[Nasional-e] The Bush doctrine

[Ambon]

 The Bush doctrine

 The New York Times The New York Times Tuesday, September 24, 2002

As a presidential candidate two years ago, George W. Bush called for a
degree of humility in U.S. dealings with other nations. Since he took office
it has often been hard to locate that sentiment in his foreign policy. The
latest and most definitive articulation of his views, published on Friday,
reflects a good deal more modesty and generosity than earlier expressions,
but it also bristles with bald assertions of American power. Bush's Texas
supporters may like it - he instructed his staff to write it in plain
English so "the boys in Lubbock" could read it - but it is sure to make the
rest of the world uneasy, including America's closest allies. The tension
between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through American
history, and the fault lines are evident in Bush's policy statement. The
paper - a policy summation that every president is required to submit to
Congress - seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and
constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall
Plan. It dedicates America to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy,
prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe.
Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other
nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his
determination to increase American foreign aid. At other points the paper
sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might
have produced. Given Bush's lone-wolf record on matters like global warming,
and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation
with Iraq, it is clear that these combative attitudes will be driving
Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause
before signing on for the overly aggressive stance that Bush has outlined.
Bush imagines an intimidating, heavyweight America. A few of the policy
prescriptions capture the spirit. American military power will be strong
enough to dissuade potential adver- saries from ever trying to challenge the
military supremacy of the United States. Washington is free to take
preemptive action against hostile states that are developing weapons of mass
destruction. The successful strategies of the Cold War, which relied on the
threat of overwhelming American retaliation to deter foreign aggression, are
largely obsolete. Forceful measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons
are more effective than treaties.
.
In an era of international terrorism and the constant danger of devastating
attacks, there is good reason for Bush to keep the United States strong and
vigilant. Striking first to prevent aggression is not unreasonable when
dealing with groups like Al Qaeda, which operate independently of the
restraints that govern the behavior of most nation-states. Intercepting a
shipment of smuggled plutonium before it reaches a rogue nation makes sense
if countries are unwilling or unable to enforce treaty commitments to block
the spread of nuclear materials. But when these pugnacious strategies become
the dominant theme in American conduct, overwhelming more cooperative
instincts, the nation risks alienating its friends and undermining the very
interests that Bush seeks to protect.
.
Strong, confident leaders need not be arrogant leaders. Indeed, arrogance
subverts effective leadership. Whether the issue is protection of the
environment or protection of the homeland, the United States needs help. In
securing America's safety, Bush must be careful not to create a fortress
America that inspires the enmity rather than the envy of the world.