Transformation of transatlantic relations

Albeit the Monroe Doctrine was an expression of US power. But it was against colonisation and in defence of liberty and freedom. Bush National Security Strategy, on the other hand, has become controversial from its inception in September 2002 till today as its protagonists and scholar/analysts try to elucidate the concept. Very recently Ambassador Richard Haas of the US State Department (Planning Policy in Today's World- Kennan Institute- May 22, 2003) stating the obvious that the US today enjoyed overwhelming primacy and did not have a single rival with global reach said that the challenge for the US remained as it did for George Kennan, General Marshall, Dean Acheson and Harry Truman, "is to use our power so that it safeguards our interests and promotes our values for years and even decades". Salience emerging from Ambassador Hass' tour d'horizon was that inconsistency in policy was no vice since "one size fit all" cannot be a practical approach; various tools have to be used to realise US foreign policy goals; institutions added value if the existing institutions were adapted to the current realities. But the most disturbing strand in Richard Haas' lecture was his warning that the US reserved the "right to act in less encompassing alliance or flexible ad hoc coalition of the willing when the UN or other bodies were unable or unwilling to move against dire threats". No organisation, not even the UN, he added, had a monopoly of legitimacy.

His is not the lone voice of warning against the international order the world had got used to. Robert Kagan of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace advised that in view of post World War II loss of European power, perhaps the most significant retrenchment of global influence in human history, and Europe's loss of strategic centrality after the cold war, the real division of labour in transatlantic relations should consist of the US "making the dinner" and Europe "doing the dishes". Prime Minister Blair told his Warsaw audience (before he left for G-8 summit at Evian) that Kagan's thesis, though arresting, was one of many other competing notions. He called upon the US to recognise the European dilemma of wanting to be America's partner but not her servant. He thought security challenges for Europe being of external origin, Europe's preoccupation could no longer be confined within intra-European affairs and there was sufficient convergence of interest to further strengthen transatlantic alliance.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Harvard University's Joseph Nye agrees with this argument in his book Paradox of American Power. He argues that the true paradox of American power lay essentially in the fact that the US was too powerful to be challenged by any nation state (her military budget is equal to the expenditure of the next eight countries combined), yet the US was not strong enough to handle all global problems all by herself. Indeed the terrible lesson of the nine-eleven tragedy in President Bush's words, "taught us that weak states like Afghanistan can pose as great a danger to our national interest as strong states".

While there is universal agreement on global quest for non-proliferation of WMD and their non-acquisition by states not having such weapons; worry over North Korea's nuclear gambit; dangers of failing and failed states; equally there is disquiet in the rule-based and law abiding world over remarks such as that of Justice Department spokesperson that in the obsessive pursuit to protect American public from harm Bush administration would not insist on scrupulous adherence to the laws. She was reacting to the long awaited oversight report by Justice Department investigators into alleged violation of the basic rights of foreigners detained after the tragic events of nine-eleven. The rule-based law abiding world was again shocked and bewildered by the transformed definition of sovereignty from the classical one which had helped European stabilisation following the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and has been a source of stability for more than two centuries establishing legal protection against external intervention, offering diplomatic foundation for negotiation of international treaties, in short giving shape to political personality of nations and peoples (promoting decolonisation movement).

Now the nations of the world are being told that sovereignty is not a blank cheque and sovereign status of a state would depend on fulfilment of some fundamental obligations not only to its own people but also to the international community. In support of this new concept examples are being advanced on the transformation of the Organisation of African Unity into African Union which commits all member states to respect human rights and good governance. Example has also been given of the Organisation of American States' pledge to Democratic Charter which opposes any interruption of democratic process. Are we not then treading upon the hitherto sacrosanct concept of territorial integrity which is enshrined in the UN charter? Are we not implicitly conceding that Lincoln's famous quotation of government of the people, by the people and for the people is not enough and that an external supervisor has to be satisfied as well? It is not to argue that humanitarian interventions or lack of it, for example, in Kuwait, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo were morally reprehensible? On the contrary those were splendid decisions and hence universally endorsed. The question is about the limits to which the Doctrine of Coercive Preemption can be stretched (John Steinbrenner-Jan/Feb 2003Arms Control Today).

