of Bill Clinton....  In their place are the hawks, who have despised the soft approach to diplomacy ever since the late Richard Nixon courted detente with the Soviet Union three decades ago....  The pro-war propaganda machine is turning the America which shied away from foreign wars in the post-Vietnam decades into a nation ready to assert its stunning military supremacy."

 

"Time For Blair To Look At U.S. And Copy Shamelessly"

 

Fraser Nelson commented in The Scotsman (9/23):  "Last week, Mr. Bush...effectively declared independence from the UN--saying the U.S. will act alone to take out any threat it feels necessary.  Deterrence and containment--the previous foundations of U.S. (and British) strategy--were rejected as invalid for a post-11 September world.  In its place comes pre-emption and the promise to destroy a threat 'before it reaches our borders.'  This, in effect an overt Pax Americana, is what has silenced Bush's critics. To those who accuse him of overriding the UN, he has said: 'Yes, I will not be vetoed by another country.  I will not wait for another 11 September.'  This, pre-emption, is the Bush doctrine--and one of the most significant developments in international relations since the collapse of Communism. The UN's goals are maintained--but its veto on military action is eclipsed.

 

"It will not be long before the Prime Minister is asked where he stands on the Bush doctrine....  So far, he has dodged the issue.  He now has a choice. He can keep dodging it...[or] he can take the problem head-on...[and] say what he believes--that Britain, too, will uphold the overarching UN objectives, but will not accept its veto on action....  Mr. Bush made his doctrine of pre-emption palatable to his opponents by saying that the U.S. has 'unparalleled responsibilities and obligations' and needs to make the world 'not just safer, but better.'  In this, he has beaten a path which Mr. Blair can now follow....  Mr. Bush has told Americans that, in him, Saddam has found a U.S. president who takes him at his deed.  Tony Blair must now say that, in him, Britain has a Prime Minister who will do the same."

 

FRANCE:  "Supremacy According To Bush"

 

Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (9/23):  "Iraq is about to become the first country against which the U.S. will implement its new first-strike doctrine....  The key element in this new strategy is that President Bush has no intention of letting any foreign power catch up with the U.S. in the progress it has achieved since the fall of the Soviet Union....  While this doctrine is not totally new...the fact is that today's world is a different world and that the threat against America's national security has also changed....  Clearly, what President Bush is doing is legitimizing abandoning America's strategy of deterrence and containment....  But in making the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of WMD his administration's priority, President Bush is taking the risk of building a fortress and leaving his allies behind....  Still, President Bush does not count on military force alone in order to implement his strategy.  He is also counting on a new era of world economic growth based on a market economy."

 

"War Solutions"

 

Gilles Delafon in right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche wrote (9/22):  "[Washington's] first-strike doctrine is like a death warrant for the UN....  Europe is keeping quiet....  France has chosen to say that it prefers to concentrate on issues that unite rather than on those that divide.  A position that may well become unsustainable some time soon."

 

GERMANY:  "Complaining Is Not Enough"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger wrote in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/21):  "Bush knows that only very few countries, including the allies, automatically equate U.S. power with global progress.  Otherwise he would not have promised that the United States will not use its power exclusively for its own interests....  It is a worthwhile task...to replace dictators and authoritarian regimes and create open and democratic societies.  Bush's approach will have many critics...because his internationalism will be accompanied by U.S. cooperation with international organizations that, at its best, can be called opportunist, always focused on national interests....  Anyone hoping for partnership must be willing to build up strength.  It is not enough to band together and whine."

 

"The New Bush Doctrine"

 

Right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin editorialized (9/23):  "The 33-page document presented by Bush will affect our thinking about the dangers of the 21st century deeply; it may even turn it upside down.  It is a challenge to all those who share the responsibility for a peaceful world and who do not want to put up with the role of spectator or critic vis-a-vis the United States....  The Bush administration is undertaking a paradigm change in international policy....  All of us are facing a large debate over these issues.  Unless NATO and the EU are to become outdated institutions in matters of security policy, Europe has to make an effort to complement U.S. security policy with strategic initiatives of its own."

