VTMBH Article: Body
After months of intense work, President Bush formalized his vision for America and the rest of the world. Under this worldview, the United States reserves the right to attack its adversaries preemptively and vows never to allow any country to challenge Americas military and economic superiority. Scary, isnt it?
Entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States, the document was heavily edited by Mr. Bush because some of its sections reportedly sounded overbearing and arrogant. It is to be presented to Congress for adoption as Americas new doctrine. Despite smoothing, the arrogance of power is noticeable. These pronouncements are bound to make sovereign nations uneasy, with some of them feeling intimidated.
The new doctrine also strikes at the root of multilateralism, which forms the basis of the United Nations. It essentially means that might is right, and that when America disagrees with the world the only opinion it cares about is its own.
The idea of striking an adversary in a far away land before it has taken any belligerent action against the United States seems, plainly, aggressive. The document, in part, states that although the United States would seek to build alliances, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively.
Preventing other countries from trying to match or exceed Americas military or economic power smacks of dictatorship, especially coming from a country that never tires of expressing support for freedom.
Journalists writing about U.S. foreign policy wont have to read between the lines of a White House statement any longer to understand whats behind Americas action against a given country. It is already there, in print: the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago, the document states, adding, Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
The wording leaves little doubt about what the United States will do if it were unable to dissuade a country diplomatically from seeking military parity. With the former Soviet Union mired in economic problems and the Muslim world in a state of technological, political and economic crisis, the only country fitting the profile seems to be China.
Because Muslim countries do not pose an immediate military challenge, they can be dealt with by use of foreign aid, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank loans, as well as direct military force. In essence, America would use all available means to win the battle for the future of the Muslim world, including economic and cultural invasion.
Moreover, the United States will support moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation. Translated, it means that the Muslim governments would be coaxed into introducing the American brand of Islam, and oppress those who differ.
The document states that America will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world. The rhetoric is a euphemism for the imposition of the New World Order on weaker nations. The concept of free market and free trade have of late become the rallying point of conscientious Americans who oppose them because they exploit the natural resources of the poor countries and keep them perpetually under economic subjugation of the rich nations.
On the Palestinian issue, the main cause of Muslim unhappiness toward the United States, the national strategy document advocates freedom for both sides and the creation of an independent and democratic Palestine. In principle, this is a welcome reaffirmation of Americas policy on the Middle East for some time. However, it does not announce any plans to make it a reality. Instead it talks about a reformed Palestinian government, meaning the ouster of Yasir Arafat, a demand similar to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharons.
Israeli occupation of Palestine consumes most of Americas foreign aid and energy, and creates the bulk of hatred towards it, yet the document fails to show a resolve to do anything to change the status quo.
While Israeli forces brutalize the Palestinian population and destroy the Palestinian Authority structures brick by brick, one is appalled at the lack of American denunciation of that inhuman policy. Attacking Iraq for suspected development of nuclear and chemical weapons, but avoiding any mention of Israel already possessing those weapons clearly makes the doctrine of preemptive strike hypocritical.
A world without checks and balances is a dangerous place. Mr. Bushs national strategy document amply reminds us of this danger. However, Americans can find solace in the fact that this self-centered vision of the world may not last beyond the Bush administration.
Entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States, the document was heavily edited by Mr. Bush because some of its sections reportedly sounded overbearing and arrogant. It is to be presented to Congress for adoption as Americas new doctrine. Despite smoothing, the arrogance of power is noticeable. These pronouncements are bound to make sovereign nations uneasy, with some of them feeling intimidated.
The new doctrine also strikes at the root of multilateralism, which forms the basis of the United Nations. It essentially means that might is right, and that when America disagrees with the world the only opinion it cares about is its own.
The idea of striking an adversary in a far away land before it has taken any belligerent action against the United States seems, plainly, aggressive. The document, in part, states that although the United States would seek to build alliances, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively.
Preventing other countries from trying to match or exceed Americas military or economic power smacks of dictatorship, especially coming from a country that never tires of expressing support for freedom.
Journalists writing about U.S. foreign policy wont have to read between the lines of a White House statement any longer to understand whats behind Americas action against a given country. It is already there, in print: the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago, the document states, adding, Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
The wording leaves little doubt about what the United States will do if it were unable to dissuade a country diplomatically from seeking military parity. With the former Soviet Union mired in economic problems and the Muslim world in a state of technological, political and economic crisis, the only country fitting the profile seems to be China.
Because Muslim countries do not pose an immediate military challenge, they can be dealt with by use of foreign aid, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank loans, as well as direct military force. In essence, America would use all available means to win the battle for the future of the Muslim world, including economic and cultural invasion.
Moreover, the United States will support moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation. Translated, it means that the Muslim governments would be coaxed into introducing the American brand of Islam, and oppress those who differ.
The document states that America will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world. The rhetoric is a euphemism for the imposition of the New World Order on weaker nations. The concept of free market and free trade have of late become the rallying point of conscientious Americans who oppose them because they exploit the natural resources of the poor countries and keep them perpetually under economic subjugation of the rich nations.
On the Palestinian issue, the main cause of Muslim unhappiness toward the United States, the national strategy document advocates freedom for both sides and the creation of an independent and democratic Palestine. In principle, this is a welcome reaffirmation of Americas policy on the Middle East for some time. However, it does not announce any plans to make it a reality. Instead it talks about a reformed Palestinian government, meaning the ouster of Yasir Arafat, a demand similar to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharons.
Israeli occupation of Palestine consumes most of Americas foreign aid and energy, and creates the bulk of hatred towards it, yet the document fails to show a resolve to do anything to change the status quo.
While Israeli forces brutalize the Palestinian population and destroy the Palestinian Authority structures brick by brick, one is appalled at the lack of American denunciation of that inhuman policy. Attacking Iraq for suspected development of nuclear and chemical weapons, but avoiding any mention of Israel already possessing those weapons clearly makes the doctrine of preemptive strike hypocritical.
A world without checks and balances is a dangerous place. Mr. Bushs national strategy document amply reminds us of this danger. However, Americans can find solace in the fact that this self-centered vision of the world may not last beyond the Bush administration.