IV. Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts"We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion.The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small."President BushBerlin, GermanyMay 23, 2002Concerned nations must remain activelyengaged in critical regional disputes to avoidexplosive escalation and minimize humansuffering. In an increasingly interconnected world,regional crisis can strain our alliances, rekindlerivalries among the major powers, and createhorrifying affronts to human dignity.Whenviolence erupts and states falter, the United Stateswill work with friends and partners to alleviatesuffering and restore stability.No doctrine can anticipate every circumstancein which U.S. action—direct or indirect—iswarranted.We have finite political, economic, andmilitary resources to meet our global priorities.The United States will approach each case withthese strategic principles in mind:The United States should invest time andresources into building international relationshipsand institutions that can helpmanage local crises when they emerge.
The United States should be realistic aboutits ability to help those who are unwilling orunready to help themselves.Where andwhen people are ready to do their part, wewill be willing to move decisively.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is criticalbecause of the toll of human suffering, because ofAmerica’s close relationship with the state of Israeland key Arab states, and because of that region’simportance to other global priorities of the UnitedStates. There can be no peace for either sidewithout freedom for both sides. America standscommitted to an independent and democraticPalestine, living beside Israel in peace and security.Like all other people, Palestinians deserve agovernment that serves their interests and listensto their voices. The United States will continueto encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilitiesas we seek a just and comprehensivesettlement to the conflict.The United States, the international donorcommunity, and the World Bank stand ready towork with a reformed Palestinian government oneconomic development, increased humanitarianassistance, and a program to establish, finance,and monitor a truly independent judiciary. IfPalestinians embrace democracy, and the rule oflaw, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror,they can count on American support for thecreation of a Palestinian state.Israel also has a large stake in the success of ademocratic Palestine. Permanent occupationthreatens Israel’s identity and democracy. So theUnited States continues to challenge Israeli leadersto take concrete steps to support the emergence ofa viable, credible Palestinian state. As there isprogress towards security, Israel forces need towithdraw fully to positions they held prior toSeptember 28, 2000. And consistent with therecommendations of the Mitchell Committee,Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territoriesmust stop. As violence subsides, freedom ofmovement should be restored, permitting innocentPalestinians to resume work and normal life.The United States can play a crucial role but,ultimately, lasting peace can only come whenIsraelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and endthe conflict between them.In South Asia, the United States has alsoemphasized the need for India and Pakistan toresolve their disputes. This Administrationinvested time and resources building strongbilateral relations with India and Pakistan.These strong relations then gave us leverage toplay a constructive role when tensions in theregion became acute.With Pakistan, our bilateralrelations have been bolstered by Pakistan’s choiceto join the war against terror and move towardbuilding a more open and tolerant society. TheAdministration sees India’s potential to becomeone of the great democratic powers of the twentyfirstcentury and has worked hard to transformour relationship accordingly. Our involvement inthis regional dispute, building on earlier investmentsin bilateral relations, looks first to concretesteps by India and Pakistan that can help defusemilitary confrontation.Indonesia took courageous steps to create aworking democracy and respect for the rule of law.By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting the ruleof law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia maybe able to employ the engine of opportunity thathas helped lift some of its neighbors out of povertyand desperation. It is the initiative by Indonesia thatallows U.S. assistance to make a difference.In the Western Hemisphere we have formedflexible coalitions with countries that share ourpriorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada,Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote atruly democratic hemisphere where our integrationadvances security, prosperity, opportunity,and hope.We will work with regional institutions,such as the Summit of the Americas process, theOrganization of American States (OAS), and theDefense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefitof the entire hemisphere.Parts of Latin America confront regionalconflict, especially arising from the violence ofdrug cartels and their accomplices. This conflictand unrestrained narcotics trafficking couldimperil the health and security of the UnitedStates. Therefore we have developed an activestrategy to help the Andean nations adjust theireconomies, enforce their laws, defeat terroristorganizations, and cut off the supply of drugs,while—as important—we work to reduce thedemand for drugs in our own country.In Colombia, we recognize the link betweenterrorist and extremist groups that challenge thesecurity of the state and drug trafficking activitiesthat help finance the operations of such groups.We are working to help Colombia defend itsdemocratic institutions and defeat illegal armedgroups of both the left and right by extendingeffective sovereignty over the entire nationalterritory and provide basic security to theColombian people.In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side byside with disease, war, and desperate poverty. Thisthreatens both a core value of the United States—preserving human dignity—and our strategicpriority—combating global terror. Americaninterests and American principles, therefore, leadin the same direction: we will work with others foran African continent that lives in liberty, peace,and growing prosperity. Together with ourEuropean allies, we must help strengthen Africa’sfragile states, help build indigenous capability tosecure porous borders, and help build up the lawenforcement and intelligence infrastructure todeny havens for terrorists.An ever more lethal environment exists inAfrica as local civil wars spread beyond borders tocreate regional war zones. Forming coalitions ofthe willing and cooperative security arrangementsare key to confronting these emerging transnationalthreats.Africa’s great size and diversity requires asecurity strategy that focuses on bilateral engagementand builds coalitions of the willing. ThisAdministration will focus on three interlockingstrategies for the region:countries with major impact on theirneighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria,Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regionalengagement and require focused attention;
coordination with European allies andinternational institutions is essential forconstructive conflict mediation andsuccessful peace operations; and
Africa’s capable reforming states andsub-regional organizations must be strengthenedas the primary means to addresstransnational threats on a sustained basis.
