|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| September 26, 2002 |
Gore Sparks a New Debate?
Jillian Hayes, Research Assistant, jhayes@cdi.org
On Sept. 23, former Vice President Al Gore spoke in San Francisco outlining his views on the Bush Administration’s actions with regard to Iraq and the war on terror. In the speech, he argued that the unfinished business of the war on terror and the stabilization of Afghanistan should not be brushed aside in order to pursue military action against Iraq. Gore cited the most urgent priority for the Administration as being Afghanistan’s stabilization, while also arguing that it is possible to stay the course on the war on terror while at the same time working to build an international coalition to face Iraq "in a timely fashion."
Gore has objected to elements within the Bush Administration’s newly released National Security Strategy, specifically the Administration’s claim to the right of using preemptive military action against anyone who presents a potential future threat. "The problem with preemption is that it’s not needed in order to give the U.S the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. That’s a smaller issue compared to the overriding issue of what the longer-term consequences of the preemption doctrine will be." He argues that if Congress approves the Administration’s proposed resolution on Iraq, it would be "simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides." Gore argues that the legality to pursue action in Iraq already exists within international law -- under Article 51 of the UN charter -- and also is derived from existing UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq.
The new strategic doctrine of preemption reaches farther than the singular issue of Iraq, Gore argues, and will affect the United States’ basic relationship with the international community. If other nations follow our example of preemptive action "the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear -- any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation." Gore further argues that an unspoken part of the new doctrine is that the United States claims this right for itself and only itself. Gone are the Cold War strategies of deterrence and containment, now replaced with that of ‘dominance.’ The decision to pursue this strategy requires the decision to abandon "what we have thought was America’s mission in the world," a world guided and protected by "a common ethic codified in the form of international law."
Gore has been commended by many for having brought up major and larger issues that still require debate in the hugely complicated task of dealing with Iraq and the new doctrine of preemption. On the other hand, he’s also been accused by many who allege that he is politicizing the Iraq issue and that his comments are a means of re-entering the candidates’ ring.
The Beltway back and forth over both the political intentions and ramifications of Gore’s speech are unlikely to cease soon, but this is a debate far outranked in importance by the broader debate over the validity of the substantive points that Gore makes.
The importance of Gore’s speech lies within this substance. It has provided the means for not so much a reinvigoration of the same Iraq debate that has existed up until now, but more so for a debate that will focus on all of the issues connected with Iraq and the larger issue of the preemption doctrine. This new debate centers on the implications of military action against Iraq for the war on terror, the stabilization of Afghanistan and also what the post-war approach to Iraq will be when the dust settles. On the larger and long-term scale, the debate will address what the preemption doctrine’s effects will be on the U.S. role in the world and how and if the United States will achieve it objectives.
In this, Gore addresses the ‘big picture,’ and plugs the singular, component issue of Iraq into the larger, principal issue of the Administration’s preemptive doctrine. He cites and recognizes the complexity and severity of U.S.’ many problems, but maintains that a general doctrine of preemption is not necessary, and is in fact dangerous and against our principles, in dealing with these problems.
Essentially Gore has tapped into the fundamental issues faced at the onset of any serious evaluation of policy -- What are our goals and which are our priorities? Why are they such? What are the short and long-term costs of pursuing our priorities, and do the benefits of achieving them outweigh the short and long-term negative consequences and effects of their pursuit? The debate continues.
Click here to see the full text for former Vice President Al Gore’s speech.
Administration Lowers Alert Code to Yellow -- Two weeks after raising the national threat level to the orange, or "high-risk" level around the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration on Sept. 24 lowered it to yellow, or "elevated" status. The decision was the result of the unanimous recommendation of the president’s homeland security council. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, two of the officials contributing to the recommendation to Bush, cited recent arrests of suspected members of al Qaeda in Buffalo, N.Y., Singapore, Yemen, Bahrain and Pakistan.
