Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni
Titolo: [News] Bush: la nuova dottrina "Attaccare per primi"

Da Repubblica
http://www.repubblica.it/online/esteri/iraqsei/strategia/strategia.html
propongo un frammento:
--
WASHINGTON - Nessuno potrà più sfidare impunemente la supremazia
militare degli Stati Uniti d'America. E' questo il messaggio contenuto
in un documento che il presidente americano George W.Bush si appresta a
presentare al Congresso. Trentatré pagine messe a punto dai suoi più
stretti collaboratori e ritoccate durante il week end dal presidente in
persona. Un documento che illustra la nuova dottrina dell'attacco
preventivo, dottrina destinata a rimpiazzare quella della dissuasione,
applicata con successo durante l'epoca della Guerra Fredda. Anticipato
dal New York Times (che ne dà la versione integrale sul sito web) nel
documento è scritto che gli Stati Uniti non intendono più permettere che
la loro supremazia militare venga contrastata, come lo fu durante
l'epoca della Guerra Fredda. E l'attacco all'Iraq, un attacco
preventivo, sarebbe nient'altro che un'applicazione sul campo della
nuova dottrina di Bush. Gli Stati Uniti hanno trovato moltissimi alleati
nella lotta al terrorismo, è scritto, "ma non esiteranno ad agire da
soli se necessario". Che è ciò che Bush va ripetendo da giorni.
--
Che ne pensate della posizione della Germania "Bush come Hitler?
Chi si avventura a fare una previsone sullo scacchiere medio orientale
se Bush da il via alla guerra?
Entrerà in guerra Israele?
I paesi arabi staranno a guardare?
Qual'è il risultato che ci si aspetta?
Ciao, P.

> il presidente americano George W.Bush
Bush, uomo da bar e partite a briscola, somiglia a Bossi,
io non lo vorrei neanche come portinaio

 Qual'è il risultato che ci si aspetta?
Come al solito, Repubblica assume giornalisti che NON sanno parlare
inglese.
Il documento originale si trova su:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
Se lo leggi TUTTO, senza estrapolare boiate a casaccio,
vedrai che dice cose molto differenti.
Lev
-- 
##############################Lev's' ICQ#50817865########################
HEA bbs: 
http://news.streghe.cc
 Lev's Coven 
http://www.streghe.cc
   che l'imene implica una serie di cose, non naviga a s stante
           nell'universo.(C) idaelvira, ICR, 29/08/2002

 vedrai che dice cose molto differenti.
Ciao Lev,
sono d'accordo con te.
Come spesso succede alcuni giornalisti se ne infischiano (o non sono capaci)
di riportare le notizie per quello che sono e le infarciscono di *boiate a
casaccio* per dire al pubblico quello che loro pensano il pubblico voglia o
debba sapere.
Sia ben chiaro che non sono né pro né contro Bush e la sua nuova dottrina,
però se l'America attaccherà veramente Saddam senza uno specifico mandato
delle Nazioni Unite,  tale episodio segnerà sicuramente l'inizio di una
trasformazione dell'ONU in qualcos'altro, anche se non necessariamente
peggio di come la conosciamo oggi.
Comunque, siamo sicuri che una strategia "preventiva" sia veramente
sbagliata? Per esempio se gli USA (e soprattutto le altre nazioni potenti
dell'epoca) avessero adottato una dottrina simile negli anni '30 con la
Germania, non ci sarebbe stata una seconda guerra mondiale ma solo un'azione
di polizia contro un dittatore pericoloso (Hitler) che però tutti
giudicavano inoffensivo (specialmente i politicanti tedeschi che gli hanno
consentito di raggiungere il potere) anche se, in silenzio, faceva uccidere
milioni di ebrei nei campi di concentramento.
Forse quello che fa Bush lo fa veramente per distogliere l'opinione pubblica
americana dai problemi interni ma così facendo, pur sbagliando, potrebbe
dare una grossa mano all'umanità (forse).
Saluti,
JWorld

 
http://www.repubblica.it/online/esteri/iraqsei/strategia/strategia.html
Ecco il Full Text:
dal The New York Times, come citato sull'articolo di Repubblica gią postato.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=Bush&date=site1week&amp;submit.x=6&amp;submit.y=9
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 1 of 13)
--
*
following is the full text of President Bush's new national security
strategy. The document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the
United States," will soon be transmitted to Congress as a declaration of the
Administration's policy.
INTRODUCTION
THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and
totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom --
and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and
free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a
commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and
economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and
assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they
think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their
children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their
labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every
society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is
the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the
ages.
Advertisement
Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength
and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and
principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We
seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom:
conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves
the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. By making the
world safer, we allow the people of the world to make their own lives
better. We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and
tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the
great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open
societies on every continent.
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental
commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed
dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial
capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can
bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to
purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies
and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.
To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal -- from
better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and cutting off
terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global
enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our
assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations
that are compromised by terror -- because the allies of terror are the
enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us
must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will
seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.
The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and
technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons
of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with
determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We
will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery.
We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our
enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of
common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging
threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our
friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our
enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with
deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger
but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety
is the path of action.
As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic
opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community has
the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth
century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of
continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers find ourselves
on the same side -- united by common dangers of terrorist violence and
chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote
global security. We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is
in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and
a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that
economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will
find that social and political freedom is the only source of national
greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic
openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for
domestic stability and international order. We will strongly resist
aggression from other great powers -- even as we welcome their peaceful
pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement.
Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the
benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the
hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner
of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states,
like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as
strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and
murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak
states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their
borders.
The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better
future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free
markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty --
so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and
the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom
and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater
development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to
nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic
freedom. We will also continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the
terrible toll of AIDS and other infectious diseases.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 2 of 13)
--
*
In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is
guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities.
Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend
on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. Nations that seek international aid must govern themselves
wisely, so that aid is well spent. For freedom to thrive, accountability
must be expected and required.
Advertisement
We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer,
better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the
strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to
lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization,
the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing
alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent
institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken
seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for
an ideal without furthering its attainment.
Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of
every person -- in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been
threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills
of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested
by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the
opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United
States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.
I. Overview of America's International Strategy
"Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We
fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors liberty.
We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We
will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers.
And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every
continent."
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The United States possesses unprecedented -- and unequaled -- strength and
influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and
the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled
responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this
nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.
For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle
over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.
That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race
which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and
discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are
by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by
catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat
these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends.
This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate
this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The
U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American
internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national
interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer
but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and
economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for
human dignity.
And this path is not America's alone. It is open to all.
To achieve these goals, the United States will:
champion aspirations for human dignity;
strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks
against us and our friends;
work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with
weapons of mass destruction;
ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free
trade;
expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the
infrastructure of democracy;
develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global
power; and
transform America's national security institutions to meet the challenges
and opportunities of the twenty-first century.
II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity
"Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the
language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require
different methods, but not different moralities."
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand
for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these
principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns
these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and mothers in
all societies want their children to be educated and to live free from
poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to
servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.
America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity:
the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech;
freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic
tolerance; and respect for private property.
These demands can be met in many ways. America's constitution has served us
well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, facing
different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these core
principles into their own systems of governance. History has not been kind
to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and aspirations of
their people.
Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in our
worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a stronger, but is
a freer and more just society.
Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And when
openings arrive, we can encourage change -- as we did in central and eastern
Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000. When we see democratic
processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in the Republic of Korea,
and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin America and Africa, we see
examples of how authoritarian systems can evolve, marrying local history and
traditions with the principles we all cherish.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 3 of 13)
--
*
Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, the
national security strategy of the United States must start from these core
beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty.
Our principles will guide our government's decisions about international
cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of
resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international
bodies.
Advertisement
We will:
speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human
dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance
freedom;
use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle
non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are
rewarded for the steps they take;
make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in
our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other
democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward
a better future; and
take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and
defend it from encroachment by repressive governments.
We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it.
III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent
Attacks Against Us and Our Friends
"Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the
distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to
answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against
us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce
when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of
others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral)
September 14, 2001
The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global
reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or
ideology. The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against innocents.
In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting
peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a
political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will
make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We
make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or
provide aid to them.
The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our
history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive
enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the
persistent accumulation of successes -- some seen, some unseen.
Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and
will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve
their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces
continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this
battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained
terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America,
Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.
Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of
global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and
communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling
effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate.
We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated
effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes
the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the
military, law enforcement, political, and financial tools necessary to
finish the task.
The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the
financing of terrorism. We will identify and block the sources of funding
for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who support them,
deny terrorists access to the international financial system, protect
legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, and prevent the
movement of terrorists' assets through alternative financial networks.
