Violence is not a Sustainable Strategy [1]
by
Beril Dedeoglu
The US this month (March 2006) released the “National Security Strategy” (NSS) document on President George W. Bush’s second term. The document comprises 59 pages and nine main titles.
As we can still remember, the previous document was released in September 2002. If the US national security strategy had only been of interest to this country and its citizens, it probably would not have been the subject of such an article. However, because US strategy documents deal more with people and countries of the world than US citizens, they have become everybody’s national security document in proportion to the US presence in the world. On the one hand, while these documents help us understand the global goals of the United States and the major tools it will use in achieving its goals, on the other hand, they serve in determining the world perception and mentality structure of the US administration in an almost entertaining way. Moreover, as the number of security documents increases, it becomes easier to make comparisons. But, I think the real value of this kind of documents is that anyone can learn about the security strategies of any country. When compared to the 2002 NSS document, it can be said that this year’s NSS document was written more elaborately. While the previous NSS seemed as if it was prepared for those who cannot understand what they read, this time it can be said that it addresses not only some of the concerns of experts, but also those of security and philosophy experts. From a positive viewpoint, it is possible to say that US has learned lessons from its unilateral and violence-oriented policies and has entered a process that gives priority to cooperation.
New world perception of the Bush administration
First, it is beneficial to look briefly at main frame of the US administration’s basic expectations from the world. The most important goal and concern of the US are shown in a way that do not contradict the 2002 and 2006 NSS documents, under the name of spreading market economy, global security and “democracy.”
As emphasized in both documents, it is frequently emphasized that this is not the first time the US is embarking on action to democratize the world. It also reminds us that the United States spearheaded the fight against fascism and communism not only for its sake but for the sake of all of its friends and allies, and also today, it is carrying out the struggle more for the sake of its friends than for its own sake. In the 2002 NSS document, basic human rights, economic and political liberties were included in the concept of “democracy” and references to “regimes in Afghanistan, which do not allow girls to go to school” were shown as examples of the anti-democratic practices. Over the past four years, the concept of democracy seems to have expanded and has been divided into categories. This year, democracy has become a concept, which comprises different cultures and values in the most extensive sense. The idea not to resort to violence and terrorism, concepts such as tolerance show that the US, this time, has partially given up on its understanding of democracy which hitherto was based on “elections.” In this year’s NSS document, it is mentioned that the US, shown as the champion of democracy, human rights and liberties rather than the champ of the war against terrorism, is very bent on helping societies which are unable to democratize. As understood from the introductory part, the US, under the framework of its final goal, has no intention of giving up on its engagements in the world.
For this reason, it is necessary to look at how the issues and actors that ruin the world’s stability and threaten US security are defined: According to the 2002 NSS document, the basic concern of the US and of humanity was defined as “terrorism”; however, terrorism along with radicalism and technology were said to be even more dangerous. Regimes which condone these elements were “enemies” and those which regard these elements as dangerous, like the US does, were “friends.” Although this issue is still very important in the 2006 NSS document, terrorism is given little coverage, and in its place, terms like friend/enemy regimes, other new and interesting terms, which will be useful particularly in differentiating the countries, are being used. Friendly countries are no longer defined explicitly as countries which act alongside the US, but as “effective democracies” and those which share the same values with the US. Although the distinction between “effective democracy” and democracy is not perfectly understood, it is means, the effective criteria, to a great extent, are those participating directly in the democratization of the world, because, effectiveness is not evaluated as a domestic variable. The US declaring itself the champion of democracy even demonstrates how it has endeavored in Iraq and Afghanistan in a way that shows effectiveness, and the US does not talk about its domestic issues and practices in the camps established on territories it purchased from Cuba. It can be concluded that the US democracy is so perfect that it does not need questioning, and there is no process on this issue that threatens its security. While the increase in tendencies for democratization in the world and expectations on this are mentioned, countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait and Egypt are not referred to strangely. Certainly, developments in these countries are not tackled within the framework of “effective democracy,” but as processes that need to be supported.
The change on the enemy issue is more striking when compared to the 2002 NSS document, because, “regimes,” which were defined as enemies in the previous document, have been replaced with “tyrannical” which can be associated with barbarism, referring to the Old Greek political thought system or John Locke and William Pitt. Tyranny in this sense presents a more concrete world of meanings than a rogue state or authoritarian regime. Tyrannies are defined as the combination of brutality, poverty, instability, corruption and suffering under the control of despotic rulers or systems. Yet, all the authoritarian administrations are not evaluated in the same sense, the authoritarian regime posing a threat is considered “tyrannical”. It is understood that all the tyrants do not pose threats, or all authoritarian regimes are not tyrannical. Tyrants are defined as those who defend the ideology of terrorism, oppose democratization, possess weapons of mass destruction but conceal them and those who make use of dangerous networks. So, weapons of mass destruction and the network issue, in other words, communication and the issue of nuclear weapons are dealt with as security matters and are associated with tyrants.
Just right here, a very different estimation can be made. The US notes that it has the responsibility to spread liberties and democracy just as it mentioned in the 2002 NSS document. An ideological background has been prepared in this document just in case one may ask who assigned this responsibility to the US or the duty to save the world. As seen in the definition of tyrant, there is the problem of ideology or an ideological problem.
