 |
By Sean Misko
Declaring that "we have entered a new world of proliferation," CIA Director George Tenet recently warned Congress that rogue states and groups are increasingly seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
Calling the "long-term trends" with respect to proliferation "bleak," Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, joined Tenet in warning that current efforts by North Korea, al- Qaida and other rogue actors to pursue these weapons constitutes a significant challenge to the stability of the international system.
But in attempting to address Iraq's refusal to disarm, the Bush administration's actions have disrupted the international system.
While the president focuses on Iraq, the crisis in North Korea looms larger, as does global discontent with American policy. These developments indicate that long-term, Bush's strategy of preemption and unilateralist rhetoric is neither politically nor militarily sustainable.
Recent studies argue that the possibility of rogue actors and states developing weapons of mass destruction threatens U.S. interest at home and abroad.
Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, notes that several nations are rapidly developing the technical capabilities to manufacture significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons "in no more than six to nine months -- a breakout capability similar to one Iraq demonstrated" before the Gulf War.
Viewing the proliferation of these weapon technologies as a "global crisis," Cordesman argues that existing arms control agreements may not be effective in preventing future proliferation.
However, today's situations with Iraq and North Korea offer the United States an opportunity to establish a new precedent for stopping the spread of these deadly weapons.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration's current approach to addressing Iraq has weakened the collective security instruments that previously were essential in controlling proliferation.
Replacing traditional diplomacy with harsh rhetoric and bribes, the administration's policies have alienated allies, generated conflict within NATO, mobilized protests against U.S. foreign policy, and further weakened the United Nations.
These events have transpired at a time when the challenges of controlling proliferation and fighting the war on terror demand vigorous multilateral cooperation on many fronts other than Iraq.
Supporters of the president's approach argue that using military force to disarm Iraq is supported by a coalition of nations. But as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) notes, it "is not a coalition of the willing; it's a coalition of the bought."
Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski asks, "To have splintered Europe with by far the weakest part of Europe on our side, is that a bargain?" In terms of global efforts to stop proliferation, the answer is clearly no.
The administration's posture toward North Korea also points to serious strategic miscalculations. Initially, it downplayed North Korea's nuclear ambitions, referring to the situation as a "big problem," not a crisis. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to this "big problem" with the pronouncement that the United States is capable of fighting two wars at once.
The president repeated this assertion this week, stating that if diplomacy with North Korea fails, he'll "have to work militarily." But what diplomacy is he referring to?
Two years ago, Bush discontinued U.S. engagement with North Korea. Despite the current tensions, that policy continues and Washington refuses to engage in direct talks with Pyongyang, instead taking the issue of North Korea's nuclear weapons to the U.N. Security Council.
Not surprisingly, however, the council is having difficulty accepting the American double-standard: one day declaring the United Nations irrelevant and the next declaring it the solution to the world's latest crisis.
Combined with Chinese and South Korean assertions that a unilateral attack against North Korea would be unacceptable, the administration's current approach to North Korea appears headed for failure.
But beyond revealing the "strategic incoherence" of the Bush administration's policies to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the crisis with North Korea also reveals two larger lessons.
First, as Joseph Nye of the Kennedy School of Government argues, "Using excessive rhetoric is not cost free." Nations that feel alienated by the United States will either not cooperate with its efforts to curtail proliferation or, in the case of states like North Korea, will seek to accelerate their efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
This leads to lesson two: If an enemy seeks to have leverage with the United States, it should rapidly develop weapons of mass destruction, effectively denying the United States an easy military victory during a future conflict. In Brzezinski's words: "Go nuclear as rapidly as possible and as secretly as possible; act crazy so as to deter us."
As Brzezinski recently argued, how the United States deals with the challenges presented by North Korea and Iraq "will test our ability to create an international system that collectively copes with problems...."
While a war with Iraq will likely lead to its disarmament, the diplomatic and political fallout from recent U.S. policy decisions will no doubt prevent the Bush administration from building the strong and supportive coalition that the world needs to support nonproliferation efforts on a global level.
Instead of continuing to pursue his current strategy, the president should look to his father's words for guidance. After the Gulf War, the elder Bush declared the dawning of a "new world order" in which nations worked cooperatively to promote security and peace and stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Instead of disrupting the world order, the president should seek to refine it, for only through global cooperation can the threats of proliferation be truly addressed.
The Daily Collegian - Pennsylvania State University student newspaper
March 6, 2003
Global Cooperation Essential to Controlling Weapons Proliferation
|
|
|
