Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine: There Are No Viable Alternatives
By Daniel G. Jennings
In his inauguration speech President Bush reaffirmed his foreign policy: America should put its own security and mission to spread freedom around the global ahead of the sensibilities other nations. I support this policy, not because I like but because I see no viable alternative to it.
Critics of the Bush Doctrine have put forward three basic alternatives to Bush’s policy, none of which seems workable given the realities in today’s world.
The most popular and appealing of these alternatives is the international law and institutions alternative. The idea that America should bow to international law and allow international institutions such as the UN to deal with the world’s problems including threats to peace and security. I would support this argument if international law and international institutions lived up to their ideals. If the United Nations was a real democratic world government with a real constitution I would gladly defer to it but the UN isn’t a government and it isn’t democratic. The UN is corrupt and undemocratic, worse it is based on the idea that every nation in the world including the tiny island of Palau and Kim Jong Il’s thugocracy in North Korea is the moral and legal equal of the United States. There is no way such an institution can safeguard human rights or keep the peace. It exists to protect tyranny and the rights and privileges of tyrants and those who profit from them.
Much the same can be said of international law which is designed to protect the position of national governments and those who run them. International law makes no distinction between legitimate democratic governments based on constitutional law and popular elections and dictatorships run by warlords and thugs. Yes, our invasion of Iraq violated international law so did our invasion of Afghanistan. If we were to follow international law to the letter we would have had to leave the Taliban in place in Afghanistan to give Bin Laden a safe haven from which to attack us. If we were to follow all the treaties signed by the US such as the Kellogg-Brand Pact of 1928 which banned war as a means of solving international disputes even our involvement in World War II would have been illegal.
Obviously international law and international institutions as they now stand are no solution and no protection against terrorism or rogue states. Sadly enough international law and institutions seems to protect the rogue states and terrorists against American action.
The other popular argument is for the United States to rely upon diplomacy and cooperation. To only act when we have international support and to defer to foreign powers usually the nations of Europe when we take action.
Now this course of action would work if every foreign power was Britain or Australia. Unfortunately they aren’t, Europe is a collection of aging and weak states with declining military and economic power. The Europeans lack the resources to be serious allies of the US, worse their interest is to contain America. Europe can only appear to morally strong and influential if the United States takes no action. If the US acts European weakness is exposed and Europe’s influence and power declines.
Then there are the powers outside of Europe, it is in the best interest of countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, etc. if America acts alone as global policeman. That way potential military threats can be eliminated without those countries spilling their blood or national treasure. They don’t have to build up their military power or take responsibility for other regions of the world. This way these powers are left free to build up their military power without using it. Such nations won’t join a US led crusade but they won’t oppose one either. They can safely have some low level diplomat issue a press release condemning American high handedness but do nothing to stop America.
In such an international environment America will find few allies except for grateful Eastern Europeans and traditional English speaking friends like Australia and Britain. Attempts to get real cooperation will be fruitless barring something on the scale of Sept. 11. Obviously the US has no choice but to go it alone.
The third alternative maybe the worst, it’s a sort of neo-isolationism. The mantra is the same America’s problems are the result of American meddling in the rest of the world. Stop meddling and America will be safe and the world at peace.
Recent history exposes this argument as having little basis in reality. America didn’t meddle in Afghanistan for over ten years and look what happened Afghanistan became our worst nightmare a nation run by terrorists for terrorists. Places where America meddled most in the 20th Century Japan, Germany, South Korea, Western Europe are among the most peaceful and prosperous on Earth. Places where America didn’t meddle Africa and the Middle East are hell holes of poverty.
Now obviously America can’t and shouldn’t interfere everywhere on Earth there is little reason for us to intervene in Haiti, the Sudan or the Congo. The rationale for our intervention in Yugoslavia is also questionable. Yet there are cases and places where we must meddle. For example Afghanistan, Latin America and Iraq the source of our oil.
The Bush Doctrine is obviously a flawed and limited foreign policy but it is the only realistic course America can follow at this point in history. The challenge to us is to create a world where the Bush Doctrine will be unnecessary.