">

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Full-Throttle Unipolarity

Just two weeks ago conventional wisdom both here and in European capitals was that President George W. Bush's second term would see a modest turn...

Just two weeks ago conventional wisdom both here and in European capitals was that President George W. Bush’s second term would see a modest turn toward multilateralism and a new readiness to compromise on key issues with traditional U.S. allies.

Today, however, that particular conventional wisdom is being questioned amid renewed anxiety that the unilateralist trajectory on which Bush launched the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon is back on track.

The biggest single reason for the change was the nomination of John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security during the first term, to the high-profile post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The problem, as pointed out by a number of Democrats, is that virtually everything Bolton has ever said about the UN suggests that he thinks the world, and particularly the U.S., would be better off without it, once opining (before 9/11) that if the UN secretariat building lost 10 stories, “it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

“This nomination is a poke in the eye to the world diplomatic community and a signal that the Bush administration is going to continue its unilateralist approach,” noted Joe Volk, executive secretary of a major peace group, Friends Committee for National Legislation (FCNL), one of a growing number of groups who are gearing up for a lobbying campaign to persuade senators to oppose Bolton’s confirmation.

Former Ambassador Chas Freeman described the appointment as “the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the organization.”

But whatever the nomination said about Bush’s attitude toward the UN, it also demonstrated that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is supposed to serve as Bolton’s superior if he is confirmed by the Senate, will likely play a much less powerful role in Bush’s second term than had been thought, particularly in the wake of her two tours-one with the president-of Europe last month.

Knowing how much Bolton had undermined former Secretary of State Colin Powell during the first term, Rice resisted pressure from Bolton, his Congressional backers and Vice President Dick Cheney by refusing to appoint him as her deputy secretary of state-choosing instead arch-realist Robert Zoellick-in what was seen as a kind of declaration of independence from the hawks perched in Cheney’s office and around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

That defiance, followed by her triumphal tours of Europe where she repeatedly promised closer consultation, was widely considered a sign that the “realists,” previously led by Powell, had a new champion at Foggy Bottom and one who also enjoyed a much closer personal relationship with the president than her predecessor.

But the nomination of Bolton-who really served as Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s cat’s paw at the State Department under Powell-has profoundly challenged the notion that Rice can stand up to them.

The fact that her strongest argument in favor of Bolton when she was challenged by senators privately on the decision to send him to the UN was that his tenure there may persuade him to modify his hard-line views, just as former anticommunist President Richard Nixon decided to launch a strategic relationship with Communist China in the early 1970s, confirmed to many here that Bolton was being forced down her throat.

While Bolton’s nomination was the immediate cause of the reassessment that is now taking place, there have been other signs that the balance of power within the administration has indeed shifted strongly toward the hawks.

Perhaps the most important was the little-noted appointment of J.D. Crouch as the deputy national security adviser under Rice’s former deputy, Stephen Hadley. While Hadley’s foreign policy views were seen as a mixture of realism and Cheney’s aggressive nationalism, Crouch, who served most recently as ambassador to Romania, is regarded as a right-wing extremist on both domestic and foreign policy issues.

A protege of William Van Cleave, a Rumsfeld ally and one of the leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) in the 1970s who claimed that the Soviet Union intended to fight and win a nuclear war with the United States (whose daughter now serves as the chief of counter-intelligence under Rumsfeld), Crouch was also a favorite of then-Defense Secretary Cheney during Bush’s father’s administration, 1989-1993.

He worked in the Pentagon’s policy division under the current deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who has been Cheney’s chief of staff and national security adviser over the past four years.

After the first Gulf War in 1991-92, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Crouch were all involved in the draft of a controversial Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), parts of which were leaked to the New York Times and then explicitly repudiated by the administration.

It called for global engagement by the U.S. on its own terms calling for a military posture designed to deter “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

It also urged Washington to create “ad hoc assemblies” to deal with crisis situations-the 1992 version of “coalitions of the willing”-and a doctrine of unilateral military preemption “to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.”

And it predicted that U.S. military interventions would be a “constant fixture” of the new world order. It omitted any role for the UN in preserving international peace and security.

When the draft was leaked to the Times, it caused an uproar, with Democratic Senator Joseph Biden claiming that it amounted to a prescription for a “Pax Americana” and others that it would make Washington the “world’s policeman.”

On Thursday, the Boston Globe reported that Rumsfeld has set forth the main priorities for the Pentagon’s latest Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a major policy paper to guide strategic planning through the end of the decade and beyond.

Among the most prominent priorities, according to the Globe account, will be preventing the emergence of a “peer competitor,” stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and dramatically expanding the size of U.S. Special Forces in order to operate more freely and unilaterally worldwide.

The Globe, which described the Rumsfeld memo setting out his priorities as having a “go-it-alone” tone, omitted boilerplate language that has appeared in previous QDRs about the importance of U.S. alliances or the UN.

The unipolar world conceived by Wolfowitz & Co. in 1991 was expressed best by Bolton himself back in 2000. “If I were redoing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world,” he said during an interview with National Public Radio’s Juan Williams.

“And that one member would be, John Bolton?” Williams asked.

“The United States,” Bolton responded.

Jim Lobe is a regular contributor to the Right Web program of the International Relations Center (IRC), www.irc-online.org. He is the Washington correspondent for Inter Press Service.

 

For More Information See Citizen-Based Global Affairs Agendas: http://www.fpif.org/cgaa/demil.html

 

For media inquiries, email media@irc-online.org or call (617) 666-5300.

 

Citations

Jim Lobe, "Full-Throttle Unipolarity," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, March 16, 2005).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share