However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the
cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we seek.
We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:
direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and
international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist
organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of
terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
their precursors;
defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home
and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our
borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the
support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone,
if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively
against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people
and our country; and
denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by
convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.
We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international
terrorism. This includes:
using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with
allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are
illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery,
piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or
support and all must oppose;
supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world,
to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not
find fertile ground in any nation;
diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the
international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at
risk; and
using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and
ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies
ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.
While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense we are also
strengthening America's homeland security to protect against and deter
attack.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 4 of 13)
--
*
This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization since
the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and the
Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland Security and
including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the
FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level
of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector.
Advertisement
This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency
management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but
with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not just
bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our border
controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient movement
of legitimate traffic.
While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in
today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends.
Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and
state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments
find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match
their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can
provide.
As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with
international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as
non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the
humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to
rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten
its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists
In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are
ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and
fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict. In
leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive
international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet
the challenges of the twenty-first century.
IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts
"We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The
magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so
small."
President Bush
Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002
Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional disputes
to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In an
increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our alliances,
rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create horrifying affronts to
human dignity. When violence erupts and states falter, the United States
will work with friends and partners to alleviate suffering and restore
stability.
No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action -- direct
or indirect -- is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and
military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will
approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:
The United States should invest time and resources into building
international relationships and institutions that can help manage local
crises when they emerge.
The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who
are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready
to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.
Policies in several key regions offer some illustrations of how we will
apply these principles:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human
suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state of Israel
and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance to other global
priorities of the United States. There can be no peace for either side
without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent
and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like
all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their
interests, and listens to their voices, and counts their votes. The United
States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their
responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the
conflict.
The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank
stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic
development, increased humanitarian assistance and a program to establish,
finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If Palestinians embrace
democracy, and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject
terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian
state.
Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine.
Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. So the
United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete steps
to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As there
is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to
positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the
recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in
the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, freedom of
movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work
and normal life. The United States can play a crucial role but, ultimately,
lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the
issues and end the conflict between them.
In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India and
Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This administration invested time and
resources building strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan. These
strong relations then gave us leverage to play a constructive role when
tensions in the region became acute. With Pakistan, our bilateral relations
have been bolstered by Pakistan's choice to join the war against terror and
move toward building a more open and tolerant society. The Administration
sees India's potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the
twenty-first century and has worked hard to transform our relationship
accordingly. Our involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier
investments in bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India
and Pakistan that can help defuse military confrontation.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 5 of 13)
--
*
Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and respect
for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting the rule of
law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to employ the engine
of opportunity that has helped lift some of its neighbors out of poverty and
desperation. It is the initiative by Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance
to make a difference.
Advertisement
In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with countries
that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and
Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic hemisphere where our
integration advances security, prosperity, opportunity, and hope. We will
work with regional institutions, such as the Summit of the Americas process,
the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of
the Americas for the benefit of the entire hemisphere.
Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising from
the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict and
unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and security of
the United States. Therefore we have developed an active strategy to help
the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat
terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of drugs, while -- as
important -- we work to reduce the demand for drugs in our own country.
In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist groups
that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking activities
that help finance the operations of such groups. We are working to help
Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat illegal armed groups
of both the left and right by extending effective sovereignty over the
entire national territory and provide basic security to the Colombian
people.
In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and
desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United States --
preserving human dignity -- and our strategic priority -- combating global
terror. American interests and American principles, therefore, lead in the
same direction: we will work with others for an African continent that lives
in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. Together with our European
allies, we must help strengthen Africa's fragile states, help build
indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law
enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists.
An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars spread
beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions of the
willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to confronting these
emerging transnational threats.
Africa's great size and diversity requires a security strategy that focuses
bilateral engagement, and builds coalitions of the willing. This
administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the region:
countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa,
Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require
focused attention;
coordination with European allies and international institutions is
essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace
operations; and
Africa's capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be
strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a
sustained basis.
Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the surest
route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are conflicts over
material resources and political access often tragically waged on the basis
of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to the African Union with
its stated commitment to good governance and a common responsibility for
democratic political systems offers opportunities to strengthen democracy on
the continent.
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with
Weapons of Mass Destruction
"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and
technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons,
along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak
states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great
nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught
seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or
to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our
power."
