“We have our best chance since the rise of the nation'state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.”
President Bush – West Point, New York – June 1, 2002
| WCJ Comments The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report – 17 September 2002 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | The NSS Report | Comment | |
| 1 | a | America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions — as broad as practicable — of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. | “Balances of power” do not favor freedom.To ensure freedom for everybody, rather than for “sources of power”, “power” has to be taken away from nation states and vested in a supra'national government, which will use these powers for the purpose of resolution of disputes between nation states and prevention of violence and injustice by national governments. This will allow non‐government groups and private individuals to redress injustices inflicted upon them by national governments by peaceful means rather than by violence (terrorism). |
| b | Effective coalition leadership requires clear priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent consultations among partners with a spirit of humility. | Spirit of humility is certainly a valuable quality in those in positions of power. But establishment of supra'national government institutions based on the principle of equality of all nations, will liberate mankind from dependence for its survival on personal characteristics of individual leaders of nation states, be they humility, or arrogance, wisdom or gross stupidity. In the 20th century the well‐being and security of Mankind depended on the personal characteristics of national leaders, like Hitler and Stalin. | |
| 2 | a | There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe. | The reason for the present world conflicts and insecurity in the United States and around the world is that the Government of the United States still sees the world in terms of “allies” and “friends”, rather than a single family of nation states equal under the law. As long as there are “allies” and “friends”, there will be “enemies”. Without “enemies” the words “allies” and “friends” lose their meaning. |
| b | Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter‐European security, … | NATO was a creature of the Cold War. Its original purpose was defence of its member states against the Soviet Union. There is no national state in the world today that is willing or able to attack any of the members of NATO. And, if the US Government overcome their “anti'terror” paranoia, abandon their “War on Terror”, and proceed to elimination of wars and terrorism by creating supra‐national institutions, then NATO will become redundant. | |
| c | … and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world trade. | The ideal of a United Europe goes back to the times of the First World War, and of Otto von Bismark, who was still then talking about a Europe without borders. But in those days the Europeans saw the whole world as Europe and “foreign lands”, which were either European colonies or were still to be conquered and colonized. So in those days a United Europe meant a United World consisting of Europe and its colonies. Today Europe is not all the world. The former colonies have become independent states, whose “national interests” are no less important than those of the European states. So, who is Europe united against today? … Africa? … Asia? … Australia? … the Americas? The European Union is a 19th century dream come true a century too late. Now the need is for a United World, not for a world divided between rival continental unions fighting each other. | |
| 3 | a | The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self'defense clause for the first time. | The war against Afghanistan could not be justified on the grounds of self'defence. Afghanistan did not attack the United States, nor was it about to attack the United States. The Afghan government said that they would extradite Osama bin Laden, subject to proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the events of the 9/11. The United States refused to provide any proof and attacked Afghanistan. So where is the issue of self'defence? |
| b | NATO's core mission — collective defense of the transatlantic alliance of democracies — remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. | Defence against whom? Non‐democracies? The Specter of Global Terrorism? | |
| c | NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance. | What are these “threats”? | |
| 4 | The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to mission'based coalitions. To achieve this, we must:
| Establish effective supra'national police and legal system, and all this will become unnecessary. | |
| 5 | If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome our European allies' efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come. | NATO is the creature of the Cold War and is redundant. The EU is the creature of the two World Wars and of a eurocentric view of the world all of which are obsolete. The existence of these institutions encourages the old eurocentric ways of thinking, which distort the view of the world. These institutions need to become world‐inclusive or merged with other regional organisations and transformed into supra‐national police and supra‐national institutions. There is no need today for a Europe united against the rest of the world. Europe is just as much part of the World as Africa, Asia, the Americas or Australia. There is no need for inter‐continent rivalries and hostilities. | |
| 6 | The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the dispatch of some of the world's finest combat forces for Operation Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist attack. We have deepened cooperation on counterterrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand. | It is most unfortunate that the governments of these countries allowed themselves to be dragged into the 9/11 hysteria. It would have been better for all the world, including the United States, if instead of following the US Government, which acted in a state of diminished responsibility, they would have used their influence over their traumatised “friend” and “ally” and helped him to cool down and to handle the situation in a mature and responsible way. Had they done so, there would not have been the “War on Terror” today, and the world would have been a safer place. | |
| 7 | The war against terrorism has proven that America's alliances in Asia not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and friendships, we will:
| All the Asian and Pacific regional alliances are creatures of the Cold War, just as their European counterpart NATO, and just as NATO they are obsolete and redundant. Who are the Asian and Pacific alliances against? … Europe? … Africa? These institutions need to become world'inclusive or merged with other regional organisations and transformed into a supra'national police and supra‐national institutions. | |
