Setting a Poor Example
The New American Century, the Bush Administration, and the Drastic Change in America’s Nuclear Strategy
Garrett Johnston
Friday, December 5, 2003
EDGE
Prof. Bruce Lusignan
The following report examines U.S. nuclear policy beginning with the ideas of the New American Century in 1997, and ending with a brief list of countries providing the largest threat to U.S. security. It attempts to explain the ideas behind the drastic change in U.S. foreign policy during the Bush Administration, and point out many of the irrationalities as well as violations within these policies. The reader should understand there were an unfortunate number of events that have allowed these policies to gain recognition, and hopefully soon Americans will understand Bush’s unilateral, pro-nuclear, aggressive approach could have devastating consequences for United States security.
The New American Century
The New American Century represents the beginning of conservative foreign policy for and the organization of the current administration post-George W. Bush. In a statement of principles dated June 3, 1997 the organization writes:
American foreign policy and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration… But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of American’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.[1]
Its statement of principles, which strongly alludes to the Reagan Administration’s success, promotes a United States with a ready and capable military, a strong foreign policy, and a bold leadership. The organization intends to remind Americans of global responsibilities requiring intensive defense spending, of the need to strengthen democratic ties and challenge hostile regimes, of promoting political and economic freedoms abroad, and to accept a unilateral role in preserving international order while remaining conscientious of our values.
At the time of this statement these principles were absurd, and quite irrelevant to United States foreign policy. A more moderate Bill Clinton presided over the nation pouring himself into a domestic agenda, and, relatively speaking, rarely creating a stir in the foreign policy arena. But considering the list of names following the aforementioned statement, a fortuneteller would have been exceedingly disturbed. Dick Cheney, the current Vice-President, Donald Rumsfield, the Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, all signed their names to these principles. Also other notables such as Jeb Bush, governor of Florida (a strange coincidence considering the election) and brother of the President, and Steve Forbes, an investment icon and previous presidential candidate, supported this proposal. So right from the beginning the New American Century built a strong list of supporters for their cause, and winning the presidency in 2000 provided the boost needed to bring their agenda into the American reality.
The New American Century had already been busy researching their ideas for foreign policy and planning an agenda for their coming rise. In 2000 it released Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, a report proceeding “from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.”[2] This report argues that perhaps no area of U.S. military force is in need of reevaluation more than in nuclear weapons. It maintains that it is unclear whether reducing the nuclear arsenal is the best strategic choice, especially in light of concern over threats in both large countries such as Russia and China, as well as smaller countries like South Korea and Pakistan. Rebuilding America’s Defense strongly criticizes the Clinton administration’s policies of discontinuing nuclear research and advocates the development of an arsenal to meet its needs in the “post-Soviet world.”
Obviously, the New American Century remains powerful within the current administration’s foreign policy. Searching through their website one can find many of the reports predicting the policies of the Bush administration, and it would be safe to say the New American Century is an excellent predictor of its next political moves. As far back as early 1998 they were sending letters to President Clinton as well as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott concerning the United States lack of interest in the Iraqi situation and suggesting the use of military force in areas not under Saddam Hussein’s control.[3] And if this organization is clearly so powerful, then the ideas expressed in Rebuilding America’s Defenses are sure to become reality regardless of violating treaties or setting a poor example for the rest of the world.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
In 1968 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was established requiring those who joined to either agree not to acquire nuclear weapons if they were not nuclear capable, or to cooperate with non-nuclear countries in the peaceful use of nuclear energy if they were at the time.[4] Additionally, the treaty established an inspection system under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Today 187 countries have joined this treaty including the five currently known major nuclear weapon states- France, Russia, United Kingdom, China, and the United States. From the 21st of April to the 19th of May the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons met in New York for their sixth review. The main points of this conference include:
· The delegations of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, on the occasion of the sixth Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), formally reiterate the strong and continuing support of our countries for this Treaty, the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for nuclear disarmament. We remain unequivocally committed to fulfilling all of our obligations under the Treaty.
· We reiterate our unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
· We are determined to take a forward-looking approach to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The NPT provides an indispensable framework for future efforts against nuclear proliferation and towards nuclear disarmament. We fully acknowledge our particular responsibility and key role in ensuring continued progress in the implementation of the NPT.[5]
Clearly as of May 2000 the United States remained committed to the eventual eradication of all nuclear weapons as well as the strict following of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The five nuclear weapons states listed above indefinitely renewed their contract with the world to continue their positive role in disarmament, while other non-nuclear states agreed to cooperate and remain transparent.
September 11, 2001
In the widely disputed Presidential election of 2000 Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore by an unusually small margin of disputed votes in Florida, and thus began the new conservative foreign policy proposed by the New American Century. Although it still highly debated whether Al Gore lost due to his ideas, his campaign, or his strategic distancing from the Clinton Administration, it is for certain that part of America was searching for a new conservative movement. George W., the privileged son of George H.W. Bush, was the smiling, born-again Christian, who might not speak correctly, but could certainly relate with those in Middle America. His religious beliefs were undoubtedly reflected in his policy, and he chose to surround himself with well-known intelligent individuals who very much shared in his ideology. And although Bush would soon be faced with an economic recession in the domestic arena, the new Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield would certainly be waiting for their chance to express the ideas of the New American Century in Bush’s foreign policy.