 

"Go It Alone"

 

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg observed (9/23):  "One cannot deny the Americans the basic right to preventive strikes.  Such a denial would mean asking the United States to sit tight even if they learned about imminent attacks but had no UN mandate.  Nevertheless, Bush's strategy is dangerous.  Nobody knows whether the United States will act with circumspection....  And there is another crucial point:  Anyone who grants the right to preventive strikes...cannot deny that right to other countries.  That is why the Europeans should try to set up a control mechanism.  They must insist that the Security Council preserve its right to be the only body to authorize military strikes.  An exception can be made only in the case of imminent danger, for which evidence will have to be presented afterwards." 

 

ITALY:  "'Pre-Emptive Attack' Is Now The U.S. Official Doctrine"

 

New York correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa (9/21):  "Deterrence is bound to end up in history books, like all the relics of the Cold War: from now on, the new U.S. defense doctrine will be called pre-emptive strike....  This is a doctrine that was born from September 11, and that seems to have been written exactly to justify the war in Iraq, but it may apply to any country or terrorist organization that threatens U.S. national security, and, therefore, it is likely to have a historical impact that will go well beyond the current crisis."

 

"United Nations Weak, Pre-Emptive Attack Is A Must"

 

Cesare De Carlo comments in La Nazione/Il Resto del Carlino/Il Giorno conservative newspaper syndicate (9/23):  "Bush's doctrine on pre-emptive defense represents a historical turn....  Deterrence was fine when the enemy had a clearly identifiable face, policy, and ideology, when its presence on the territory could be located, when it was predictable and diplomatically reactive....  And when it believed that only nuclear balance would have prevented a holocaust.  In sum, when the enemy accepted the paradox of the equilibrium of terror.  But the new enemy cannot be dissuaded, controlled, and led to negotiate.  It cannot be located, and it is neither rational nor predictable.  It is willing to commit suicide in order to kill.  It is clear that deterrence is useless with such an enemy....  The new Bush doctrine, by consecrating American unilateralism, is pinning the United Nations down to its irrelevance.  Therefore, either the United Nations is re-founded on realistic bases, with a thorough reform of the U.N. Security Council...or it will end up like the League of Nations....  It is not surprising that the failure of multilateralism has produced unilateralism.  The United States can afford that, Europe cannot."

 

"Bush's Iron Fist"

 

Prominent commentator Boris Biancheri wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa (9/22):  "It is not a coincidence that Bush's document ignores the political risks involved in the American strategy, especially regarding Islam--mentioned only marginally in an optimistic fashion.  The document is, instead, consistent, as far as relations of strength are concerned, with the end of the bipolar world, America's position as a lonely superpower, and with its tradition.  This will not prevent serious criticism of the document on the international level, at the United Nations and even among friends and allies.  But it is likely that the majority of Americans will basically and silently agree with it."

 

RUSSIA:  "The U.S. Has Buried Strategy Of Deterrence"

 

Andrei Zlobin wrote in the reformist daily Vremya Novostei (9/23):  "The White House has unveiled a new strategy of national security....  The new doctrine warns: no 'adversary' will be allowed to 'surpass' the U.S. military potential.  Preventive strikes will be dealt to 'terrorist organizations and states sponsoring them' and even more so if they 'strive to obtain weapons of mass destruction.'  The doctrine closes Russia's scarce prospects of attaining the former military parity with the U.S.  But it would seem that it gives Moscow the right for a resolute struggle against terrorism."

 

 BELGIUM:   "The Time Of The Preventive War Has Begun"

 

Tom Ronse wrote this analysis in independent De Morgen (9/23):  "The time when unfriendly countries avoided waging war against one another through mutual deterrence is over, now is the time of preventive war.  That is at least the new official strategy of the United States.  Practically speaking, this can boil down to permanent war....  This document also confirms the Bush Administration's clear unilateralism.  When Bush delivered his speech at the UN, it was praised everywhere because it indicated a return to a multilateral approach of world affair....  But if the international community does not agree with the American approach, the United States will not change its plans.  The New Strategy is a confirmation of the 'going alone' approach....  The document is also strikingly contemptuous for international treaties....  The document remains very vague about the threats which could justify a preventive war....  It boils down to the fact that the United States grants itself the right to attack unfriendly countries whenever it wants to....  This new doctrine also changes the global framework of war and peace on this planet.  It does, of course, not imply that other countries also have the right to wage preventive wars but the example cannot but be contagious."

