|
Now it is final: The Cold War strategy of deterrence is dead, the United States can take pre-emptive action against hostile states or terrorist groups when it sees fit.
This aggressive strategy and the clear target of maintaining US military supremacy in the world were at the core of the first national security strategy adopted by the Bush administration. The White House released the strategy document on Friday.
In the 33-page document, Bush said the task of defending the United States against its enemies - "the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government" - has changed dramatically since the country now faces a new type of threat.
In the past, enemies needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger the United States, the document said. "Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank."
The grave danger the United States faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology, the document said. Therefore, the United States should seek to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and adopt a new strategy in the new security environment.
"Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy" who is "stateless and targets innocents," the document said. To forestall or prevent hostile acts by the enemies, "the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively," it said.
It was widely believed that Bush's strategy of pre-emptive strikes was shaped by the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The international community has cast doubts over the concept of pre-emption, saying it contradicts the concept of self-defence defined by the United Nations Charter and would encourage other countries to take actions against their rivals without clear threat.
Nowadays, the world is nervously watching the intensified debate in the United States about a possible "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq, which Washington accuses of seeking weapons of mass destruction. The consequence of such a strategy has yet to unfold.
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.
"The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy - whether a state or non-state actor - to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends," the document said.
"Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States."
Compared with the last national security strategy published by former US President Bill Clinton at the end of 1999, the new US strategy shares the goal of maintaining the US position as the only superpower in the world, but adopts different approaches.
While the Bush administration pinpointed terrorism as the biggest threat to the United States, the former Clinton administration regarded global economic problems as the biggest threat facing the country.
Although the Clinton strategy stated that the United States "must always be prepared to act alone," it did not use the word pre-emption.
Another sharp difference lies in the attitudes of the two administrations towards international treaties.
The Clinton administration saw international treaties including those on arms control and nonproliferation as "essential elements" of the national security strategy. But the Bush strategy dismisses most of those efforts, arguing that the nonproliferation effort has failed and celebrating the administration's withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty last year.
(Xinhua News Agency September 23, 2002)
|