Ultimately the path of political and economicfreedom presents the surest route to progress insub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are conflictsover material resources and political access oftentragically waged on the basis of ethnic andreligious difference. The transition to the AfricanUnion with its stated commitment to goodgovernance and a common responsibility fordemocratic political systems offers opportunitiesto strengthen democracy on the continent.
Security: Exchange: two major security threats
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us,Our Allies, and Our Friendswith Weapons of Mass Destruction“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons,along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak statesand small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations.Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seekingthese terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us,or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”President BushWest Point, New YorkJune 1, 2002The nature of the Cold War threat required theUnited States—with our allies and friends—toemphasize deterrence of the enemy’s use of force,producing a grim strategy of mutual assureddestruction.With the collapse of the Soviet Unionand the end of the Cold War, our security environmenthas undergone profound transformation.Having moved from confrontation to cooperationas the hallmark of our relationship with Russia,the dividends are evident: an end to the balance ofterror that divided us; an historic reduction in thenuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation inareas such as counterterrorism and missile defensethat until recently were inconceivable.But new deadly challenges have emerged fromrogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporarythreats rival the sheer destructive powerthat was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union.However, the nature and motivations of these newadversaries, their determination to obtain destructivepowers hitherto available only to the world’sstrongest states, and the greater likelihood thatthey will use weapons of mass destruction againstus, make today’s security environment morecomplex and dangerous.In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of asmall number of rogue states that, while differentin important ways, share a number of attributes.These states:brutalize their own people and squandertheir national resources for the personal gainof the rulers;display no regard for international law,threaten their neighbors, and callouslyviolate international treaties to which theyare party;are determined to acquire weapons of massdestruction, along with other advancedmilitary technology, to be used as threats oroffensively to achieve the aggressive designsof these regimes;sponsor terrorism around the globe; andreject basic human values and hate the UnitedStates and everything for which it stands.At the time of the Gulf War, we acquiredirrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were notlimited to the chemical weapons it had usedagainst Iran and its own people, but also extendedto the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biologicalagents. In the past decade North Korea hasbecome the world’s principal purveyor of ballisticmissiles, and has tested increasingly capablemissiles while developing its own WMD arsenal.Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, andchemical weapons as well. These states’ pursuit of,and global trade in, such weapons has become alooming threat to all nations.We must be prepared to stop rogue states andtheir terrorist clients before they are able tothreaten or use weapons of mass destructionagainst the United States and our allies andfriends. Our response must take full advantage ofstrengthened alliances, the establishment of newpartnerships with former adversaries, innovationin the use of military forces, modern technologies,including the development of an effective missiledefense system, and increased emphasis onintelligence collection and analysis.Our comprehensive strategy to combatWMD includes:Proactive counterproliferation efforts. Wemust deter and defend against the threatbefore it is unleashed.We must ensure thatkey capabilities—detection, active andpassive defenses, and counterforcecapabilities—are integrated into our defensetransformation and our homeland securitysystems. Counterproliferation must also beintegrated into the doctrine, training, andequipping of our forces and those of ourallies to ensure that we can prevail in anyconflict with WMD-armed adversaries.Strengthened nonproliferation efforts toprevent rogue states and terrorists fromacquiring the materials, technologies, andexpertise necessary for weapons of massdestruction. We will enhance diplomacy,arms control, multilateral export controls,and threat reduction assistance that impedestates and terrorists seeking WMD, andwhen necessary, interdict enabling technologiesand materials.We will continue to buildcoalitions to support these efforts, encouragingtheir increased political and financialsupport for nonproliferation and threatreduction programs. The recent G-8agreement to commit up to $20 billion to aglobal partnership against proliferationmarks a major step forward.Effective consequence management to respondto the effects of WMD use, whether by terroristsor hostile states. Minimizing the effects ofWMD use against our people will help deterthose who possess such weapons anddissuade those who seek to acquire them bypersuading enemies that they cannot attaintheir desired ends. The United States mustalso be prepared to respond to the effects ofWMD use against our forces abroad, and tohelp friends and allies if they are attacked.It has taken almost a decade for us tocomprehend the true nature of this new threat.Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, theUnited States can no longer solely rely on a reactiveposture as we have in the past. The inabilityto deter a potential attacker, the immediacy oftoday’s threats, and the magnitude of potentialharm that could be caused by our adversaries’choice of weapons, do not permit that option.Wecannot let our enemies strike first.In the Cold War, especially following theCuban missile crisis, we faced a generallystatus quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrencewas an effective defense. But deterrencebased only upon the threat of retaliation isless likely to work against leaders of roguestates more willing to take risks, gamblingwith the lives of their people, and the wealthof their nations.In the Cold War, weapons of mass destructionwere considered weapons of last resortwhose use risked the destruction of thosewho used them. Today, our enemies seeweapons of mass destruction as weapons ofchoice. For rogue states these weapons aretools of intimidation and military aggressionagainst their neighbors. These weapons mayalso allow these states to attempt to blackmailthe United States and our allies toprevent us from deterring or repelling theaggressive behavior of rogue states. Suchstates also see these weapons as their bestmeans of overcoming the conventionalsuperiority of the United States.Traditional concepts of deterrence will notwork against a terrorist enemy whoseavowed tactics are wanton destruction andthe targeting of innocents; whose so-calledsoldiers seek martyrdom in death and whosemost potent protection is statelessness. Theoverlap between states that sponsor terror andthose that pursue WMD compels us to action.For centuries, international law recognized thatnations need not suffer an attack before they canlawfully take action to defend themselves againstforces that present an imminent danger of attack.Legal scholars and international jurists oftenconditioned the legitimacy of preemption on theexistence of an imminent threat—most often avisible mobilization of armies, navies, and airforces preparing to attack.We must adapt the concept of imminentthreat to the capabilities and objectives of today’sadversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do notseek to attack us using conventional means.They know such attacks would fail. Instead, theyrely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use ofweapons of mass destruction—weapons that canbe easily concealed, delivered covertly, and usedwithout warning.The targets of these attacks are our militaryforces and our civilian population, in direct violationof one of the principal norms of the law ofwarfare. As was demonstrated by the losses onSeptember 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is thespecific objective of terrorists and these losseswould be exponentially more severe if terroristsacquired and used weapons of mass destruction.The United States has long maintained theoption of preemptive actions to counter a sufficientthreat to our national security. The greaterthe threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for takinganticipatory action to defend ourselves, even ifuncertainty remains as to the time and place ofthe enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent suchhostile acts by our adversaries, the United Stateswill, if necessary, act preemptively.The United States will not use force in all casesto preempt emerging threats, nor should nationsuse preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet inan age where the enemies of civilization openlyand actively seek the world’s most destructivetechnologies, the United States cannot remain idlewhile dangers gather.We will always proceed deliberately, weighingthe consequences of our actions. To supportpreemptive options, we will:build better, more integrated intelligencecapabilities to provide timely, accurate informationon threats, wherever they may emerge;coordinate closely with allies to form acommon assessment of the most dangerousthreats; andcontinue to transform our military forces toensure our ability to conduct rapid andprecise operations to achieve decisive results.The purpose of our actions will always be toeliminate a specific threat to the United States orour allies and friends. The reasons for our actionswill be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. 2ff7e9595c
Comentários