 

GREECE:  "New Order"

 

The lead editorial in top circulation pro-government Ta Nea (9/21) stated:  "The U.S. assigns itself the role of global judge and prosecutor through the new strategic doctrine presented by President Bush....  It is obvious that this 'new order' will from now on constitute the only source of international law, the UN being limited to a weak decorative role of rushing, after the fact, to adopt or condemn the U.S.' 'preventive action.'  The challenge faced by countries believing in international cooperation, and Europe, which aspires to play an active role in international affairs, is to manage to put a limit on the uncontrollable power of the U.S!"

 

"From Monroe To Bush"

 

Writing in top circulation influential Sunday edition of To Vima  commentator Vasilis Moulopoulos opined (9/22):  "Within 200 years the U.S. is transforming from a regional superpower to the one and only global superpower imposing--with the same 'gunship diplomacy' of the Monroe doctrine--its military, economic, ideological domination on the entire planet.  Resistance to this new doctrine is no longer political or ideological.  It is a matter of survival for those who wish to live free."

 

HUNGARY:  "The World After September 11"

 

Director of the Euro-Atlantic Integration Center, a conservative Hungarian think tank, Sebestyen Gorka expounded in conservative Hungarian daily Magyar Hirlap (9/23):  "Since September 11, America's has been initiating a completely simplified foreign policy.   While U.S. foreign policy...could never be described as sophisticated or complicated, its new position is even more simple.   Its fundamental supposition is that the world is either black or white....  The most worrisome factor of America's unilateral foreign policy...is that it left out NATO from the planning and the execution of the action in Afghanistan....  [NATO] needs to be reformed, it has to re-think its mission and take serious steps on the political level on both sides of the Atlantic to revive what we used to call the trans-Atlantic link.    If it fails to do so, [NATO] may soon make itself irrelevant, and the world will get used to looking on passively and mutely while America initiates actions without consultations, outside the Alliance's framework and decision making mechanisms."

 

IRELAND:  "The Bush Doctrine"

 

The Irish Times editorialized (9/23):  "It is no hastily put together expression of how the Bush Administration views the global landscape.  It is, rather, a thoughtful and clear, but also cogent and determined, declaration of how the U.S. will conduct itself when it concludes that it is under threat and, most importantly, when it feels that it has no option but to act alone....  Some might quibble but few would dissent from the fundamentals of what the President says....  However, there will be grave concern--tinged, nonetheless, with a degree of understanding--at the emerging military strategy....  The Cold War threat came from states that pursued a strategy of deterrence.  Now, however, the enemy is one who wishes to resort to weapons of mass destruction as a primary tool of attack....  It is this perspective which is underpinning President Bush's policy of pre-emptive action.  He refers to the 'unique responsibilities' of the United States. They are unique indeed: at the start of the 21st century, the U.S. is the only global superpower, a position that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.  And that responsibility includes acting in concert with the rest of the civilized world."

 

"Bush's 'Hot-Headed' Plan"

 

Liberal weekly Sunday Tribune commented (9/22):   "The White House released a new 33-page document...that abandons the U.S. policy of deterrence in favor of a pre-emptive policy that unequivocally states America's right to attack any nation it perceives as a threat to its national security....  Democratic leaders...have side-stepped the issue....  The moment of clarity has passed and the Bush administration's foreign policy is once more consistent only in its inconsistency."

 

NETHERLANDS:  "The Right Of The Strongest"

 

Influential liberal De Volkskrant editorialized (9/23): "Freedom and openness are values we share with the Americans.  But a world in which the principle of preemptive attack becomes rule rather than exception only becomes more dangerous.  Moreover, Bush should realize that there is another value the U.S. and Europe share: within the community of civilized nations the right of the strongest must never prevail."

 

SPAIN:  "The Bush Doctrine"

 

Centrist La Vanguardia commented (9/22):  "The problem is not in the goals Bush defends.  The problem is in the method.  Since the breakup of the USSR, there is not any counter power....  Nobody questions that the United States is a democracy, a model in many aspects, and in many others no.  But the vision of the world that U.S. citizens, and their interests, have do not always coincide with that of other countries.  The European Union,  for example.  But the EU is far from consolidating itself with a unified, clear and defined foreign policy.  Not to mention military power.  The September 11 attacks in New York were only the switch that turned on the Bush doctrine, but it goes beyond the fight against terrorism....  Unilateralism, the right to 'preventative attacks,'  'counter proliferation' and military supremacy appear now with no cosmetics whatsoever.  In choosing between empire and shared world government, George W. Bush has already made his decision."

