The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger.
The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.
But it stresses that the US aims to spread democracy through diplomacy.
The new strategy also highlights a string of other global issues of concern to the US, such as the spread of Aids, the threat of pandemic flu and the prospect of natural and environmental disasters.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is due to make a speech launching the new strategy on Thursday.
Other key points include:
Stressing US preference for "transformational diplomacy" and coalition building, but not necessarily within United Nations or Nato frameworks http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifNATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader Download the reader here
Criticising the lack of democratic freedoms in Russia and China
Branding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "demagogue" aiming to destabilise the region
Urging Palestinian radical group Hamas to recognise Israel, renounce violence and disarm.
Seven despots
The substance of the revised strategy focuses on the challenges facing the US in the wake of the Iraq war.
In a nod to previous high-level foreign policy statements, which singled out individual countries as potential enemies of the US, the new document highlights seven "despotic" states.
They are: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.
The policy of the US, according to the opening words of the 49-page document, is "to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world".
These motives underpin US policy towards the continuing stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme, the document says.
But it stresses that continuing diplomatic efforts must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided, vowing to take "all necessary measures" to protect US interests against Iran. Self-defence
The new document, overseen and approved by Mr Bush, leaves the so-called "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war largely unchanged. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...atroops203.jpg The US is concerned at the rate of Chinese military spending
Before 2002 the US largely focused on the deterrence and containment of unfriendly states.
However, likening the current international situation to the early years of the Cold War, the new document insists on the right of the US to protect its interests using force.
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it says. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise."
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.
Nor should they shy away from doing so. Someone has to be the policeman of the world.
That is a great, and timeless question, my friend. I don't have much of an answer except that: the UN is supposed to police the policeman, but the UN have again and again proven themselves 100% useless. Darfur? Good job, lately, UN! But, to be serious, there are plenty of both GO's and NGO's who follow America's every move and don't hesitate to rebuke them for any wrongdoing. And there can be coalitions of "countervailing powers" (alliances of countries opposing the single one) who can be a check and balance on a superpower. And there is the most important check of all, economics. But I am rambling!
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed
If the USA really believe in pre-emptive action to avert nuclear war then maybe the USA could destroy all its own WMD first as a gesture of goodwill to humanity.
Greetings and peace Knut Hamsun and welcome to the forum;
Someone has to be the policeman of the world
In a democracy the police should be working for the good of the society as a whole, and they should not also have the power to be judge, jury and executioner as well.
The opposite of democracy is a dictatorship, and the dictator seems to hold the power of judge, jury and executioner, so he can then control the police for his own purposes.
It seems that the USA. is taking on the role of judge, jury, and executioner and its policemen carry out their orders. The population of the USA is a tiny fraction of the world population, yet it seems to want to control the whole world supposedly for a just cause.
If the USA were really striving for justice they would have to listen to the UN. And they might have to act in a more democratic way that takes the rest of the world into consideration.
If the USA were really striving for justice they would have to listen to the UN.
The UN??? I would have to disagree with you there. The UN made a mockery of the word "justice" in Srebrinica.And Sarajevo. And Darfur. And Somalia. And Cambodia. AND Rwanda. And Haiti.... The UN's hands are stained with the blood of millions.
Good intentions and a bunch of paperwork do nothing. It is a horrible fact of the human experience that force and violence must sometimes be used against the tyrants of the earth. The ideal superpower should "wield the hand of Ceasar, and have the heart of Christ". A tough balance, I admit...
It is so annoying that so many times I hear people use the UN to demonstrate how one country is breaking the law, or violating an agreement when it is in their favor, but then trash the UN when it is not.
It is so annoying that so many times I hear people use the UN to demonstrate how one country is breaking the law, or violating an agreement when it is in their favor, but then trash the UN when it is not.
Srebrinica.And Sarajevo. And Darfur. And Somalia. And Cambodia. AND Rwanda. And Haiti.... These are just the facts, Cheb. You may not like that the UN failed miserably in all of these cases, (and more!), but we can't change the truth. I would have to add Iraq to the UN's list of failures as well... Iraq violated 17 separate UN resolutions (not the correct word, help me here ) during the 1990's and the UN's solutions were to saction more, slap their wrist, and willfully participate in the biggest corruption scandal of any country or world body in the last 20 years, the oil for food program.
The UN??? I would have to disagree with you there. The UN made a mockery of the word "justice" in Srebrinica.And Sarajevo. And Darfur. And Somalia. And Cambodia. AND Rwanda. And Haiti....
I don’t pretend to know much about military strategy, but I do not think we have come up with any kind of military action that does not end up with thousands, or millions of innocent people being killed.
Mankind has huge amounts to learn from Ghandi, his actions of non-violence were centred more on the life of Christ, and his philosophy was to seek justice for his people but in a peaceful and non-violent way. Many people died but it was for a worthwhile cause.
The ideal superpower should "wield the hand of Ceasar, and have the heart of Christ". A tough balance, I admit
I believe that the ideal superpower should have the hand of Christ and the heart of Christ, an even tougher balance.
Mankind has huge amounts to learn from Ghandi, his actions of non-violence were centred more on the life of Christ, and his philosophy was to seek justice for his people but in a peaceful and non-violent way. Many people died but it was for a worthwhile cause
Hello my friend Eric,
As I posted last night, I love your posts and you really seem to be a consistant, peaceful thinker... I really respect that.
I absolutely agree with your quote, above. I've thought for a while now how quickly the Palestinians could get what they wanted if they used these beautiful tactics of peaceful non-compliance, hunger srtikes, etc... A lot of the West dislikes Israel but can't really agree with the Pals either b/c of their violence. I would bet my life they could gain a tremendous advantage this way.
believe that the ideal superpower should have the hand of Christ and the heart of Christ, an even tougher balance.
I agree, a tougher balance, indeed. And war is hell! I am afraid I don't have a n answer for you! But I still believe that as crappy as it is, man must sometimes use violence in the interest of survival, defense or justice.
Srebrinica.And Sarajevo. And Darfur. And Somalia. And Cambodia. AND Rwanda. And Haiti.... These are just the facts, Cheb. You may not like that the UN failed miserably in all of these cases, (and more!), but we can't change the truth. I would have to add Iraq to the UN's list of failures as well... Iraq violated 17 separate UN resolutions (not the correct word, help me here ) during the 1990's and the UN's solutions were to saction more, slap their wrist, and willfully participate in the biggest corruption scandal of any country or world body in the last 20 years, the oil for food program.
Actually if you read carefully that was not my point. The point is that these countries only come up when needed. If it was to the favor of the US I dont think we would be hearing about this. Oh and Iraq was the failure of the US. Puting a tyrant in power was their first mistake, their second was that they supported the UN decision!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks