As National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley unveiled the Bush administration’s new national security strategy on March 16, he said, “The president’s strategy affirms that the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy. We do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.”
The 49-page report opens with President George Bush’s pronouncement: “America is at war. This is a wartime national security strategy required by the grave challenge [of terrorism] we face.” This is an updated version of the September 2002 security strategy document issued by the president, which replaced America’s Cold War strategy of deterrence and containment with the Bush doctrine of pre-emption against enemies, whether they were developing weapons of mass destruction or sheltering terrorists. That doctrine was pronounced within a year of the tragic events of Sept. 11 and six months before the invasion of Iraq.
The 2002 document emphasized America’s superior military power and its resolve to use that power to defeat the threat of terrorism. To do so, it said that “we must make use of every tool in our arsenal – military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing.” It called for the U.S. adaptation of the “imminent threat” concept, a prerequisite for the use of pre-emption under international law.
To meet “the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries,” it said, “the greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action” to forestall or prevent such hostile act. The new strategy reiterates: “When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize.”
The document accuses Iran of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel, thwarting democratic reform in Iraq and representing in general a destabilizing force in the region. It says, “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,” and adds that to avoid confrontation, diplomacy must succeed. This document asserts a doctrine of prevention and not pre-emption, for pre-emption is authorized under international law when the threat is imminent and not merely potential. Legitimizing preventive war to counter potential threats amounts to advocating the law of the jungle.
This said, the new document has a more measured tone on other issues than that of its predecessor. The positive elements include a focus on diplomacy and multilateralism in addressing the world’s problems and an emphasis on the need for international cooperation. It identifies such problems as ranging from “the threat of pandemic disease to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters.” It calls for “effective multinational efforts” to solve these problems and for America to lead these efforts. It also notes that “helping the world’s poor is a strategic priority and a moral imperative.”
The language will please those who have been critical of the administration’s go-it-alone policy, as the document says, “In the cause of ending tyrrany and promoting effective democracy, we will employ the full array of political, economic, diplomatic, and other tools at our disposal,” including working with the United Nations and other existing international institutions.
Stephen Hadley was deputy national security adviser and Condoleezza Rice the adviser when the 2002 Strategy was issued. This version seems to have Rice’s imprint, seeking increased multilateral efforts, although on the pre-emption issue it accomodates the voices of hawks in the administration.
In appraising of the document, skepticism is warranted because the so-called pre-emption doctrine still remains a pivotal point. Thus, in my estimation, while the Bush administration has not necessarily reversed its course in foreign policy, it may have listened to allies’ criticism of unilateralism. The war in Iraq has certainly taught the administration some lessons in being more realistic about America’s military supremacy.
Also, perhaps the administration has realized that in order to meet today’s challenges, it has no choice but to seek international cooperation, for example, to stabilize Iraq, to effectively restrain Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and to meet the looming problem of poverty and disease. The administration’s actions will speak louder than these new-sounding words.
Ved Nanda is Evans University Professor and director of the International Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver.