| 8 | We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal transition — most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape. | The renewal of “old patterns of great power competition” should be prevented by establishment of supra‐national institutions based on the principle of equality of all nations under the law. The concept of “great powers” is a hangover from the old imperial past, which was based on constant enmity and wars. This Imperial Spirit has no reason for existence in today's world. | |
| 9 | With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based on a central reality of the twenty‐first century: the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long‐term relations with the Euro‐Atlantic community and the United States. Russia's top leaders have a realistic assessment of their country's current weakness and the policies — internal and external — needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. | Strategic friendships imply strategic enmities. And “strategic interests” imply existence of “enemies” to defend against or to attack in order to advance one's national interests. Instead of plotting and scheming against each other it is better for all the nations of the world to abandon their strategic thinking, to disarm and to establish supra'national police and legal system for their protection and resolution of disputes. This will result in a secure and peaceful world. | |
| 10 | United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges. We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have created the NATO‐Russia Council with the goal of deepening security cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to integration into the Euro‐Atlantic community. | The “already extensive cooperation” between the US and Russia in the “global war on terrorism” consists of the US Government's devastation of Afghanistan and encouragement of Israel in its expansionist war against the Palestinians, and of the Russian genocidal war against Chechnya. None of these activities have advanced freedom, peace and security in the world. | |
| 11 | At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our relations. Russia's uneven commitment to the basic values of free‐market democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia's very weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years — or even decades. | As long as the US and Russia see themselves as “super‐powers”, and use their “powers” to advance their “national interests” at the expense of other nations, there will be no peace and security in the world. | |
| 12 | The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia. | Thinking in terms of “strategies”, “bilateral relationships”, and “national interests”, the demagogical use of the word “democracy”, and the view that “terrorism” can be defeated by military actions show that the US Government are still prisoners of the 20th century ideologies and have failed to develop the global view necessary to establish a free, peaceful and secure world. | |
| 13 | Differences remain, including over the development of India's nuclear and missile programs, and the pace of India's economic reforms. But while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic future. | The US Government still think in terms of a “super‐power” rivalries dominated world. To be accepted in the “super‐power” club a 20th century nation state needed powerful nuclear and missile capabilities. Then the “balance of power” was maintained by pursuit of “common strategic interests”. The US Government are dragging the nightmares of the 20th century into today's world. | |
| 14 | The United States relationship with China is an important part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia‐Pacific region. We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst features of the Communist legacy, China's leaders have not yet made the next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia‐Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is the only source of that greatness. | Pursuit of advanced military capabilities has been policy of the US Government all throughout the 20th century and up to this day. They do not see this policy as “outdated”. And, yet, they condemn the same policy by China as outdated. Will not China see such condemnation as hypocrisy? Not only the US Government are pursuing outdated militaristic policies, they have not yet learnt to see all nations as equal. Are they ready to lead the world to freedom, peace and security? | |
| 15 | The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing China. We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counterterrorism and similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the welfare of our citizens. | China saw the war on terror campaign as an opportunity to intensify repression of the Uygurs in East Turkistan. Alcohol, promiscuity and homosexuality being the bane of societies that have abandoned traditional moral values, the US and China have indeed a shared HIV/AIDS problem. | |
| 16 | Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become more open with information, promote the development of civil society, and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting village‐level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national one‐party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly accountable to its citizen‐s needs and aspirations, however, much work remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential. | This is true. But the Chinese government has been using the war on terror doctrine to justify brutal repression of its Muslim minorities. Is this the meaning of the phrase “allowing its people to worship freely”? | |
| 17 | Our important trade relationship will benefit from China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which will create more export opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over $100 billion in annual two‐way trade. The power of market principles and the WTO's requirements for transparency and accountability will advance openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the self‐defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree. | General disarmament and establishment of supra‐national justice and police would have put all the American concerns about China and Chinese concerns about America to rest. | |
| 18 | The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long‐standing allies in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships become routine and unproductive. Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober analysis, and common action. In the long‐term, these are the practices that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open the path of progress. | It is time to move from the world of “centers of global power” and “alliances” to the world of rule of law and equality of all nations. This will concentrate all the power in the hands of supra‐national institutions and make all alliances for the purpose of defence unnecessary and for the purpose of aggression a criminal conspiracy. | |
