U.S. POWER POLITICS INDUCE MANY COUNTRIES TO GO NUCLEAR By Alexei Pushkov, Author and Programme Director, TV-Center, Russian Federation Translated From Nezavisimaya Gazeta No. 246 November 18, 2002 Every new international crisis highlights the nature of America's global leadership. For some time now many people have been comparing the United States with a new Roman empire with the US-sponsored world order referred to as a Pax Americana (compare with Pax Romana.) The United States wants to expand the world's democratic region to the greatest possible extent and to instill the "norms of civilized society" whenever possible. In real life, though, Washington seeks to change the world in line with US concepts. As far as the United States is concerned, the expansion of values, rather than mere economic expansion, plays a decisive role in asserting a new world order. The American Commonwealth of Nations Lies Ahead Striving for such an expansion was a salient feature of the US political and public mentality throughout the entire 20th century. The United States never wanted to co-exist with Communism. On the contrary, Communism was to be defeated. The United States believes that it scored a complete and unconditional victory in the Cold War. Therefore, the United States is no longer in any mood to co-exist with those regimes, that don't fit into the structure of American concepts and that of Washington's interests. Hence the policy that aimed to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, and which now aims to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Moreover, the United States has now singled out the modern world's "axis of evil," i.e. Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The leading advocates of America's new role are coining all kinds of nice-sounding definitions, which reflect this future role, as well as the incipient US-backed world order. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for one, claims that US domination will last for another century. More restrained theoreticians, such as Henry Kissinger, prefer to talk about overwhelming US superiority. Meanwhile, new-generation analysts would like the United States to establish an American Commonwealth of Nations that would rally around the United States. However, all these assertions imply that the United States, which is a huge center of economic and military might, is called on to lead the world. America's exceptional status and leading role received a new and powerful impulse after the horrendous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The United States proved vulnerable in the face of terrorist attacks; Washington now perceives international terrorism as yet another enemy. Consequently, the doctrine for turning the United States into an empire with virtually unlimited powers has now obtained the support of US citizens, who didn't back this doctrine previously. The people of America, who want their government to ensure national security, also remember the 3,500 people, who died in New York on September 11. At the same time, they no longer want to know whether such a doctrine is right or wrong. The Republican Administration's convincing victory during congressional elections merely confirms this trend. Many Americans now think that their country is a new Roman empire. There are, however, different types of empires. There are limited-action and unlimited-action empires, as well as reasonable and unreasonable empires. What kind of an empire will the United States become? Moreover, what role will Russia play in this new global system? Is Russia ready to become a province of this new empire? Besides, is the President of Russia ready to act as its proconsul? Or will Russia strive to become America's partner, albeit its weaker partner? And will it strive to take part in tackling issues that affect the destiny of the world as well as its own future? Vladimir Putin is now facing precisely this dilemma. However, this amounts to a national rather than a mere presidential choice. This choice will have vital short-term implications for Russia. In this context, the crisis around Iraq seems to be far more important than just a one-off military operation aimed at disarming Saddam. Specific methods of disarmament, US behavior during the crisis, as well as subsequent developments, will become crucially important. Nonetheless, some US politicians and experts insist that a possible military operation against Iraq would be something exceptional. In their opinion, this projected operation can be explained by the special nature of Saddam's regime and the threat emanating from it. Still, there is every reason to believe that this is not the case. The United States has already used military force in Bosnia and Somalia over the past 10 years, as well as fighting wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. The US thinks it had good reason for such military action in these countries. The operation against Afghanistan was backed by the UN and the international community. We should heed the regular use of the US Armed Forces' might for solving political problems, rather than reasons for it. In this context, the use of Russian military force against Chechen bandits can be perceived as a unique political occurrence in Russia. Meanwhile the US political establishment views the use of military force as a recurrent tool, rather than a unique fact. In some US circles there is now serious discussion of further US action following Iraq. A group of people, who have considerable influence in the US political administration, believes that the current Iranian regime must also be replaced. In their opinion, this should be the next priority of America's foreign policy, as well as that of NATO. Officials in Washington, who deny the existence of such plans, maintain that such statements are merely private opinions, which should not be taken seriously. However, such private opinions tend to coincide with subsequent US policies, if these opinions coincide with the overall direction of America's foreign-policy. Therefore, one can safely say that an unequivocal and long-term US foreign-policy line, as well as a long-term strategy for changing the entire world order, are now manifesting themselves. Russia should clarify its status and policy in the unfolding situation. However, we should not confuse our position with regard to progressing Pax Americana-style global changes and our position concerning support for the United States in its struggle against international terrorism after September 11, 2001. On September 20, the United States unveiled its new national security doctrine, which was mostly authored by Condoleezza Rice as some people say. In a nutshell, this doctrine implies that the United States promotes a balance of forces in favor of freedom. This balance of forces must be used to maintain