War With Iraq Could Cost $100 Billion -- A new report by the House Budget Committee’s Democratic staff says that war with Iraq could cost as much as $93 billion, while costs related to humanitarian assistance and reconstruction would raise the cost well over $100 billion. The analysis is based on a 60-day war involving 250,000 U.S. troops. War involving a force of 125,000 troops would cost roughly $48 billion. The report comes after comments last week from the president’s chief economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey, who estimated the cost of war with Iraq at between $100 billion and $200 billion; figures that Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., later described as "very, very high." Click here to see the full text of the report.
Mini Jammers Could Effect U.S. Precision Weapons -- Inexpensive electronic devises could jam Global Positioning System (GPS) signals, and hurt the effectiveness of some of the precision guided munitions (PGMs) in the U.S. arsenal, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 25). GPS jammers can be found for sale on the Internet for as little as $39.99, raising concerns that potential enemies of the United States might easily acquire such technology as a way to foil U.S. air strikes. While GPS guided weapons are superior to other "smart" munitions in that they have an all-weather, day and night capability, other weapons in the U.S. arsenal which rely on laser, radar or visual guidance systems are equally or even more accurate, and would not be effected by such jammers.
NATO Will Accept Seven New Members -- NATO officials attending the defense ministers meeting in Warsaw are reporting that the alliance will invite seven nations to become new members at the November summit in Prague. The seven nations are Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – all former members of the Warsaw Pact. Reports indicate that Albania, which is also seeking NATO membership, will not be invited to join the alliance at this time. The addition of the seven will bring total membership to twenty-six nations, and extend its territory to the Russian border.
U.S. Wants Private Security for Karzai -- The State Department plans to hire a private security firm to protect Afghan President Hamid Karzai, according to The New York Times (Sept. 19). While U.S. special forces personnel currently provide security for Karzai, the State Department announced last month that its Diplomatic Security Service (DDS) would be taking over. But last week State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said that DDS is stretched too thin, and lacks the proper training and weapons for the job. One company said to be under consideration by the State Department is DynCorp., of Reston, Va., according to the Times story.
Quotation of the Week -- "As for [Congressional] Democrats, many of them are so afraid of being labeled appeasers that they want to quickly give the president the war resolution he wants -- so they can then turn to the weak economy as a campaign issue. Many of these Democrats happen to share [former Vice President Al] Gore's misgivings, but, to put matters in their crassest terms, they seem quite willing to sacrifice the odd 19-year-old soldier for the odd congressional seat," columnist Richard Cohen, The Washington Post, September 26, 2002.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV -- "The World Bank and World Poverty"
On the occasion of the World Bank's 57th annual meeting this week, Superpower takes a look at the debate over globalization and the organization that many critics say is exploiting the Third World and threatening American jobs.
Joining Superpower moderator Lisa Simeone as guests this week will be Njoki Njehu, Director of the 50 Years Is Enough Network; Eric Chinje, Senior Communications Officer from The World Bank; and Patrick Jarreau, Washington D.C. Bureau Chief with the French newspaper, Le Monde.
WHERE TO SEE SUPERPOWER:
SUPERPOWER is aired in the Washington, DC area on Wednesday at 8:30pm on MHz, and again on Sunday at 12:30pm on MHz2 (check local listings at: http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html).
Superpower is broadcast nationwide:
WorldLinkTV, Channel 9410 on Echostar Communications Corporation's DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system. Superpower and WorldLinkTV are available on Channel 375 on DIRECTV® satellite TV service.
Broadcast times for Superpower: Global Affairs TV on WorldLinkTV
Saturdays: 6:30 p.m. EDT
Sundays: 2:30 a.m., 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. EDT
To see when Superpower broadcasts on WorldlinkTV and your DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system or your DIRECTV® satellite TV service, please visit: http://www.worldlinktv.com/cgi-bin/displayProgram.cgi?code=superpower
For more information, please send an e-mail to: info@superpowertv.org. For free transcripts of past shows, go to www.superpowertv.org