 

"An Imperial Idea Of U.S. Role In The World"

 

Independent El Mundo wrote (9/23):  "Bush is overly arrogant, just as other empires--like Rome....  U.S. superiority is bound to wealth and technological development, which can weaken in the future.  But the greatest mistake the White House is making is to believe that the world will be safer if the United States launches preventive attacks against its enemies.  This logic can work with terrorist organizations, on which one can make a surprise hit, but not with states, which can react in desperation before an attack like the one being prepared against Iraq."

 

"Time And Sense"

 

Left-of-center El País carried this signed commentary by Andres Ortega (9/23):  "If the UN finally does not follow Bush in what has already become the official doctrine of preventive attack, he will probably continue to raise the decibel level in trying to convince his society that he and 'some friends'... will solve 'the problem.'   Who controls the timing, the calendar, Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?  One is in a hurry to get decisions through Congress and the UN before the elections of November 5.  And he wants to be reelected -- to survive, politically speaking -- in November, 2004, so he will try to make sure this is all  "resolved" much sooner, even though the risky "solution" can lead to more problems.  It would be enough for Saddam Hussein, even if he has lost many pieces, to prolong the game in order to draw; not so for Bush."

 

SWEDEN:  "An Attack Is The Best Defense"

 

The DN ran an analytical article by diplomatic correspondent Bengt Albons (9/23):  "No country in history has been as powerful as the USA of today.  The U.S. will not allow any country to challenge it or obtain the same strength.  This is the nucleus of the Bush doctrine....  The terrorist attacks...have been central in the new thinking within the Bush administration.  The new doctrine also is the result of the U.S. victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and the total superiority that the U.S. has attained since then....  The U.S. is also seeking other paths than military force to be able to build a better world. In the doctrine, there is a fifty percent increase in foreign assistance to poor countries, and a new relief fund aimed at fighting poverty and diseases like AIDS."      

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL:  "The Wider Strategy"

 

Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (9/23):  "If Iraq attacks Israel, it may not be militarily necessary for Israel

to add anything to an already massive American effort.  But again, what is at stake here is not just military utility, but whether this war is

being fought to remove one regime or remake the Middle East into a place that is safe for democracy, both America's and ours.  If America does

have that wider purpose, as Bush and his National Security Strategy state, then Israel's defending itself does not contradict the war's aims, but would be one of the most concrete examples of their advancement."

 

JORDAN:  "The Dangers In The 'Bush Doctrine'"

 

Centrist, influential English-language daily Jordan Times editorialized (9/23):   "The 'Bush doctrine' is essentially a security doctrine.  And a threat to international law.  The Security policy of the Bush administration is based on preemptive military strikes against any perceived enemy.  Today it is Iraq.  Who is next?"

 

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "The Bush Vision, Fearful And Unfree"

 

The leading liberal Sydney Morning Herald editorialized (9/21):  "As it watches the United States' relentless drive towards war with Iraq, the world has been grasping for understanding of George Bush's new America.  That new America is so unfamiliar and so difficult to grasp in its implications that it has generated profound unease, even among its closest friends and allies, such as Australia.. [the National Security Strategy].for many, deepen[s] concern at the direction President Bush has taken his country....  The searing experience of the terrorist attacks of September 11 last year permeates the document--and suffuses it with fear, concealed in language of pride and determination....  It makes scant effort to go beneath the surface of that bitterness to examine its causes and reflect upon them, to explore solutions which rely more on diplomacy than on America's present 'unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence."

 

"U.S. Is Never Disinterested"

 

The Canberra Times cautioned (9/23):  "It is a document that deserves to be studied as closely by America's allies as by its enemies, and ought to have a role in considering what might be achieved, whether by the U.S., by its allies, or by the world in general, by war with Iraq....  The U.S...under Bush [has] done little to show itself as interested in being a good international citizen as in defending and protecting its own interests....  The shock and the anger provoked by September 11 reinforced an isolationist and unilateralist approach.  Each of these things, of course, may have been in America's interest.  Were they in Australia's?  Australia may judge itself more secure with a hand on the American umbrella stem, but, like many other countries, is likely to find itself in the rain wherever its interests diverge from those of the U.S."

