The actual statement is available here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
Bush Describes Tough Foreign Policy Vision
Government: Doctrine submitted to Congress emphasizes
the need for preemptive attacks and reserves the right
for U.S. to take unilateral action
By EDWIN CHEN, LA TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- President Bush formally laid out his
strategic global doctrine Friday, advancing "a
distinctly American internationalism" that asserts the
right to launch preemptive attacks on terrorists and
regimes whose weapons of mass destruction pose a
threat to the United States.
The president also declared his intention to dissuade
potential rivals from trying to equal or surpass
America's military might.
The toughly worded 31-page document pulls together the
major themes of Bush's foreign policy addresses in the
year since the Sept. 11 attacks. It was sent to
Congress to meet a 1986 law that requires such an
assessment from each president.
But Bush's plan drew special attention because of the
highly charged atmosphere surrounding his
administration's effort to enlist the United Nations
in a new confrontation with Iraq. He also used the
document to spell out his view of U.S. strategy in a
post-Cold War world where terrorists, rather than
other superpowers, are thought to pose the biggest
threat to America. Bush made clear that he believes
the Cold War tactics of containment and deterrence are
no longer adequate to protect U.S. interests.
"Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work
against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are
wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents,"
the document said.
"In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were
considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the
destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies
see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice."
Vowing to take unilateral action against perceived
threats, the Bush administration pledged to protect
the United States and its interests abroad "by
identifying and destroying the threat before it
reaches our borders."
"While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international community, we
will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them
from doing harm against our people and our country....
"
By articulating an aggressive,
go-it-alone-if-necessary doctrine, Bush distanced
himself from his recent predecessors, including his
father, the 41st president.
"He's at the start of a new era," said Bruce Buchanan,
a presidential scholar at the University of Texas.
"It's comparable to what happened on President
Truman's watch at the beginning of the Cold War and
containment."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other top
administration officials argued Friday that Bush's
first-strike doctrine is a long-standing U.S. option.
But Buchanan disagreed.
"It is really a significant departure, not just from
the containment doctrine but from widely accepted
American principles such as: America will not strike
first," Buchanan said. "And to elevate it to the
status of a doctrine--without incorporating specific
examples of a clear and present danger--that's a
novelty. It's going to take a while to sell it to the
foreign policy establishment."
On Capitol Hill, some Democrats were skeptical.
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) accused the Bush
administration of having a "political personality
disorder."
"They've moved from enforceable treaties as an
American strategy to military invasion as a
nonproliferation strategy," he said.
Said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a potential
candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential
nomination: "I'm not at all convinced that the new
doctrine from the administration--which seems to
ignore the fact that we live in a globalized world
where allies and partnerships are more important than
ever--will actually advance our interests."
Kerry termed it a "highly ideological doctrine."
But Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) praised the
Bush doctrine, noting that it also stresses the need
for alliances.
"The notion is, preserving the peace requires us to
work carefully with the great powers," he said.
The national security policy statements sent to
Congress by previous presidents have been routine and
have drawn little attention, said John Lewis Gaddis, a
foreign policy scholar at Yale.
"There were really no definable crises forcing a
reassessment of the grand strategy," he said. "But
Bush clearly is thinking about revisions of the grand
strategy."
The forceful words in the document are also likely to
rankle some U.S. allies, who were already reluctant to
join Bush's campaign against Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.
There was little official reaction around the world to
the document as of late Friday. But the question of
use of force against Iraq has become a major issue in
the neck-and-neck German campaign for chancellor that
culminates in elections Sunday. French and Russian
leaders have made clear their insistence on a
multinational approach based on international law.
Bush's policy declaration was nearly a year in the
making. The process took on new significance after the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, White House officials
said.
In defending the first-strike option, which a senior
administration official also called "anticipatory
self-defense" and "counter-proliferation," the
document declared:
"The purpose of our actions will always be to
eliminate a specific threat to the United States or
our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions
will be clear, the force measured, and the cause
just."
In a background briefing at the White House, the
senior official highlighted two other major goals. One
is to foster good relations with other "main centers
of global power" such as Russia, China and India
through multinational organizations such as the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, the World Trade
Organization and the European Union.
The other goal is to emphasize "the benefits of
democracy" by promoting prosperity through free
markets. As an example of that, the aide cited Bush's
announcement in March in Monterrey, Mexico, that the
U.S. would increase foreign aid by 50% over the next
few years to developing nations that commit to free
trade, political liberty and human rights.
The official rejected criticism that the Bush
administration is too willing to go it alone.
"The concerns about unilateralism, I just think, are
unwarranted," the aide said. "Anticipatory
self-defense is not a new concept."
The aide added that the Bush administration would
launch a preemptive military strike only as a
near-last resort. "It does mean that there should be
other methods that you pursue and use to try and deal
with those threats--diplomatic methods,
counter-proliferation," the aide said. "There are all
kinds of ways that you can try and deal with threats.
[But] there will be some cases in which much else has
been exhausted ... and it appears that you can only
deal with it through the use of military force."
The president first sounded many of the themes in the
document on June 1, during a commencement address at
West Point in which he vowed to take "preemptive
action" against the worst terrorist threats.
Among those who participated directly in the crafting
of that speech were National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice; her deputy, Steve Hadley;
then-presidential counselor Karen P. Hughes and chief
speech writer Michael Gerson.
The drafting of the document then continued. Bush and
Rice worked on it last weekend at Camp David, and Bush
did some final editing as recently as a few days ago,
one aide said.
Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this
report.
=====
----------------------------------------------------------
John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ba'atha delenda est! - Freedom is Not Free
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
