Pre-emptive Policy Produces Instability: News Analysis

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, January 23, 2003

Pre-emptive Policy Produces Instability: News Analysis

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

Any pre-emptive military strike by one country, based merely on its own judgment, against other sovereign countries will undermine international law and norms and throw the established order into chaos.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States overhauled its national security strategy, dramatically affecting its political, economic, military and foreign policies.

And its strategy of launching a pre-emptive strike against adversaries will in particular have a prolonged impact upon the international strategic environment.

Deterrence and containment, which uses a country's national forces to deter threats from enemies, had been the long-standing strategy of the United States.

By clinging to this strategy since the mid-20th century, the United States has effectively saved itself from becoming a target for war, ensuring its peace and national security.

However, the United States has changed its perspective on world affairs since the end of the Cold War.

It now believes its traditional enemies have disappeared, and it can therefore deploy its forces unilaterally in the international arena.

Since assuming power, US President George W. Bush has adhered to a hardline stance on international affairs, and has taken a series of unilateral actions despite strong opposition from the international community.

On many occasions, Bush has sent a clear-cut message that the United States will launch a pre-emptive military strike against terrorists and enemy states to safeguard its national security.

The first report on national security strategy, submitted by the Bush administration to the US Congress a few days after the one-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, proposed pre-emptive strikes against terrorist forces and enemy states.

In Bush's opinion, the strategy is mainly aimed at eliminating threats from terrorist actions and the use of weapons of mass destruction.

For example, Iraq has long been regarded by the United States as a country that sponsors terrorists and possesses weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration considers it necessary to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq before the threat posed by the country becomes a reality.

Based upon such a logic, the Bush administration claims in its security report that the United States, when necessary, would not hesitate to take unilateral actions to protect its people from potential terrorist dangers.

According to the report, US enemies in the post-September 11 period are different from those before the attacks.

Unlike enemies in the past who had powerful armies and industrial strength, the United States believes its adversaries nowadays can cause it enormous catastrophe and pain at a small cost.

According to the report, the United States should therefore maintain the world's strongest military to thwart any country's or organization's plans to challenge its number one status.

By adjusting its national security and military strategy at a critical time, the United States demonstrated to the world that it would take pre-emptive military action against Iraq to overthrow the Saddam Hussein administration if necessary.

Meanwhile, the United States holds that it could launch similar attacks against other countries allegedly carrying out terrorist actions or possessing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy, however, will inevitably prove hazardous to the United States and the international community.

The implementation of a strategy which casually launches pre-emptive military strikes against a sovereign country will set a dangerous precedent in the international community.

The United States claims its strategy simply aims to prevent any possible attack against it. However, one country's assessment of a threat is not enough to give it legal foundation. Instead, it will inevitably encourage other countries to follow suit, leaving the international community in disorder.

The strategy, which may yet be implemented without the authorization of the United Nations (UN), will violate international law and norms.

It is usually difficult for one country to gain the international community's support for pre-emptive attacks against other countries, not to mention gaining unanimous approval from the UN Security Council for such an attack.

The United States has expressed its willingness to co-operate with the United Nations on the Iraq issue under pressure from the international community. But there is still a big question-mark over whether it will act in accordance with UN resolutions.

And there remains a large possibility that the United States, with various excuses, will overrule UN resolutions so that the UN weapons inspection in Iraq cannot operate smoothly, thus creating a justification for its pre-emptive military strike against Iraq.

Without a persuasive reason for military action in Iraq, a pre-emptive attack by the United States will surely create long-term turbulence in the Gulf region and the whole Middle East.

Yet the United States is unlikely to win a swift victory in its looming war against Iraq this time round.

It differs from the first Gulf War and the anti-terror war in Afghanistan because it is expected to consume both time and money and is likely to upset the strategic balance and even US alliances in the region.

If the United States cannot bring the regional situation under control, it will become the world's largest powder keg.

Worse, the implementation of the strategy will expose the United States to long-standing dangers. In response to US unilateral military actions, other parties will be compelled to take new retaliatory measures.

By carrying out a pre-emptive military attack on terrorists and "rogue states" allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction, the United States does certainly have a capability to wipe out part of its enemies' manpower.

But any attack can by no means completely eradicate their beliefs and values, inevitably resulting in retaliation.

As a result, the United States and the whole world will face new long-term dangers.

To achieve lasting peace and security, a win-win result, which not only reduces potential dangers for the United States but also for the whole international community, should be the most equitable and reasonable choice for all countries.

The author is a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences.

Questions?Comments? Click here

US Stragety Allows No "First Shot" by Enemy: Analysis

Beijing to Cancel 'Hotels for Hosting Foreign Visitors' ( 4 Messages)

Chinese Bid Farewell to Outworn Doctrine of Egalitarianism ( 10 Messages)

Can US Strategic Intention be Realized? ( 23 Messages)

How's US$52.7bn Foreign Investment Introduced Into China? ( 14 Messages)

Bush Rejects China Mechanical Device Import Quota ( 12 Messages)

Foreign Museums Refuse to Return Cultural relics, Chinese Experts in Action ( 11 Messages)