International Observation: How to Interpret the New U.S. Security Strategy
Published in Xinhua
(China) on 28 May 2010
by Jing Du (link to original)
U.S. President Obama submitted his first “National Security Strategy” to Congress on May 27. Compared with Bush’s security strategy, which emphasized unilateralism, Obama’s new strategy has more to do with multilateralism. But the starting points are still to safeguard U.S. national interests, to secure the U.S.' leading position in the world and to seek absolute security through absolute superiority.
What’s different?
Compared with Bush’s security strategy, Obama’s new strategy has four changes: The most important one is that it has dumped the "preemptive strike" as a cornerstone. Meanwhile, the new strategy shows that, while maintaining military superiority, the U.S. would emphasize the roles of diplomacy, intelligence and law enforcement — non-military factors — in dealing with national security challenges. “Preemptive striking,” which is to attack terrorist organizations and hostile nations worldwide before they attack the United States, was Bush’s strategy after 9/11.
Second, the new strategy expands the concept of “national security,” emphasizing the role of economy, education, technology and energy in national security. According to the report, to maintain the U.S.' leadership position in the world, the first step is to rebuild and strengthen the foundation of U.S. national power and influence, to which balanced and sustainable economic growth is the key.
Third, the new strategy has dumped the Bush administration’s “War on Terror,” in favor of further defining the U.S.' enemy. According to the report, the U.S's the enemy is not Jihad or Islam, but al-Qaida and its followers. Analysts believe the U.S. is hoping to ease tensions with the Islamic world and to gain more support on the anti-terrorism issue.
Fourth, the new strategy has put emphasis on the threat of domestic terrorism to U.S. national security. According to the report, as the U.S. increases the intensity in combating al-Qaida, it has become more difficult for al-Qaida to recruit overseas members to attack American land, so it is seeking and training extremists in the U.S., which leads to the increasing threat of terrorist attacks.
Why change?
The Obama administration has put forward this new national security strategy after assessing U.S. domestic and international situations.
It is being proven that more and more people are opposed to the Bush administration’s Iraq War, which was started under the preemptive strategy. Before the war, the U.S. accused Saddam Hussein's regime of possessing weapons of mass destruction and of being connected with terrorist organizations, meaning that the U.S. needed to overthrow it before it posed any substantive threat to the U.S. However, until today, the U.S. has failed to provide any powerful evidence to support its claim.
Besides, the new strategy emphasizes the role the economy plays in national security. This is because the U.S. is experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in the 1930s. It is so badly hurt that it is still unpredictable if economic recovery will continue or if the huge national debt and budget deficit will drag the economy down again. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on May 27 that the debt and deficit problems will pose serious threats to U.S. national security.
Obama highlighted the importance of international cooperation in the new strategy. While strengthening the relationship with its allies, it also strengthens cooperation with big powers such as Russia and China, and with new markets such as Brazil and South Africa. The real reason is that the economic power and international status of these developing countries and new markets are growing very fast. Especially after the economic crisis, these developing countries and new markets have shown stronger resistance to the crisis, and they saw signs of recovery earlier. This has made developed countries, including the U.S., realize the important role of developing countries and new markets in dealing with global challenges. Therefore, the new strategy believes that a G-20 that consists of both developed and developing countries should replace the present G-20, and become an important platform for international negotiation and cooperation.
Essence: Still the Same
Both the Bush administration’s unilateralism and Obama’s multilateralism are to safeguard U.S. national interests, secure its leading position in the world, and seek absolute security through absolute advantage.
According to the new strategy, the core of the U.S. national security strategy is to secure the U.S.' leading position in the world, thus safeguarding and enhancing national interests. The U.S. should not only improve its domestic situation, but also construct a new international order to achieve this goal. It can be seen that the new strategy emphasizes multilateralism and encourages the reform of international organizations. Building a new international order is to make it easier for the U.S. to lead the international organizations and new order, safeguarding U.S. national interests.
In addition, although the new strategy sees military attacks as the last resort due to diplomatic failure, it hasn’t completely dumped unilateralism and preemptive actions. This shows that the U.S. will use multilateralism when it can get support, but would not hesitate to use unilateralism when others won’t obey the U.S. When Bush started the Iraq War, he also claimed that violence was caused by diplomatic failure.
Although the new strategy emphasizes the role of non-military factors such as the economy and education in national security, it still regards the maintenance of absolute military superiority as one of the most important aspects of the security strategy. As Obama wrote in the introduction to the new strategy, “We will maintain the military superiority that has secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades... we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership — a strategy that rebuilds the foundation of American strength and influence.”