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States -- with our
allies and friends -- to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of force,
producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment
has undergone profound transformation.
Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our
relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance
of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on
both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile
defense that until recently were inconceivable.
But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists.
None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that
was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and
motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain
destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states,
and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction
against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous.
In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states
that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These
states:
brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the
personal gain of the rulers;
display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and
callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other
advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to
achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for
which it stands.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 6 of 13)
--
*
At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's
designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran
and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons
and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world's
principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly
capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes
seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states'
pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to
all nations.
Advertisement
We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before
they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the
United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full
advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships
with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern
technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense
system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.
Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:
Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the
threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities --
detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities -- are
integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security
systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine,
training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that
we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.
Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists
from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for
weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control,
multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede
states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling
technologies and materials. We will continue to build coalitions to support
these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support
for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement
to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation
marks a major step forward.
Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use,
whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use
against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and
dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they
cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to
respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help
friends and allies if they are attacked.
It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this
new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United
States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the
past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's
threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our
adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our
enemies strike first.
In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a
generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective
defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far
less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take
risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their
nations.
In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last
resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our
enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue
states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression
against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to
attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from
deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states
also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional
superiority of the United States.
Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy
whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents;
whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent
protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror
and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an
attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against
forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and
international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the
existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of
armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and
objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek
to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail.
Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered
covertly and without warning.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian
population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of
warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass
civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses
would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons
of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the
case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty
remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or
prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if
necessary, act preemptively.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 7 of 13)
--
*
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging
threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet
in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the
world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle
while dangers gather.
We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our
actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
Advertisement
build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely,
accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most
dangerous threats; and
continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct
rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to
the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions
will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.
VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free
Trade.
"When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged
few, no amount -- no amount -- of development aid is ever enough. When
nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and
education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic
capital is used more effectively."
President Bush
Monterrey, Mexico
March 22, 2002
A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing
prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth supported
by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It
allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal
reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of
liberty.
We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America's
shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic
policies and responding to their own economic challenge. We will use our
economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of
policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth,
including:
pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment,
innovation, and entrepreneurial activity;
tax policies -- particularly lower marginal tax rates -- that improve
incentives for work and investment;
rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that
they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors;
strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient
use;
sound fiscal policies to support business activity;
investments in health and education that improve the well-being and skills
of the labor force and population as a whole; and
free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of
technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity.
The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control
economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote
prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market
incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies --
industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.
A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S.
national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies for
their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake of
global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in their
economies are particularly important in this regard, as are Japan's efforts
to end deflation and address the problems of non-performing loans in the
Japanese banking system. We will continue to use our regular consultations
with Japan and our European partners -- including through the Group of Seven
(G-7) -- to discuss policies they are adopting to promote growth in their
economies and support higher global economic growth.
Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic
growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand the
productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging markets
and developing countries to make the investments that raise living standards
and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a world in which all
countries have investment-grade credit ratings that allow them access to
international capital markets and to invest in their future.
We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve access
to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will continue to
pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial markets. We will
work actively with other countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action Plan negotiated earlier
this year for preventing financial crises and more effectively resolving
them when they occur.
The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from
occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing so.
We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy conditions
for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on achieving economic
growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, exchange rate policy, and
financial sector policy.
The concept of "free trade" arose as a moral principle even before it became
a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others value, you
should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value,
you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person
-- or a nation -- to make a living. To promote free trade, the Unites States
has developed a comprehensive strategy:
Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we helped
launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, especially in
agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for completion in 2005.
The United States has led the way in completing the accession of China and a
democratic Taiwan to the World Trade Organization. We will assist Russia's
preparations to join the WTO.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 8 of 13)
--
*
Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies in the
Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of the
Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United States will
advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, targeted on
agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and government
procurement. We will also offer more opportunity to the poorest continent,
Africa, starting with full use of the preferences allowed in the African
Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free trade.
Advertisement
Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the free trade
agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration will work this
year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Our aim is
to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of developed and developing
countries in all regions of the world. Initially, Central America, Southern
Africa, Morocco, and Australia will be our principal focal points.
Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every administration's trade
strategy depends on a productive partnership with Congress. After a gap of 8
years, the Administration reestablished majority support in the Congress for
trade liberalization by passing Trade Promotion Authority and the other
market opening measures for developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002.
