By Fu Mengzi
The question here is where is the United States' strategic
"frontline". And by "frontline" I mean the focus of its foreign
affairs.
Looking at the 2006 US military and diplomatic focuses
separately, there were far more problems as well as interesting
developments in the Bush administration's diplomatic undertakings
than in its military affairs. Concerning its military actions, the
"frontline" is, of course, still in Iraq, where more than 100,000
US troops are fighting the "war on terror" under the watchful eye
of American television networks and other media.
In foreign affairs, the focus has been on the nuclear crises in
Iran and North Korea. But the first three "battles" were fought
without a clear road map, making it hard to predict who will win,
despite strong showings by the parties involved.
The 100,000-strong US forces in Iraq are now under the worst
duress experienced since major campaigns ended. The State
Department can at least call its mission somewhat accomplished with
a United Nations resolution to slap some kind of sanctions on Iran
for its nuclear ambitions, though it has not been able to solve the
problem.
The North Korea nuclear issue has seen five rounds of talks so
far with the latest round now in recess. Whether the North Korea
will give up its nuclear program for good remains a big
question.
With its strength and influence the United States is no doubt on
top of the world. And no other country can rival its offensive
strength. When faced with a single threat and dealing with a single
security challenge, the United States has more often than not
emerged the winner.
However, when faced with multiple major problems and crises, the
United States usually appeared less capable than it thought it
was.
There were security rules during the Cold War, when the two
sides were always in clear sight of each other. It was always
obvious who was on which side, whether it was the two superpowers
facing each other in a strategic duel or trying to seize control of
a third country or region. The United States and the former Soviet
Union never fought each other directly, always hiring others to
fight for them.
After the Cold War and especially since 9/11, the United States
suddenly found itself without a clear enemy, with much of its
massive military presence in Europe either sent home or redeployed
elsewhere. It was major terrorist attacks that drew US attention to
Central Asia and the Middle East. The United States succeeded in
smashing the Taliban regime and the Saddam Hussein regime through
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but failed to achieve the goal of
re-establishing stability.
The United States has concentrated its strategic offensive in
Iraq without a legitimate enemy while violent conflicts have kept
American soldiers under attack on a daily basis there. The security
situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is in fact getting worse.
The United States is currently fighting the war on terror,
preventing nuclear proliferation, removing "tyrants" and spreading
its version of democracy all at once. Washington has been slamming
Iran and North Korea very publicly for their nuclear programs but
finding them both surprisingly tough to crack.
Latin America used to be the United States' backyard, but in
recent years economic disparity and social instability have
resulted in the rise of the leftist camp, which refuses to obey
Washington's instructions, especially Cuba and Venezuela. North
Korea, Iran and Venezuela even proposed forming an anti-US alliance
during the last Non-aligned Movement summit.
In Central Asia, the United States fanned the so-called "color
revolutions" in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the name
of democracy, but now it appears the change of colors has alerted
other countries in the region, while relations between the United
States and those "recolored" countries are not exactly to
Washington's liking. Ironically, the United States is seeing its
ties with some of the "unchanged" countries getting better. Its
cooperation with Kazakhstan in developing the latter's energy
industry, for instance, is heating up.
This kind of situation was almost unthinkable some years back.
When the US-led NATO forces charged into Kosovo, many small
countries feared for their own security. They were afraid they
might be the next targets on the US strategic agenda. Maybe it was
this kind of worry that prompted North Korea and Iran to beef up
their defensive strength by building up nuclear capabilities.
The strategic gun barrel of the United States still causes
considerable shock and awe wherever it is aimed, although some
countries have had the guts to face the mighty United States "one
on one" if there is no other way around. Talk about the difference
between now and then.
The world has changed. Although people have yet to agree on the
term multi-polarism, its development is already a fact. And it is
unfolding a picture with more colors than unipolarism.
Multi-polarism represents not only changes in countries' hard
strength but also the coexistence of multiple ideologies, beliefs
and cultures. Military power can still conquer a nation, but its
ideology, religious beliefs, political philosophy and cultural
values won't change so easily.
In today's world, no one country can rule the world with a
single mindset. Not even a superpower.
With Saddam Hussein's hanging last month, the Saddam era is now
history. Stability, development and unity are the Iraqi people's
common desire and the international community's responsibility,
while nuclear proliferation bodes no good to post-Cold War world
security. All major countries which consider themselves responsible
should oppose nuclear proliferation but never use a double standard
in dealing with it.
The world is still faced with challenges from non-conventional
security threats. As a major country with national interests
closely linked to those of the international community, China is no
longer a bystander in world affairs. It is an important coordinator
and even a leading "go-to guy" for solving tough problems.
In this sense, a rising China will find the responsibilities on
its shoulders gaining weight as more opportunities come its way. It
is best for all humankind that major powers increase mutual trust,
reduce mutual suspicion and work for constructive cooperation. That
is also the premise for solving major international problems.
The United States may find it increasingly difficult to identify
the real target for its strategic offensive. And that means the
United States' strategic gun barrel may no longer shock and awe the
world as much as it used to. Major power rivalries and ideological
battles are already out of date, though US strategic planners still
can't let go of the possibility that a strategic rival is lurking
in the shadows.
Returning to major power cooperation is the focus that US
strategic think tanks should seriously consider in an all new world
environment.
The author is the director of American studies at the
Beijing-based China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations.
(China Daily January 10, 2007)