Meanwhile, the new strategy points out that the combination of extremism and weapons of mass destruction are the biggest threats to the U.S., which echoes Bush’s words. This also means that anti-terrorism, especially preventing terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons, is still an important part of U.S. national security strategy.
What’s different?
Compared with Bush’s security strategy, Obama’s new strategy has four changes: The most important one is that it has dumped the "preemptive strike" as a cornerstone. Meanwhile, the new strategy shows that, while maintaining military superiority, the U.S. would emphasize the roles of diplomacy, intelligence and law enforcement — non-military factors — in dealing with national security challenges. “Preemptive striking,” which is to attack terrorist organizations and hostile nations worldwide before they attack the United States, was Bush’s strategy after 9/11.
Second, the new strategy expands the concept of “national security,” emphasizing the role of economy, education, technology and energy in national security. According to the report, to maintain the U.S.' leadership position in the world, the first step is to rebuild and strengthen the foundation of U.S. national power and influence, to which balanced and sustainable economic growth is the key.
Third, the new strategy has dumped the Bush administration’s “War on Terror,” in favor of further defining the U.S.' enemy. According to the report, the U.S's the enemy is not Jihad or Islam, but al-Qaida and its followers. Analysts believe the U.S. is hoping to ease tensions with the Islamic world and to gain more support on the anti-terrorism issue.
Fourth, the new strategy has put emphasis on the threat of domestic terrorism to U.S. national security. According to the report, as the U.S. increases the intensity in combating al-Qaida, it has become more difficult for al-Qaida to recruit overseas members to attack American land, so it is seeking and training extremists in the U.S., which leads to the increasing threat of terrorist attacks.
Why change?
The Obama administration has put forward this new national security strategy after assessing U.S. domestic and international situations.
It is being proven that more and more people are opposed to the Bush administration’s Iraq War, which was started under the preemptive strategy. Before the war, the U.S. accused Saddam Hussein's regime of possessing weapons of mass destruction and of being connected with terrorist organizations, meaning that the U.S. needed to overthrow it before it posed any substantive threat to the U.S. However, until today, the U.S. has failed to provide any powerful evidence to support its claim.
Besides, the new strategy emphasizes the role the economy plays in national security. This is because the U.S. is experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in the 1930s. It is so badly hurt that it is still unpredictable if economic recovery will continue or if the huge national debt and budget deficit will drag the economy down again. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on May 27 that the debt and deficit problems will pose serious threats to U.S. national security.
Obama highlighted the importance of international cooperation in the new strategy. While strengthening the relationship with its allies, it also strengthens cooperation with big powers such as Russia and China, and with new markets such as Brazil and South Africa. The real reason is that the economic power and international status of these developing countries and new markets are growing very fast. Especially after the economic crisis, these developing countries and new markets have shown stronger resistance to the crisis, and they saw signs of recovery earlier. This has made developed countries, including the U.S., realize the important role of developing countries and new markets in dealing with global challenges. Therefore, the new strategy believes that a G-20 that consists of both developed and developing countries should replace the present G-20, and become an important platform for international negotiation and cooperation.
Essence: Still the Same
Both the Bush administration’s unilateralism and Obama’s multilateralism are to safeguard U.S. national interests, secure its leading position in the world, and seek absolute security through absolute advantage.
According to the new strategy, the core of the U.S. national security strategy is to secure the U.S.' leading position in the world, thus safeguarding and enhancing national interests. The U.S. should not only improve its domestic situation, but also construct a new international order to achieve this goal. It can be seen that the new strategy emphasizes multilateralism and encourages the reform of international organizations. Building a new international order is to make it easier for the U.S. to lead the international organizations and new order, safeguarding U.S. national interests.
In addition, although the new strategy sees military attacks as the last resort due to diplomatic failure, it hasn’t completely dumped unilateralism and preemptive actions. This shows that the U.S. will use multilateralism when it can get support, but would not hesitate to use unilateralism when others won’t obey the U.S. When Bush started the Iraq War, he also claimed that violence was caused by diplomatic failure.
Although the new strategy emphasizes the role of non-military factors such as the economy and education in national security, it still regards the maintenance of absolute military superiority as one of the most important aspects of the security strategy. As Obama wrote in the introduction to the new strategy, “We will maintain the military superiority that has secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades... we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership — a strategy that rebuilds the foundation of American strength and influence.”
Meanwhile, the new strategy points out that the combination of extremism and weapons of mass destruction are the biggest threats to the U.S., which echoes Bush’s words. This also means that anti-terrorism, especially preventing terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons, is still an important part of U.S. national security strategy.