Do we then give credence to Florentine Dante's (1265-1315) political philosophy, Aristotelian in essence, and his argument that mankind was best governed by a single world ruler or monarch whose sovereignty and jurisdiction encompassed and overrode those of lesser rulers? In Dante's world mankind consisting as a totality had its own functions which could not be fulfilled by individual constituent units and therefore their fulfilment was a collective endeavour. Since any collective enterprise would require individual leadership, a single sovereign authority became a logical necessity. Dante spoke in terms of monarchy because he lived in a conflictual era of monarchs and popes when the papacy wielded considerable theocratic and temporal powers. After the demise of the cold war political theorists like Kindelberger put forward the premise of hegemonic stability, albeit a consensual order, in which a dominant global power would be necessary for smooth functioning of an open global economy. Iraq episode and subsequent developments notably the most recent UNSC resolution 1483(2003) lifting sanctions on Iraq, however necessary was its adoption due to Anglo-US fait accompli through the invasion of Iraq, sets a dangerous precedent and invigorates the stone age precept that might is right.

Without losing sight of North Korea, Bush administration is now giving undue attention to the third member of the axis of evil. Defense Secretary Rumsfield has put Iran on notice. Any effort by Iran to mould the Iraqi clay in its image would be aggressively put down. The Americans have charged Iran with complicity with Riyadh bombing; harbouring Al-Qaida terrorists; and of building nuclear weapons. It is no secret that the Bush administration would not hesitate to encourage implosion in Iranian politics to effect a regime change. In reply Iranian President Khatami told the recently held OIC Foreign Ministers' Conference that the world has suffered from violent dogmatists and arrogant powers. On the one hand, he said, terrorism and fanaticism has distorted religion and on the other hand use of force, domination and unilateralism have made a mockery of concepts such as freedom and democracy.

The worrying aspect of the whole drama is whether US allegations against Iran is a pretext for taking revenge for the humiliation suffered by the Americans in the hands of the Iranians more than two decades ago when the then US embassy was occupied by the Iranian mob and American diplomatic staff were held prisoners for a long time. In any case Iran is unlikely to be a piece of cake for any US adventure. During the recently held St. Petersberg summit (1st June) Presidents Bush and Putin appear to have differed on Iran. Though Bush tried to give the impression of mutual concern about advanced Iranian nuclear programme and that they would insist upon Iran not to go for nuclear weapons, Putin expressed Russian objection against using the pretext of nuclear weapon of Iran as a leverage in as an instrument of unfair competition against Russia. In sum President Putin was convinced that there was no alternative to US-Russian cooperation and that the fundamentals of these relations would withstand the test of time. Not so, according to Nicolai Zlobin of the Centre for Defence Information who thinks the four fundamentals outlined by Putin to the Duma had not been realised. Those were: (a) establish closer trustworthy relations with the US; (b) reestablish relations with EU; (c) straighten relations with NATO; (d) secure Russian interest in Central Asia. With the marginalisation of the UNSC Russia is afraid of losing an important tool of influence in the form of her veto power in the Security Council.

Though Bush and Schroeder did not have a bilateral at Evian (Bush is still very angry over Schroeder's use of opposition to Iraq war to win the general elections) US President was upbeat about the transatlantic relations. On 30th May he told the Poles at Krakow that Poland did not have to choose between Europe and America as they can be good citizens of Europe and close friend of the US. He called upon European nations to invest in modern military capabilities and on NATO to show resolve and foresight to fight beyond Europe. For the US in the foreseeable future ferreting out WMD and Middle East will top her diplomatic agenda with strong commitment to the Atlantic alliance to ensure her security and peace in the world.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is former Secretary and Ambassador.