On September 11, 2001 perhaps the greatest American tragedy occurred when terrorists crashed two planes into the World Trade Center in New York City killing thousands of Americans. This event made two things remarkably apparent. The American people now realized a group of terrorists of people in the world did not agree with American values, and were so immensely opposed they would be willing to sacrifice their lives and commit a tremendous atrocity. And secondly, George W. Bush would now have almost complete permission from the American people to hunt down the group responsible for this act as well as anyone connected. This became the perfect opportunity for a new foreign policy, and the New American Century was not far behind.
When it became evident the terrorists connected with 9/11 were part of the following of Osama Bin Laden the Bush administration thought it had a perfect target. Not only was Bin Laden a follower of Islam, but also he was a widely known figure in the Muslim world with ties all over the Middle East. And Afghanistan, then controlled by the Bin Laden-connected Taliban, would make an excellent project for the United States. The New American Century now had a real-world application for its theories on political and economic freedoms, and a chance to build a democracy from the ground up. But not only was Bin-Laden the perfect target for these reasons, but it was also widely rumored he maintained connections with Bush’s hated enemy Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a potential target for the New American Century, and it was also speculated Hussein was guilty of attempting to create nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass-destruction.
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
In January of 2002 the Defense Department performed a review to establish the direction for American nuclear forces over the next five to ten years. The Nuclear Posture Review intended to bring the United States out of the Cold War with various improvements referred to in what is deemed the New Triad. This is composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear), defenses (both active and passive), and a revitalized defense infrastructure.[6] This report takes special notice of the new threat of both terrorists and rogue states, and their ability to use weapons of mass destruction. Built on the changes suggested in Bush’s Quadrennial Defense Review put together within weeks of September 11, the Nuclear Posture Review Report makes numerous controversial suggestions on redefining the labels given to nuclear weapons under agreements, on specific countries seen as potential threats and on the use of earth penetrating nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the most controversial subject of the report due to the United States commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the new definitions of nuclear weapons allow the Bush administration to secure a fairly consistent nuclear arsenal while appearing to decrease its size.[7] The new definitions of this contract allow the United States to reach its goal of 1,700 to 2,200 “operationally deployed warheads” by 2012, however this number will not account for the thousands of “responsive force warheads” in the arsenal. This category of warhead may take only days or weeks for return to deployed status, however it will not be accounted for when estimating the number of active warheads in the U.S. arsenal. It is an accounting strategy in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as this method of counting does not contribute to an actual decrease in the arsenal, and it certainly does not represent an effort to completely eliminate nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Posture Review also names, in particular, certain nations posing a questionable threat to the United States. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lybia are all named as countries “involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies,” and coincidentally, the New American Century often mentions North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Syria as well. The most notable of these countries, North Korea and Iraq, were labeled “chronic military concerns,” and the NPR claims that all “sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile programs.” But perhaps the most striking claims of the NPR come with respect to both China and Russia. The NPR states, “Due to the combination of China’s still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces, China is a country that could be involved in an immediate potential contingency.” And although an attack on the United States by China is doubtful, the Bush administration and the New American Century seem deeply concerned that with enough ballistic missiles China might overtake Taiwan before the U.S. could properly intervene. Following the Cold War, it is surprising the NPR also takes note of a Russian threat. Although over the years Russia’s nuclear arsenal has certainly become sub-standard in comparison to the U.S., it still remains the most formidable power according to the NPR. And even though the U.S. is now seeking to cooperate with Russia, the NPR states, “a [nuclear strike] contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected.” Considering the United States, China, and Russia renewed their agreement in 2000 to achieving non-proliferation and eventually eradicating nuclear weapons, this type of language is also in direct violation of the NPT.
According to the NPT concern over the growing number of underground military facilities calls for an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon. Although a current model exists, the B61 Mod 11 gravity bomb cannot penetrate certain types of terrain, and therefore the Defense Department wants more research in this area. But researching a new type of nuclear weapon would hardly be promoting the language of the NPT, especially when one considers the consequences of such a weapon. And in a recent article by the President of the Center for Defense Information, Bruce Blair suggests an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy a deep target would not penetrate far enough to avoid spewing radioactive material.[8] If strategists have North Korea in mind, this means after the use of this weapon a battlefield would be contaminated and only complicates the victory, which could have been won using conventional means. Dr. Blair believes these weapons might potentially be developed for countries like Russia or China with underground missile silos and leadership bunkers, but even then they would need to be “10 to 100 times more destructive than the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.” For Dr. Blair it seems the national laboratories doing research on these and other types of new nuclear weapons are only making efforts to continue funding for their research. But the development of new types of nuclear weapons is certainly not the practice of non-proliferation, especially when other countries might perceive U.S. research as threatening to their security. The NPR discusses at length earth-penetrating nuclear weapons as well as many other forms of new technology, but this does not follow the agreement of the NPT and only threatens U.S. security.