throughout the world a state of well-being, freedom and peaceful relations for the next few decades. With this in mind, the United States proclaims the right to take preventive actions against those specific forces, which pose a threat to America's security and its interests. However, striving for this balance of freedom using mostly military methods for attaining this balance can only create new discrepancies. NATO has already fought a "live" war against Yugoslavia in the post-Cold War period. The Balkan conflict has also engulfed Macedonia. It seems that we would suffer decades of wars, conflicts and a growing terrorist threat, rather than decades of freedom, peace and democracy, if US war hawks, who demand that national security be ensured by mostly military methods, have their way. If the United States opts primarily for power politics then this will completely destabilize the entire system of international relations, inducing a multitude of countries to obtain their own nuclear weapons. I don't know whether President George Bush Jr. is aware of this, or whether he thinks that he has no other choice. The US preventive-action doctrine, which denies national sovereignty, proceeds from America's indisputable right to deal pre-emptive strikes, if US security is threatened in the broadest sense of the word. The alleged North Korean threat is a case in point. As a result, nuclear arsenals seem to be the only guarantee of security for other countries. If America has granted itself the right to attack, then we have the right to defend ourselves; such is the obvious logic of this foreign-policy imperative. Pandora's Box By all accounts, the ruling US elite is now changing its attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. Among other things, the US keeps talking about the admissibility of using low-yield nuclear warheads against international terrorists. Still this would mean opening a Pandora's box with all its unpredictable consequences. It has been virtually forbidden to use nuclear weapons since 1945 because everyone recalled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If such attitudes to nuclear weapons prevail in the United States, then this would mean that we are moving towards a very bad world. One might hail America's transformation into a new world leader, if it became one capable of stabilizing the world around it. However, the world would head towards destabilization rather than stabilization (around the United States), if extremist trends prevail in it. Many Russians are now suggesting that this country obediently follow the US, regardless of Washington's possible future policies. For example, we should apparently support US operations against Iraq. However, it would be completely wrong and irresponsible to leave America alone with its leadership, real-life or illusory national-security threats, as well as the ghosts of its own grandeur and vulnerability. This can be explained by the fact that even whole nations may err. The same can be said about such a great and democratic nation as the United States. America had already erred in Vietnam, suffering a serious and ignominious defeat there. America had erred in Somalia in 1994, only avoiding massive blood-shed because Bill Clinton kept his nerve and intuition. What kind of United States will Moscow have to deal with? What kind of United States will it have to support? Russia should not remain indifferent to these questions. We must decide whether we are interested in creating yet another unstable system under US auspices, or whether we would like to create a balance of forces that would favor peace and freedom (one can agree with Ms. Rice here) for the entire world, rather than just for the United States. Attempts are being made to convince us all the time that the US Administration's choice is the only correct one (regardless what it may be). This position is preposterous because the United States itself is looking for correct solutions, and besides, it does not always know how to act in a particular situation. President Bush did address the UN on Iraq, although reluctantly, because many members of his entourage were not sure that a unilateral US strike against Iraq would be the most appropriate course of action. The President of the United States made a reasonable decision. However, US war hawks in his own administration, who continually made demands for Bush to hit Iraq, reacted sceptically to his UN speech from the very outset. In their opinion, the United States should have gone to war instead. So, what kind of the United States should we support? Should we back a reasonable America, which is ready to think? Or should we back an unreasonable America, which is ready to abide by those purely Texan cowboy instincts? We should not deceive ourselves, the relatively reasonable resolution on Iraq that was passed the other day is a mere episode in establishing such a balance of forces or an imbalance of forces in favor of a militant America. A significant number of people in Bush's entourage hope that Saddam won't fulfil this resolution, thus providing the United States with a pretext for war. Heated debates will continue to rage around the resolution's interpretation and specific criteria for implementing it. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the Administration of President Bush has renounced the need for replacing the Baghdad regime. However, the Iraqi water-shed has already revealed several points. Firstly, an overwhelming majority of the world's countries don't want the United States to create a precedent for taking unilateral action (that won't be coordinated with the UN) against Iraq. Secondly, influential US quarters, which prefer cooperation with the UN to unilateral actions, comprehend the risks involved. This provides ample opportunities for influencing the US position. And, thirdly, an unreasonable America finds it hard to impose its views on others; meanwhile, a reasonable America would find it easier to convince others that it's right. In real life, the intellectually and politically poor philosophy, which implies that America is always right, spells danger for Russia, the United States and the whole Western world. Moreover, this philosophy is dangerous for freedom, democratic ideals and international security. Russia perceives the establishment of a reasonable "balance of peace" as important in the context of its national interests. We must remember that the Roman empire didn't allow anyone to make independent decisions. Washington might well turn into a new Rome, imposing its will on some countries, arbitrarily appointing rogue states. This situation would prove very dangerous. In that case, the United States with its colossal military might would become one of the modern world's problems, rather than a component part of tackling global problems. For What It's Worth Home