Security/Turvallisuus

George Bush on uusinut Yhdysvaltain kansallisen turvallisuus-strategian. Se on hyvin samankaltainen kuin edellinen turvallisuus-strategia, joka valmistui vuonna 2002 - pian terroristi-iskujen jalkeen. Yhdysvaltain ulkopolitiikka muuttui pidattyvaisesta aggressiiviseksi, jossa hyokkays ilman provokaatiota on sallittua, ja jossa demokratian levittaminen maailmalla on oikeutettua, vaikka vakivalloin - jos se luo lisaa "turvallisuutta".
Mutta kenen turvallisuudesta onkaan kysymys? Amerikkalaisten tietenkin, mutta enta muiden demokratioiden? Enta Irakin kansalaisten tai Iranin kansalaisten?

Bushin turvallisuus-strategia on pelottava siksi, etta se tulkitsee kaiken amerikkalaisten arvojen mukaisesti. Ja amerikkalaiset arvot ovat niiden amerikkalaisten arvoja, jotka omistavat, hallitsevat ja ovat vallassa. Big business.




The National Security Strategy Gets Updated

I wrote a piece about the National Security Strategy last summer. Now it has just been updated. The Strategy did not change much from the one four years ago, so I think this still applies. The current one emphasizes the spread of democracy around the world and also includes items such as AIDS, the environment and genocide. And pre-emption is still the central focus of policy.

Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing. (George W. Bush, 2001)

The September 11th 2001 terrorist attack was a watershed event in world history. Not only were the events of that day spectacular in scale and visibility, but they also struck in the heart of a sleepy giant in a way that could not be forgiven. [It was unforgivable a) to be caught sleeping; b) to strike at the golden boy of the world.] By hitting the only global superpower, the terrorists managed to affect the whole world for years to come. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America was written anew after the attacks and it reflects a new attitude in the U.S. foreign policy.

George W. Bush had been President less than a year when terrorists attacked the United States. George W. Bush seemed a little lost with the responsibility of leading the most powerful nation on earth. He had barely won the election, and he didn’t have much of an agenda, especially regarding foreign policy. But he had his Christian faith and silver-spoon upbringing that would guide him through tough times.

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment -- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency. (Suskind, 2004)

Since the attacks George W. Bush’s mission has been very clear, and, according to Suskind, he receives his orders directly from God. This definitely makes it easier to make difficult decisions regarding war and peace.

The National Security Strategy speaks of “liberty” and “freedom” as the most important values for all of humankind. “These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society…” These freedoms are not only individual liberties and rights but freedom of the markets. “We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world” (National Security Strategy, 2002). A Neo-Weberian would argue that American style liberal democracy is the only way to keep the world safe and at peace, and that every person desires this type of individual liberty. For George W. Bush this is true. He strongly believes in the rightness of his mission and the evil of the “other” – “… the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization”.

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish… The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman. (Hofstadter, 1964)

A Materialist sees the claims of freedom and liberty in a more cynical light: what the United States really wants is freedom of the markets in order to gain access to ever-expanding consumer base and to exploit the world’s resources. George W. Bush, who grew up with wealth and privilege, sees no problem with Americans controlling the world’s wealth. American wealth has been based on cheap oil for a century. George W. Bush and his oil-wealthy advisers seized the opportunity given by God (with the help of Osama bin-Laden) to secure Iraqi oil-fields for the unforeseeable future.

We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies." (Bookman, 2002)

In his book “Globalization or Empire” Jan Neverdeen Pieterse speaks of the Bush administration as “an aggressive strain of Southern conservatism backed by oil wealth” (Pieterse, 2004). According to Pieterse, since the Reagan administration, the United States’ economy has been increasingly relying on the military-industrial complex; but when the Cold War ended, it created an “enemy deficit” (Pieterse, 2004). But “the war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration” (National Security Strategy, 2002).

Both Neo-Weberian and Materialist points of view fit well into George W. Bush’s Security Strategy. The men behind his strategy had been planning American global supremacy years before the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. But with the new focus on a global enemy, it was a smooth transition from multilateralism to unilateralism. “A Defense Policy Guidance that was leaked in 1992… revealed a grand strategy of American primacy: ‘our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any future global competitor’. This principle has since become part of security strategy” (Pieterse, 2004). The President’s Neo-Weberian faith in the goodness of America and the values “we all hold true” are necessary ingredients in a charismatic leader required to lead his people on a path less democratic. But the bottom line is the mighty Dollar We Trust.

1) Bookman, Jay 2002. The President’s Real Goal in Iraq.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

2) Suskind, Ronald 2004. Without a Doubt

3) Hofstadter, Richard 1964. The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Harper’s Magazine.

4) The National Security Strategy, 2002

5) Pieterse, Jan Nederveen 2004. Globalization or Empire?
Routledge, New York, NY.