Violence cannot be a means of political settlement
First, the document talks about the ideology of the enemy and emphasizes the “terrorist ideology” and “ideology of terrorism” under this framework. We, as people working in the field of international relations and say that terrorism is a political means, have the opportunity to make a new opening in this regard. The terrorist ideology is explained with deeper concepts and wrapped with references to Islam along with similarities in the definition of terrorist or tyrant. In this section, which can also be considered as a confession to the skepticism and ongoing prejudices towards Islamic societies, Islam is indirectly shown as having an ideological background legitimizing murder and its connection with terrorism is defined in a way. Expressions, with concerns to differentiate between Muslims who resort to terrorism and those who do not, define terrorism as a problem that can be encountered in all religions, but at the same time, Islam is given more coverage for some reason or other. Yet, it is necessary not to confuse certain matters. The document does not only show examples from Islamic societies. Those who have weapons of mass destruction may be categorized along with tyrants. Yet, tyrants are considered more dangerous because they possess these weapons and adopt the “terrorist ideology” which legitimizes murder in essence. As a matter of fact, it is seen that the US administration, which did not have much information about the Islamic societies in 2002, has not covered much distance since then, even in 2006. Besides, it has to make explanations about Islam. On one side, emphasis on the diversion and abuse of Muslim beliefs, serve as a base for consensus among Western allies who still perceive Islam with suspicion, and on the other, it points to the importance of effective moderate Muslim leaders during the transformation of societies.
To summarize: The sources of instability in the world are the tyrants who nourish the terrorist ideology; they pose a direct threat through weapons of mass destruction and also pose indirect and widespread threats with network systems. The sources of the world’s stability are countries which believe in “effective” democracy, defend human rights and liberties and do not refrain from collaborating with US in this regard. In short, it states that from 2006 onwards, most of the problems in the world, to a great extent, will be ideological and emphasizes the importance of being on the same side with the US and those who share the same ideology for the future of humanity, just the tyrants collaborate among themselves. The struggle henceforth is describe as an ideological struggle. There are effective democracies, democracies and tyrants in the system. The ideological formation of blocs occurs between effective democracies which are open to interference, and tyrannies which are aggressive regimes. Under these circumstances, existing democracies and other authoritarian structures should make a choice.
Tools of the US uses for world stability
It is useful to look at the tools that US gives priority to under the framework of its world perception, its expectations from the world and its friend-foe distinction as determined in the 2006 NSS document. It can be said that the 2006 NSS document got away from the threat of resorting to direct tools, including violence, in comparison to the previous NSS document. Although the US did not completely give up on the concept of preemptive strike, it did not mention this as frequently as it did in the previous one. This good news shows that the US, in a way, has reached a limit, in terms of military measures and that the strategy it started cannot be sustained. On the other side, there is bad news: The US military intervention method currently in practice has been replaced by a broader and more effective method.
Terms such as weapons of mass destruction and “cooperation” with communication systems are mentioned in many parts of the text, several times in many different ways. When weapons of mass destruction and dangerous network systems, used by terrorists are viewed together, it can be claimed that the US makes actual reference to the National Missile Defense System, which is something not really unknown. Roughly, this system is a defense system, which will make it possible to annihilate firing systems before they are activated during the launch of weapons of mass destruction. Since it cannot be known beforehand from which range and where the weapons will be launched, a system is in the making, including digital monitoring systems and giant listening mechanisms, which will allow it to see the course of missiles and to cooperate with the systems to be established against the systems that will be fired from anywhere at any altitude and at any range. To operate this system, countries which are part of the system should allow the installation of the necessary equipments in their territories and thus will be included in the protection shield in this way. This system comprising all kinds of communications, know-how, intelligence mechanisms, monitoring and acquiring information, means sharing almost all areas within the scope of security. Of course, this expectation is considered valid for people who are on the same ideological side.
The insistence in gaining the operability of this system, will facilitate the US in changing its military structure and function, for example, it will serve to reduce the number of its troops in Iraq and will help establish a new chain of allies again. In short, the idea is, if the threat relies on advanced and widespread technology, then the fight against it should also rely on advanced technology and should be made widespread.
Acting on the idea to make it widespread, it is necessary to talk about the US insistence on finding allies. Compared to the 2002 NSS document, in which there were more implications in that document to acting alone, issues such as cooperation, division of responsibility and the reference to friend-ally occupy are given wide coverage in this year’s NSS document. Friends definitely are dealt with in two categories: The first, the democratic states and the other, the effective democratic states. This situation also has a worrisome reference to countries claiming to be democratic. The US explicitly states that it can finance the democratization process of countries which are willing to be democratic, but lack the tools of becoming effective democracies. The US, which does not refrain from making such a self-sacrifice, has proposals showing that it can render this support through bilateral or multi-lateral enterprises, which is its real preference. “Future Fund of Expanded Middle East and North Africa Project”, “Democracy Group” and “United Nations (UN) Democracy Fund” can be shown as examples of these proposals. It is possible to see this practice as a method of grouping countries, instead of dealing with them one by one, and also preparing suitable regimes for them.
Professor Dedeoglu is a faculty member at Galatasaray University.
04.03.2006
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt=&trh=20060405&hn=31616