This Administration will work with Congress to enact new bilateral,
regional, and global trade agreements that will be concluded under the
recently passed Trade Promotion Authority.
Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade policies can
help developing countries strengthen property rights, competition, the rule
of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open societies, the efficient
allocation of resources, and regional integration -- all leading to growth,
opportunity, and confidence in developing countries. The United States is
implementing The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access
for nearly all goods produced in the 35 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We
will make more use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin
and continue to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help
poorer countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market
access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in
public health. We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are
flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical
medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and
malaria.
Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce depends
on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable agreements.
Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing disputes with the European Union,
Canada, and Mexico and to make a global effort to address new technology,
science, and health regulations that needlessly impede farm exports and
improved agriculture. Laws against unfair trade practices are often abused,
but the international community must be able to address genuine concerns
about government subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage
which undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred.
Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound statutory
framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used in the
agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the American
steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the enforcement of
fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that the benefits of
free trade do not come at the expense of American workers. Trade adjustment
assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open
markets.
Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster economic
growth in ways that will provide a better life along with widening
prosperity. We will incorporate labor and environmental concerns into U.S.
trade negotiations, creating a healthy "network" between multilateral
environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the International Labor
Organization, trade preference programs, and trade talks to improve working
conditions in conjunction with freer trade.
Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security and the
shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our allies, trading
partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global
energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia,
and the Caspian region. We will also continue to work with our partners to
develop cleaner and more energy efficient technologies.
Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them
at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global
climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse gas
emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per
unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year
2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:
remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international
cooperation;
obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of the most
potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to companies that can
show real cuts;
develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission
reductions;
promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as
nuclear power -- which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, while also
improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks;
increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total
of $4.5 billion -- the largest sum being spent on climate change by any
country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year's budget;
and
assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas emitters
such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and resources to
join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and better path.
VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the
Infrastructure of Democracy
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 9 of 13)
--
*
"In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild
it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also
work to make the world a better place for all its citizens."
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Inter-American
Development Bank)
March 14, 2002
A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race
lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of
the world's poor in an expanding circle of development -- and opportunity --
is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international
policy.
Advertisement
Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic
growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served to
prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating
misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars spent by donors,
not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction achieved by recipients.
These are the indicators of a failed strategy.
Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this failure.
We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing for
Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance -- and the
strategies to achieve those objectives -- must change.
This Administration's goal is to help unleash the productive potential of
individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is
impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have
implemented real policy changes we will provide significant new levels of
assistance. The United States and other developed countries should set an
ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world's poorest
economies within a decade.
The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to achieve
this goal:
Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national
reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance
given by the United States. While continuing our present programs, including
humanitarian assistance based on need alone, these billions of new dollars
will form a new Millennium Challenge Account for projects in countries whose
governments rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic
freedom. Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights,
embrace the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow
responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium
Challenge Account will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy
change and challenge those that have not to implement reforms.
Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in
raising living standards. The United States is committed to a comprehensive
reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other multilateral
development banks more effective in improving the lives of the world's poor.
We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. contributions and proposed an 18
percent increase in the U.S. contributions to the International Development
Association (IDA) -- the World Bank's fund for the poorest countries -- and
the African Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and
reducing poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth,
especially in the poorest countries. We will continue to press the
multilateral development banks to focus on activities that increase economic
productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, and
private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant must be
judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in developing
countries.
Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development assistance is
actually making a difference in the lives of the world's poor. When it comes
to economic development, what really matters is that more children are
getting a better education, more people have access to health care and clean
water, or more workers can find jobs to make a better future for their
families. We have a moral obligation to measure the success of our
development assistance by whether it is delivering results. For this reason,
we will continue to demand that our own development assistance as well as
assistance from the multilateral development banks has measurable goals and
concrete benchmarks for achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership,
the recent IDA replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and
evaluation system that measures recipient countries' progress. For the first
time, donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the
achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. contribution
is linked in this way. We will strive to make sure that the World Bank and
other multilateral development banks build on this progress so that a focus
on results is an integral part of everything that these institutions do.
Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form
of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants is the best
way to help poor countries make productive investments, particularly in the
social sectors, without saddling them with ever-larger debt burdens. As a
result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA agreement provided for significant
increases in grant funding for the poorest countries for education,
HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and other human needs. Our
goal is to build on that progress by increasing the use of grants at the
other multilateral development banks. We will also challenge universities,
nonprofits, and the private sector to match government efforts by using
grants to support development projects that show results.
Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are the real
engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, most money for
development must come from trade, domestic capital, and foreign investment.
An effective strategy must try to expand these flows as well. Free markets
and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 10 of 13)
--
*
Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor
countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics
like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be
threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the
developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest
governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective local
infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new global fund
for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and its focus on
combining prevention with a broad strategy for treatment and care. The
United States already contributes more than twice as much money to such
efforts as the next largest donor. If the global fund demonstrates its
promise, we will be ready to give even more.
Advertisement
Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy
and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources are devoted to
education. This proportion should grow. The United States will increase its
own funding for education assistance by at least 20 percent with an emphasis
on improving basic education and teacher training in Africa. The United
States can also bring information technology to these societies, many of
whose education systems have been devastated by AIDS.
Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including
biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in developing
countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. Using sound science,
the United States should help bring these benefits to the 800 million
people, including 300 million children, who still suffer from hunger and
malnutrition.
VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of
Global Power
"We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th
century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of
prepare for war."
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions -- as broad
as practicable -- of states able and willing to promote a balance of power
that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires clear
priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent
consultations among partners with a spirit of humility.
There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish
in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in
Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most
able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of
transatlantic and inter-European security, and the European Union (EU), our
partner in opening world trade.
The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself
recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first
time. NATO's core mission -- collective defense of the transatlantic
alliance of democracies -- remains, but NATO must develop new structures and
capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must
build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially
trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any
member of the alliance.
The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened,
creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to
mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must:
expand NATO's membership to those democratic nations willing and able to
share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests;
ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate combat
contributions to make in coalition warfare;
develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become effective
multinational fighting forces;
take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of scale in
our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that they dominate
potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities;
streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to meet new
operational demands and the associated requirements of training,
integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; and
maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we take
the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces.
If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a
partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as
was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common perspective on
the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action
in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome
our European allies' efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense
identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure
that these developments work with NATO. We cannot afford to lose this
opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for
the challenges to come.
The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances. Australia
invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an attack on
Australia itself, following that historic decision with the dispatch of some
of the world's finest combat forces for Operation Enduring Freedom. Japan
and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented levels of military
logistical support within weeks of the terrorist attack. We have deepened
cooperation on counter-terrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and
the Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like
Singapore and New Zealand.
The war against terrorism has proven that America's alliances in Asia not
only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and ready to
deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and friendships, we
will:
look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and global
affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our close
defense and diplomatic cooperation;
work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while
preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of the
region over the longer-term;
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 11 of 13)
--
*
build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we continue
working together to resolve regional and global problems -- as we have so
many times from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Tora Bora;
maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our allies,
our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic environment;
and
Advertisement
build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with institutions
such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, to develop a
mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage change in this dynamic
region.
We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power
competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal
transition -- most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases,
recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus
about basic principles is slowly taking shape.
With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based on a
central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and Russia
are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on Strategic
Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change
in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long-term relations
with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United States. Russia's top leaders
have a realistic assessment of their country's current weakness and the
policies -- internal and external -- needed to reverse those weaknesses.
They understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their
national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap
in many areas.
United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to refocus
our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges.
We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on
terrorism. We are facilitating Russia's entry into the World Trade
Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to promote
beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have created the
NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security cooperation among
Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will continue to bolster the
independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the
belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia's
growing commitment to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.
At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still divide
us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to build an
enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our motives and
policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our relations. Russia's
uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market democracy and dubious
record in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain
matters of great concern. Russia's very weakness limits the opportunities
for cooperation. Nevertheless, those opportunities are vastly greater now
than in recent years -- or even decades.
The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral
relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a
strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies,
committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India
is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest
in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the
Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in
creating a strategically stable Asia.
Differences remain, including over the development of India's nuclear and
missile programs, and the pace of India's economic reforms. But while in the
past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about India, today we
start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have
common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership with India, we can
best address any differences and shape a dynamic future.
The United States relationship with China is an important part of our
strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region.
We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China. The
democratic development of China is crucial to that future. Yet, a quarter
century after beginning the process of shedding the worst features of the
Communist legacy, China's leaders have not yet made the next series of
fundamental choices about the character of their state. In pursuing advanced
military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific
region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper
its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social
and political freedom is the only source of that greatness.
