Bush skizziert eine harte außenpolitische Vision / Bush Describes Tough Foreign Policy Vision
Neue Doktrin betont die Notwendigkeit präventiver Angriffe und behält sich das Recht der USA zu unilateralen Maßnahmen vor / New Doctrine emphasizes the need for preemptive attacks and reserves the right for U.S. to take unilateral action
Am 20. September 2002 legte die US-Administration dem Kongress ein 31-seitiges Dokument vor, das einen wichtigen Einschnitt in der Außenpolitik der USA markiert. In dem Dokument wird eine neue Verteidigungsdoktrin erläutert, die den Namen "Verteidigungs" eigentlich nicht mehr verdient, da es mehr um "präventiven" Angriff geht. Die alten, aus dem Kalten Krieg bekannten Strategien der Eindämmung und Abschreckung sind damit gegenstandslos geworden. In dem Text heißt es zum bisherigen Konzept der Abschreckung und Eindämmung, eine derartige Strategie sei in einer veränderten Welt nicht wirkungsvoll. Es sei unmöglich, jene abzuschrecken, "die die USA hassen und alles, was die USA verkörpern".
In der neuen Sicherheits-Doktrin wird betont, dass die Vereinigten Staaten für den weltweiten Anti-Terror-Kampf ihre militärische Überlegenheit behaupten und Gefahren beseitigen müsse, "bevor sie unsere Grenzen erreichen". Falls nötig würden sie allein handeln und präventiv Gewalt anwenden. Ein hoher Regierungsbeamter erläuterte Spiegel-Online zufolge (21.09.2002), dass dies für einen begrenzten Kreis von Problemen gelte. Staaten wie Russland und Indien sollten es ihrerseits nicht als Rechtfertigung für Aggression benutzen.
In dem Dokument heißt es, dass die USA beispiellose Stärke und beispiellosen Einfluss besäßen, aber auch ebensolche Verantwortung und Verpflichtungen. Sie müssten ihre Stärke einsetzen, um ein Gleichgewicht der Macht zu fördern, das für die Freiheit eintritt. Washington verfolge einen "ganz bestimmten amerikanischen Internationalismus, der unsere Werte und nationalen Interessen reflektiert". Die USA würden sich stets um internationale Unterstützung bemühen, seien falls nötig aber zum alleinigen Handeln bereit.
"Die USA müssen und werden die Fähigkeit bewahren, jeden Versuch eines Feindes abzuwehren - sei es eine staatliche oder eine nicht- staatliche Kraft - den Vereinigten Staaten, unseren Verbündeten oder unseren Freunden ihren Willen aufzuzwingen", heißt es in dem Dokument weiter. Der US-Beamte sagte, die USA wollten "den Aufstieg einer gegnerischen militärischen Macht nicht zulassen". Dies bedeute aber nicht, dass nun die Europäer nicht mehr ihre Verteidigungsfähigkeit verbessern sollten und "dass die USA allein militärisch allen anderen hoch überlegen sein wollen". Die US-Regierung macht auch klar, dass sie von den meisten Verträgen zur Nichtweiterverbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen wenig hält und stattdessen auf eine Strategie der "Weiterverbreitungsabwehr" setzt - etwa in Form zwangsweiser Entwaffnung.
Politiker und Fachleute der Demokratischen Partei äußerten nach Medienberichten vom 21. September die Befürchtung, dass andere Staaten wie Russland, China oder Indien nun ebenfalls Präventivangriffe zu ihrer offiziellen Politik machen könnten. In den weiter unten auszugsweise dokumentierten Artikeln aus der Los Angeles Times kommen solche kritischen Stimmen zu Wort.
Vieles von dem, was in der neuen Doktrin enthalten ist, wurde in den vergangenen Monaten in verschiedenen Reden des US-Präsidenten oder seiner Sicherheitsberaterin Condoleeza Rice vorformuliert. Markant war diesbezüglich etwa die Westpoint-Rede des Präsidenten
vom 1. Juni. Eine erste kritische Stellungnahme haben wir der Internetzeitung "Telepolis" zu verdanken; wir haben sie in Auszügen dokumentiert ("Amerikanischer Internationalismus oder: Angriff ist Verteidigung"
Los Angeles Times
September 21 2002
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."
... "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."
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.
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." ...
"Plan Likely fo Further Isolate U.S."
Friday's blunt and uncompromising blueprint of President Bush's new security doctrine is likely to further strain relations between the United States and nations large and small that already complain about America's dangerous tendency to go it alone. Critics say the doctrine's assertion of a right to stage preemptive attacks on terrorists and rogue nations could be used by Russia, India, Pakistan and other nations to claim a similar right to self-defense in tinderboxes across their borders. Others worry the doctrine might strengthen the hand of Chinese hard-liners who already believe that the U.S. is using its "war on terrorism" as an opportunity to expand its military presence on China's periphery.
"My impression is that the dominant people in the administration don't really care much about offending allies," said Richard Betts, director of the Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University in New York. "They are sure that they know the right thing to do, and either get others to come along by pointing it out and showing our resoluteness, or 'to hell with them.'"
"It's ironic, because one of the things Bush had said during the [2000 election] campaign is that if we're humble, others will respect us, and if we're arrogant, they will not," said Joseph S. Nye, dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Though there are differences of tone and emphasis from the Clinton administration's 1999 security doctrine, which put more stock in treaties and multilateralism, analysts found much historical continuity in the Bush doctrine. Clinton did reserve the right to act unilaterally and talked about "shaping the environment" with commanding military superiority, Nye said.
And the doctrine's pledge to make the U.S. military mighty enough that no foe will attempt to equal or surpass it isn't particularly new. "Since 1945, it's been our position that we will remain the global and regional preeminent power," said Bates Gill of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
However, said Nye, "that is speaking a fact about the way the world is, but [the Bush administration has] underlined it and rubbed people's noses in it."
The most controversial aspect of the document released Friday is its assertion that the U.S. must deal with the realities of terrorists willing to use weapons of mass destruction by amending the definition of "imminent threat" that has been used in international law to justify preemptive strikes. "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves," the document said. " ... The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction--and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. The United States will not use force in all cases ... nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." Foreign policy elites here and abroad were not convinced.
"This is a devaluation of deterrence and containment, as if those were 20th century ideas that are now outmoded," Graham T. Allison, a professor of government at Harvard, said Friday. "If something in the zone between preemption and prevention came to be the general international understanding, you could see a significant increase in the number of attacks," Allison said.
Zurück zur Homepage