TALKING BUSH If you just can’t get enough of that “Distinctly American Internationalism,” check out the Bush administration’s new National Security Strategy. The document, released September 20th, reveals that some of the worlds most obvious fears regarding this powerful and presumptuous administration are real. Fears such as international economic coercion, pre-preemptive military action, militarization of outer space, and big-brother-style intelligence priorities are described as priorities. The world has watched the US shake its ting through the Bush administration’s domestic and foreign policies of the past two years. It is clear the administration doesn’t have much patience for international agreements which restrict its unilateral interests, by the long list of treaties it has abrogated. The Kyoto protocol perhaps laid the groundwork for the subsequent disposal of the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, the lack of support for the international summit on Racism in South Africa in 2001, the corporate flavor of the Earth Summit this year, and the boycotting of the new International Criminal Court. The world has its very own Talking Bush. While he might consider himself the mouth of God, the voices he hears are being whispered in his ears by more terrestrial forces: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney for example. Let’s look at what the TalkingBush has to say about the future of U.S. security policy. Every U.S. Administration creates its own National Security Strategy, which outlines the pillars on which its policies rest. The newest strategy declares the United States the world’s “single sustainable model for national success.” From the Marshal Plan in 1947 to the National Security Strategy in 2002, the US has established economic and military superiority over the rest of the world, and intends to keep it that way. The future is blessed with the righteous battle against the new dirty commies, and all other “tyrants and terrorists.” At the center of an ever growing fortress, of which missile defense and star wars will be only a part, the US government will over see its new world order. “In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action,” the document declares. Excuse my presumption, but does this not border on plagiarism? But perhaps it is mundane to refer to Orwell’s “1984.” Lets be realistic. The Bush security strategy is simply a response to new, post-cold war threats. Right? The document welds together democracy, development, free markets, and free trade, declaring them the staunch truncheon of US foreign policy. It outlines how the neo-liberal model will act as the tractor which will plow the worlds fertile economic and political fields so we can all get fat off the land. George Bush, world farmer. In the National Security policy, the plowshares are increased economic development aid, aids fighting initiatives, and democracy. But when we look closer, the plough shares are swords. We are entering into a new era of explicit domination in which the United States will be the Great Father of the whole world. Part six of the 33 page document is “Ignite a New Era of Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade.” This comes after part five, “Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Part nine is ominously entitled, “Transform America’s National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the 21st Century.” Opportunities? Let’s have a look at part eight, “Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the other Main Centers of Global Power.” Here the document illustrates its wanna-be-historic nature. It begins with a quote from one of Bush’s speeches to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in June of this year. “We have our best chance since the rise of the nation- state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war,” says Bush. High aspirations for a cowboy from a Texas ranch. In this section, NATO is singled out as an extension of the long arm of the US military. Expansion is one of many recommendations the US government has for building the strength of NATO. This expansion will be formalized at the Nato Summit in Prague in November of this year. New members include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria, successfully pushing the frontier of the west further east. “To contend with uncertainty, and meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and North East Asia, as well as temporary access arrangement for the deployment of long-range US forces.” It is of little concern that Romania and Bulgaria have not yet met the social and political criteria needed to join the European Union in December along with ten other applicant countries. This is not so important for NATO. The European Union is described as a partner in global economic expansion, but cautioned not to challenge the military role of NATO. NATO is spiffy. Russia, India and China are iffy. They could turn out to represent “the renewal of old patterns of great power competition.” That must be different from great powers competing in peace instead of preparing for war. The Top Down pyramid scheme of the United States Great Father Security Policy are clear. The dollar on top. Competition taking place inside this model, good. Any other competition, bad. China is the US’s fourth largest trading partner, with over 100 billion dollars in annual two way trade. The document singles out China’s relationship to Taiwan, its abuse of Human Rights, and the possibility of weapons proliferation as areas of concern. “We will work to narrow differences where they exist,” the document states, “but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree.” That is notably a different story when we look at US policy towards other states that are abusing human rights, have poor relations with their neighboring states, and are possibly developing weapons of mass destruction. The document ends on a strong note in, “Transform America’s National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the 21st Century.” “It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge.” In this section, it is again asserted that US military force is keeping peace around the world. Based as it is on the Cold War mentality, it must now be transformed to meet new global threats. This includes being prepared for more military actions like the one we witnessed in Afghanistan. “We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space. Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare…” All in the name of peace and prosperity. Intelligence, according to the document, is lacking. We already know that of course, especially after reading this far. “Intelligence must be appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with our allies and friends.” I guess that might help solve that problem. The Bush administration intends to give the director of the CIA more power, and develop new ways of collecting and sharing information, world wide. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has already pushed through an anti-terrorism package known as the Patriot Act which undermines a broad range of civil liberties. In a letter to the U.S. congress, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote, “the USA PATRIOT Act gives the Attorney General and federal law enforcement unnecessary and permanent new powers to violate civil liberties that go far beyond the stated goal of fighting international terrorism. These new and unchecked powers could be used against American citizens who are not under criminal investigation, immigrants who are here within our borders legally, and also against those whose First Amendment activities are deemed to be threats to national security by the Attorney General.” This drift towards fascism may eventually come as a surprise to many U.S. citizens, the majority of whom seem blissfully unaware of the threat to their civil liberties. Perhaps they feel that their Right to Bear Arms will enable them to overthrow the U.S. government if the need arises. The National Security Strategy also clears up any doubt we may have had on U.S. support for the International Criminal Court. “We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiries or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.” ‘Nuff said! We’ll make our own international justice, thank you!’ This suggests the true power of the ICC, of which the US government is terrified of being subjected to. Or maybe Bush is right. Perhaps the ICC has been created as a tool to carry out political vendettas against the United States. Bush is no dummy. He can see that the international community is out to get the U.S. in anyway in can. How could the US possibly be a part of the same standards of justice as everyone else? They would most certainly be persecuted for its rational and benevolent behavior. Something to do with its righteous military for example. In the end, the document reads as a desperate attempt to express the infinite reign of United States global military and economic domination. Sensing simmering discontent, and growing disbelief domestically and internationally with U.S. hegemony, the Bush administration has declared its intention to aggressively continue pursuing world domination. The United States has enormous potential to be a partner in international dialogue, promoting sustainable development, human rights and peace. It has the possibility of equalizing the world. Instead it chooses to dominate it.
|