The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing China.
We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including the current
war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean peninsula.
Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan and have
initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counter-terrorism and similar
transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, such as the
spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the welfare of our
citizens.
Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become more
open with information, promote the development of civil society, and enhance
individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to political
openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting village-level
elections, yet remains strongly committed to national one-party rule by the
Communist Party. To make that nation truly accountable to its citizen's
needs and aspirations, however, much work remains to be done. Only by
allowing the Chinese people to think, assemble, and worship freely can China
reach its full potential.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 12 of 13)
--
*
Our important trade relationship will benefit from China's entry into the
World Trade Organization, which will create more export opportunities and
ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. China is
our fourth largest trading partner, with over $100 billion in annual two-way
trade. The power of market principles and the WTO's requirements for
transparency and accountability will advance openness and the rule of law in
China to help establish basic protections for commerce and for citizens.
There are, however, other areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our
commitment to the self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is
one. Human rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its
nonproliferation commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they
exist, but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree.
Advertisement
The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for
relations between the United States and other main centers of global power,
and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long-standing allies in Europe
and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we must develop
active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships become routine and
unproductive.
Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We can
build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober analysis, and
common action. In the long-term, these are the practices that will sustain
the supremacy of our common principles and keep open the path of progress.
IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the
Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century
"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its
source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and
enterprise of our people."
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress)
September 20, 2001
The major institutions of American national security were designed in a
different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be
transformed.
It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We
must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military's
highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our
military must:
assure our allies and friends;
dissuade future military competition;
deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and
decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.
The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their
forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most
strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must
confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to
deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how
an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. We
will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational challenges.
The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols
of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to
use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States
demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom.
To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we
face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond
Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements
for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.
Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major
planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across
the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the
armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets
such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities,
and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of
military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland,
conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and
protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.
Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new
approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S.
intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and
technology. We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is run,
especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. Finally,
while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight the war on
terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of
military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against
the United States, our allies, and our friends.
We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience
that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will
maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy -- whether a state
or non-state actor -- to impose its will on the United States, our allies,
or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our
obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to
dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of
surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
Intelligence -- and how we use it -- is our first line of defense against
terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed around the
priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, fixed object --
the Soviet bloc -- the intelligence community is coping with the challenge
of following a far more complex and elusive set of targets.
We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to keep
pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be appropriately
integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with
our allies and friends. We need to protect the capabilities we have so that
we do not arm our enemies with the knowledge of how best to surprise us.
Those who would harm us also seek the benefit of surprise to limit our
prevention and response options and to maximize injury.
*
--
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
(Page 13 of 13)
--
*
We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide integrated
threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since the threats
inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted inside the
United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of information between
intelligence and law enforcement.
Initiatives in this area will include:
Advertisement
strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead
the development and actions of the Nation's foreign intelligence
capabilities;
establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless
and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and
our allies;
continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our
intelligence advantage;
investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a
more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities;
and
collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government
with all-source analysis.
As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend
America's interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other
nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding
sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State Department
takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with other
governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must be able
to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations and
international institutions. Officials trained mainly in international
politics must also extend their reach to understand complex issues of
domestic governance around the world, including public health, education,
law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy.
Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil wars,
and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief requirements are
better understood, we must also be able to help build police forces, court
systems, and legal codes, local and provincial government institutions, and
electoral systems. Effective international cooperation is needed to
accomplish these goals, backed by American readiness to play our part.
Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out to
others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to public
information efforts that can help people around the world learn about and
understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It
does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the
future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area
where America must excel.
We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our
global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the
potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and
which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid
complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such
mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S.
nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers
Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the
protection of U.S. personnel and officials.
We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the right
level and allocation of government spending on national security. The United
States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this war. At home, our
most important priority is to protect the homeland for the American people.
Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing.
In a globalized world, events beyond America's borders have a greater impact
inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, and goods from
across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish -- our freedom, our
cities, our systems of movement, and modern life -- are vulnerable to
terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice
those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. As time passes,
individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be
wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of
life. We will adjust to it and thrive -- in spite of it.
In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and
interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act
apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require. When we
disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for our
concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives. We will not allow such
disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with our
allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values.
Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the
skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of our
institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious,
entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy.
