In his June 1 address to graduating cadets at West Point, US President George W. Bush said the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment will not work against terrorist networks or unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction.
"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long ... our security requires all Americans ... to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."
As an optional tactic, pre-emption is appropriate when there is a clear and imminent threat emanating from a group of shadowy and fanatic terrorists. But pre-emption as a military doctrine raises many troubling questions, especially as applied against another nation.
First, the doctrine runs counter to the UN charter, which reserves to sovereign nations "the inherent right of individual or collective defense," but only in response to an armed attack. The Bush administration has not demonstrated a specific and imminent threat from Iraq.
Second, a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by the US will create an undesirable precedent for other nations to ignore international law and engage in unilateral, anticipatory self-defense whenever a threat is perceived. The result could well be global anarchy.
Third, as regards Iraq, other means should be tried to reduce the potential danger, such as sanctions, reintroduction of weapons inspectors and dialogue with Baghdad.
If a danger emerges despite such efforts, the US can then act with the support of the UN, allies and other friendly nations.
Fourth, the consequences of a victory over Saddam Hussein are hard to predict. The US could end up having to occupy Iraq for many years. Should there be substantial civilian deaths, the US could alienate its friends and allies and further inflame the Arab world's resentment against the US. A new generation of willing Muslim martyrs could be created in the process. Unilateral military action may thus be counterproductive.
Fifth, to safeguard the US from attacks by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, it may be more important and more fruitful to intensify counter-proliferation efforts in Russia and to enforce non-proliferation agreements with China.
Finally, the US is already deploying new forces in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of a war against Iraq. An invasion of Iraq will take some 250,000 troops, including six or seven aircraft carrier task forces. A mobilization of this magnitude will stretch America's military capacity and leave Taiwan and the US forces deployed in East Asia vulnerable to a pre-emptive blitzkrieg by China. The strategy of the PLA is to launch a multi-pronged surprise attack on Taiwan and coerce the island into submission, before US forces can arrive on the scene.
A military defeat in East Asia will inflict catastrophic, long-term strategic damage on both Japan and the US, damage which will far exceed whatever security the US may gain through a regime change in Iraq. The notion of pre-emptive strike was apparently developed with Al-Qaeda and Iraq in mind. It should not be expanded and elevated to the status of a strategic doctrine. Otherwise, the US would need to address potential threats from all nations in the axis of evil, including those emerging from the rise of China, without the advantages of deliberate statecraft and propitious timing.
In the long run, US security interests will be better served by an international system in which nations are more law-abiding, collaborative and inclined to adopt peaceful means of resolving disputes. Prudence calls for a candid debate on the pros and cons of a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq before the momentum towards war becomes irreversible.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations