|
Bush, Kerry, Preemptive War, and the "Global Test"
Steven C. Welsh
CDI Research Analyst
Oct. 26, 2004
|
During their campaigns and debates Bush and Kerry have offered little comfort
for allies – or potential adversaries – on the question of preemptive war, the
use of first strikes against still-gathering threats. Both have defended
preemption as a U.S. option without necessarily helping to define its limits.
Faced by the prospect of WMD proliferation and the
threat of terrorism, the candidates arguably might prefer flexibility over a
more rules-based UN-oriented approach, even if the latter still remains a
component of U.S. strategy.
But discerning either candidate's precise strategy is
not easy. Even as he seeks to impute the worst aspects of the Iraq war to the
incumbent, Kerry has not spelled out with particularity how he would craft a
significantly different framework for deciding when to go to war.
While Kerry has reserved a right to preemption, Bush,
of course, has argued there would be a difference between the two with respect
to whether rhetoric was matched by action, even suggesting Kerry would wait to
be attacked before addressing a threat.
For his own part, Bush started presenting preemptive
war as an option several years ago in his published national security strategy.
But Bush has never really claimed he was acting on such a right or spelled out
clearly the conditions under which he would. Afghanistan was in response to an
attack and even the Iraq invasion was couched within a tapestry of arguments,
including Security Council resolutions and the concept that a state of
hostilities still remained since Gulf War I due to violations of the ceasefire
agreement.
While Kerry has spoken of a “global test,” a vague
standard with which Bush takes umbrage, Kerry also has declared that, like Bush,
he would not subject U.S. national security to another country’s veto.
Presumably referring to vetoes in the UN Security Council, Kerry implies that,
like Bush, he might be willing to go to war without explicit Security Council
support.
In short, neither candidate has explained how
threatening a gathering threat has to be, what threshold has to be crossed, to
legitimize in his mind a preemptive military response. And even as both have
invoked the significance of alliances, and the need to make diplomacy and other
nonmilitary alternatives strategies of first resort, they also have not outlined
parameters for the evolving role of the Security Council or non-UN multilateral
alternatives like NATO or the G-8.
To be fair, today's "global tests" remain diverse and
arguably unreliable.
With respect to the United Nations, the UN Charter as
drafted envisioned the Security Council nipping emerging threats in the bud by
applying a flexible range of preemptive or preventive measures, military and
nonmilitary. The hope was that the United Nations might provide not simply
formalized structures but practical impact in a real world context. By that
measure, the United Nations' results have been questionable.
And now reports that corruption undermined the
UN-centered Iraq oil-for-food sanctions program, offered as an alternative to
force, could damage the UN organization’s credibility, weakening confidence in
its capacity to serve as a disciplined and reliable security partner.
In contrast to the United Nations, the Bush
administration points to an effort like its Proliferation Security Initiative as
an activity rather than an organization. The administration refers to the need
for effective cooperative action among sovereign states, as opposed to
international bureaucracy that exists for its own sake. Some voices in the
administration perhaps hint at a desire to head more strongly in this direction.
Meanwhile, a high-level UN panel assessing threats
and prospects for reform is expected to report back in the coming months. But
abstract philosophizing about institutions should be overshadowed by the
immediacy of real-world choices over the dangers cited by Bush and Kerry in
their televised debates.
Both recognize weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
proliferation and WMD terrorism as the greatest threats to national security,
with the most dangerous players including Iran, North Korea, and violent
non-state actors, terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Exemplifying some of the
unique challenges to today's “global tests” is Iran, a known state sponsor of
terrorism reputed to be pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Security Council veto-holder Russia, an Iranian
nuclear contractor, has been resisting U.S. efforts to have the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) refer the Iranian problem to the Security Council.
Instead, the European Union’s “Big Three,” Britain, France and Germany, have
struggled to engage Iran with support from the G-8. A rumored offer to provide
Iran nuclear fuel in exchange for abandoning its enrichment program, echoed by
Kerry, thus far has been rebuffed.
As the matter heads towards a November IAEA showdown,
it threatens to open a preemptive war Pandora’s box. The failure of U.S.
leaders to spell out the limits of preemption does not help. Even as U.S.
preemptive war doctrines are left nebulous by Bush and Kerry, Israel has hinted
it might be willing to carry out preemptive strikes against Iran, aided by newly
acquired U.S.-made bunker-buster bombs. In turn, Iranian generals reportedly
have raised the prospect of Iranian preemptive attacks on U.S. or Israeli
forces.
The dangers and
uncertainties surrounding the Iranian problem highlight the fact that preemptive
war remains a poorly defined and unpredictable concept, not only for the
candidates, but for a global security system lacking unified leadership or a
consistent and reliable framework for addressing today's threats. In the past,
the United States has contributed mightily to the formation of modern
international law and cooperative security frameworks, and America is called to
help take the lead once again. Both presidential candidates need to do more to
share their vision for how this can be accomplished
Click here to read "Preemptive War
and International Law" backgrounder .
[Content available on this site is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.]
|