 

CHINA:  Military Supremacy At Core Of U.S. Security Goals

 

The official English-language newspaper China Daily (9/23) commented:  "In its national security strategy, the Bush

Administration shows no desire to hide its intention of consolidating a unipolar world by maintaining its

military superiority."

 

(HONG KONG SAR):  "Bush's New Agenda"

 

The independent English-language South China Morning Post said in an editorial (9/23):  "The U.S. has decided to adopt a national security strategy based on a 'distinctly American internationalism,' which will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the Cold War.  Should this send shudders through the rest of the world, allies and evil axis members alike?  The answer would appear to be no and yes.  It cannot be denied that a new world order has been in the making for more than a year since the September 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S.  President George W. Bush told the United Nations in his address on the anniversary of the attacks that it needed to act against Iraq or the U.S. would....  In reality, however, concern must be raised over the U.S. agenda.  If its new distinctly American internationalism is to serve the purposes of one nation, especially one led by a government that faces mid-term elections in November, then it could be said there is reason to fear the urgency with which the new U.S. security strategy is being deployed."

 

"Where Does The Warmongering Stop, Mr. President?"

 

An analysis in independent, English-language South China Morning Post by the paper's Washington correspondent, Greg Torode, noted (9/23):  "Traditionally, there is a lot of caution surrounding such documents, but this one is unusually explicit....  For many, it contains their worst fears--combining many of the more hawkish America-first views that have been evident from the earliest days of the Bush administration.  Although given new life by Mr. Bush's 'new war' on terrorism--one he has warned could run for years--rarely has it been stated so frankly.  Increasingly, the current threats seem to fit neatly into an existing Republican template....  Some will view (the report) through the prism of Iraq.  Yet on this score, the administration's mind is made up--it will strike if it feels it must, insisting it would be prepared to do it without international or U.S. congressional backing even as it seeks such support.  Where the document will be most interesting is how it will guide future conflicts elsewhere, North Korea for example, where the issues are far muddier.  Just how easily will Washington shift from diplomatic to military means?  Interestingly, officials have confirmed that Mr. Bush spent much of the past week toning down large parts of the report, not wanting to appear arrogant.  Behind the rhetoric, a big selling job lies ahead.  'Where does it all stop?' one Southeast Asian diplomat said.  'It looks like one great Republican power grab to me.'"

 

"Aggressive Bush Reveals Undercurrents In Sino-U.S. Relations"

 

The independent Chinese-language Hong Kong Economic Times remarked in an editorial (9/23):  "The U.S. issued its 'National Security Strategy' report yesterday, announcing its 'preemptive' diplomatic and military strategy.  Faced with such an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, China should hide its own capabilities and bide its time.  A U.S. official privately noted that the report offers new diplomatic insight into President Bush and can thus be called the 'Bush Doctrine.'  The report lays the cornerstone for U.S. foreign policy over the coming decades.  The so-called 'Bush Doctrine' is actually the written presentation of Bush's 'cowboy' foreign policy since he took office last year (sic).  Since Bush's inauguration, U.S. foreign policy has turned into 'unilateralism.'  The U.S. attitude is tough and will only look for whatever benefits the U.S....  The report noted that China has the potential to expand its military power, indirectly criticizing the Chinese political system.  At the same time, the report supported Chinese efforts to open up and reform its markets.  The report's comments on China are both good and bad....  Bush does not see China as the biggest threat to the U.S., but neither does he want to see China become Asia's 'Big Brother.'  The U.S. will continue to contain China politically and militarily, while using Taiwan to restrain China.  Taiwan President Chen Shui-bien will make maximum use of this situation to provoke Beijing even further."

 

INDONESIA:  "Terror Of Information"

 

Muslim-intellectual Republika commented (9/23):  "The U.S. Government is once convinced that this Uncle Sam's country is not fighting Muslims or Islam but terrorism.  However, there is no doubt that news on terrorism has considerably cornered Muslims, by often making ummah leaders scapegoats.  Moreover, this information has turned in to terror itself, which is quite disturbing....  Apparently, what is being done by the U.S. is beyond war against terrorism.  There is a larger interest behind it, and the U.S. is playing it for that purpose.  Therefore, information on terrorism originating from foreign intelligence that has recently flooded this country should not be pounced on, but must be critically and intelligently assessed."

 

SOUTH KOREA:  "Dangerous Preemptive Strike Strategy Of The U.S."

 

The government-owned Daehan Maeil editorialized (9/23):  "We feel that the National Security Strategy of the U.S., which President Bush recently reported to Congress, adds anxiety rather than stability to the global community.  In it, the world's sole superpower adopts a strike-first policy against enemy threats before they are fully formed.  Even as one of the U.S.'s closest allies, we cannot accept the world's strongest country adopting such an indifferent, exclusivist and closed policy.  We are concerned that the new strategy may be particularly harmful to the establishment of peace and productive relationships on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia.  It pours cold water over recent developments on the Peninsula towards reconciliation and co-existence, including the Japan-NK summit and the opening of the demilitarized zone.  Thus, we urge the U.S. to heed the position of President Kim Dae-jung, who stressed the importance of developing U.S.-North Korea relations during an ASEM meeting.

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "The World Order - I"

 

Columnist Mushirul Hasan, writing in the centrist The Hindu, stated (9/23):  "In Washington, a new definition of national sovereignty is being put forward that implies the curbing of its full exercise by those countries who are unmindful of U.S. global claims.  A place in paradise is reserved for those who conform to U.S. standards, but those who defy invite damnation....  This being the case, the conduct of foreign relations tends to be Machiavellian and coercive.  Some of the democratically elected leaders in the First World are prone to acting with equal belligerence. When it suits them they set up the Kurds against their adversaries, invent an opposition in Iraq, reward a dictator in our neighborhood for his good conduct in this war against terrorism, and prop up warlords to maintain the political equilibrium in Afghanistan....  World peace and stability are surely threatened by the reckless and ill-advised resurgence of terrorism, as by rich countries accumulating weapons of mass destruction without any accountability to the U.N.  Nuclear weapons should be destroyed wherever they are stored: in the U.S., Russia and the United Kingdom, and Israel, and not just in India, Pakistan, North Korea and supposedly Iraq....  This will never happen.  If so, the First World must also own responsibility for creating and enlarging the theaters of conflict and war."

 

PAKISTAN:  "Open War Against Islam And Islamic World"

 

An editorial in the Karachi-based, right-wing pro Islamic unity Urdu daily Jasarat (9/23):  "U.S. President George Bush in a new 33-page 'Bush Doctrine' has announced the use of foreign aid and other financial institutions in a war against ideologies.  This is an open war against Islam and the Islamic world.  Israel is presently busy in the racial annihilation of Palestinians, and the U.S. is openly supporting it.  The U.S. role is even less than a mere spectator in the twelve-year-old episode of bloodletting in Kashmir.  Now the U.S. has even given up the practice of customary condemnation of the genocide of Muslims in Chechnya.  Muslims in America are miserable.  Despite Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S in the post 9/11 scenario, the U.S. is in hot pursuit of Pakistan.  According to the Bush doctrine, the U.S. would destroy weapons of mass destruction before they pose a threat to the U.S. Today Iraq, tomorrow it will be Iran, and after that it will be Pakistan's turn to face the music. "

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:  "U.S. Strategy 'Masterful Blueprint'"

 

The conservative National Post editorialized (9/21):  "Although everyone speaks of the 'Bush doctrine' as if it were a set dogma, the U.S. President's policy on global terrorism has, since 9/11, been a work in progress....  The National Security Strategy of the United States...is a masterful blueprint for waging--and winning--the war on terrorism.  While many will focus on the document's endorsement of a robust military response to America's enemies, the document is not a mandate for U.S. 'unilateralism.'  Indeed, Mr. Bush sings the UN's praises and emphasizes that 'Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations.' Yet the document also sets out America's relationship with the rest of the world in candid, hard-headed terms. The President makes clear that multilateralism and international law are not ends unto themselves, as Ottawa and Brussels would have us believe--but rather tools that serve the far more important goal of defending free nations.

 

"It is not so much the fine substance of Mr. Bush's program that we found refreshing, but also the unabashed tone that runs through it. For too long, Western foreign policy has been couched in aphorisms and meaningless buzz words.  Instead of gushing relativistically about the 'diversity' of world cultures, Mr. Bush spoke of 'the non-negotiable demands of human dignity'--a clear reference to the misogyny and religious intolerance that permeates much of the Muslim world....   From first to last, Mr. Bush tells it like it is: Dictatorships must become democratic. Closed markets must become open. Terrorists must give up the gun or give up their lives. It is an uncomplicated message, but also a welcome one."

 

   

"Steering Our Own Course"

 

The liberal Toronto Star published the following commentary by Richard Gwyn (9/22):  "In foreign policy...it truly is a whole new world order.  In today's unipolar world, everyone else, China in the end little differently from Canada, revolves around the American sun like minor, and fading, planets.  The similarity of U.S. dominance compared to Rome's has been developing for some time.  Radically new is the readiness in Washington to act like Rome, unapologetically and ruthlessly.  Hence doctrines like 'pre-emptive defense' which is a fancy way of saying the U.S. will do what it pleases whenever it pleases.  But for a few lingering diplomatic niceties, this is the essence of the new National Security Strategy released in Washington this week.

 

"The most honest Washington commentary I know of about this phenomenon was by John Bolton, the Number 3 at the State Department.  'There is no such thing as the United Nations,' Bolton has said.  'There is an international community than can be led by the only real power--the U.S.--when it suits our interests.'...  Which leaves Canada between a rock and a hard place.  One way for us to get out from the rock and hard place is to become invisible....  The other way is to continue to speak out with a Canadian voice...because we have something to say that is worth saying to the world, to Americans, to ourselves....  What we need is the same courage to pursue our ideals as all those neo-cons in Washington have shown in pursuing - if wrong-headedly - their ideal of a Pax Americana.

 

ARGENTINA:  "Bush Launches 'Pre-emptive Attacks' Doctrine"

 

Jorge Rosales, daily-of-record La Nacion Washington-based correspondent, opined (9/21):  "The new national security and foreign policy doctrine announced by President George W. Bush, in the most aggressive U-turn since the Reagan administration...may clash with the principle of pre-emptive action and break the tradition that has guided the relations between states since the Westphalia Treaty....  It has an unequivocal message: the U.S. policy against Iraq won't be stopped even if the international community is against it."

 

"U.S. Launches New Military Doctrine"

 

Ana Baron, leading Clarin correspondent, wrote (9/21):  "The new military doctrine launched by President Bush officially ends the dissuasion and contention strategies that prevailed during the Cold War.  The new doctrine marks the end of a period in which, everything indicates, war will no longer be the continuation of politics by other means, like Clausewitz said, because, from now, the U.S. is prepared to attack without making all the necessary diplomatic efforts to avoid such action....  Everything indicates that Bush's proposal will be criticized domestically and abroad because it only foresees multilateral actions when U.S. allies are ready to do what Washington wants to do. Otherwise, the U.S. will act on its own....  The question posed by the Bush doctrine is what will happen if other countries do the same (for example, the emerging China)."

 

"Bush Doctrine"

 

Oscar Raul Cardoso, Clarin international analyst, opined (9/21):   "Words like 'deterrent' and even 'building international consensus' are replaced by 'pre-emptive action' and, above all, the idea that international laws may not apply to the U.S., simply because it is the only country in a position to define them at its own will."

 

BRAZIL:  "Superpower And Legitimacy"

 

Conservative O Globo ran this op-ed by sociologist Helio Jaguaribe (9/23):  "The world is now being confronted by, ostensibly, the unilateral statement of the only superpower that its will superimposes international rights.  The long historical trajectory of the U.S. as an open society that is democratic and law abiding is being threatened by the casual president of that country....  The U.S., despite the senselessness of its casual President, continues to be an open, democratic society, that understands that international acceptance of its superpower condition is linked to responsible, legitimate conduct....  Bush's international illegitimacy will have repercussions on his domestic illegitimacy.  It won't be Saddam Hussein's irrelevant secret weapons that will compel the U.S. to behave in a legitimate way in face of the world, but rather the democratic, conscientiousness and the democratic voice of American citizens."

 

##