That is where our national security begins.
--
end
--

 JWorld
L'umanita' non ha nulla  a che vedere con la loggia di Bush. Qualsiasi cosa
sia positiva per loro e' deleteria per il genere umano.
Raffaele

 cosa sia positiva per loro e' deleteria per il genere umano.
....alternative COLLAUDATE?
lev
-- 
##############################Lev's' ICQ#50817865########################
HEA bbs: 
http://news.streghe.cc
 Lev's Coven 
http://www.streghe.cc
    Il venditore di conoscenza che critica l'ignorante e' come
    un macellaio che critica i vegetariani: lo fa per interesse.


Mi sorprende che proprio tu chieda una ricetta sperimentata su come gestire
l'umanita'... Sai bene che non esiste, tolta la Lex Romana od   le altre
simili, quella di Ramsete, di Ammurabi....ma mi sembrano un poco obsolete.
Capisco che e' troppo presto perche' possa fare senza figuri del genere, ma
in fondo, penso che sarebbe meglio navigare a vista piuttosto che verso le
mete di logge piu' o meno occulte. Quindi, dovendo scegliere tra
un'alternativa non collaudata ( una qualsiasi, metti la convivenza pacifica,
la messa al bando degli eserciti od altre utopie del genere ) ed il bovino
seguito di un presente troppo uguale ad altri passati gia' vissuti, penso
che anche l'ipotesi piu' assurda potrebbe essere positiva.
Penso che ovviamente mi richiamerai all'osservanza della logica storica,
dell'osservanza politica, della convenienza ideologica, di tante altre
logicissime cose che hanno la loro necessaria applicazione nella convivenza
politica dei popoli, della real politic e di tante cose di cui siamo
succubi. Hai ragione, la logica stringente e' lo strumento indispensabile
per affrontare questi problemi.
Ma fino ad oggi e' realmente servita a produrre un risultato veramente
accettabile o solo il male minore prevedibile?
Raffaele

 simili, quella di Ramsete, di Ammurabi....ma mi sembrano un poco obsolete.
Vedi, le persone fortemente critiche verso il sistema si dividono in due
categorie:
1)Rivoluzionari, persone che hanno una visione del futuro e di
comecambiarlo.
2)Falliti astiosi. Persone he non sanno come giustificare il proprio
fallimento
esistenziale, e lo sfogano sui soggetti supposti "vincenti" della societa'
dandogli
addosso con ogni scusa, o sulla societa' stessa , appoggiando i suoi nemici
esterni.
Anche noti come polemici rompipalle.
Ora, io di rivoluzioni in corso non ne vedo.
E neanche all'orizzonte.
E non h nemmeno mai incontrato un rivoluzionario.
Lev

 E non h nemmeno mai incontrato un rivoluzionario.
... potrebbero benissimo essere parole di Ponzio Pilato (dopo essersi lavate
le mani).
Il fatto è che se le rivoluzioni sono lente (cioè durano qualche decennio)
non ci si accorge di esserci dentro se non quando hanno prodotto effetti
macroscopici.
Se ne accorgono solo quelli che le rivoluzioni le provocano (i
rivoluzionari) ma, come hai dimostrato di sapere bene, essi sono solo una
minoranza.
Saluti,
Jworld

 prodotto effetti macroscopici.
Non esistono rivoluzioni lente.
Lev
-- 
##############################Lev's' ICQ#50817865########################
HEA bbs: 
http://news.streghe.cc
 Lev's Coven 
http://www.streghe.cc
             Il problema non e' SE tu sei paranoico.
               Il problema e' se lo sei ABBASTANZA.

 Lev
Preziosa chicca da serbare preziosamente.
Ma un po' meno preziosa  di altre a cui ci hai abituato.
 I "caini "che circa novemila anni fa sterminarono gli "abeli "cacciatori,
creando i presupposti della nostra societa' non pensavano neanche di star
facendo una rivoluzione: tentavano di sopravvivere. E cosi' dovranno fare
gli umani del futuro prossimo nei confronti di guru e politici di vario
genere, eliminarli dalla scena per consentire la sopravvivenza del genere
umano.
Personalmente, non credo alle rivoluzioni e tanto meno ai rivoluzionari. Non
vorrei neanche esserlo, per non provare la frustrazione di ritrovarmi , dopo
l'opera , allo stesso punto di partenza,
Credo, invece , che  quando una moltitudine di uomini comuni cambia   modo
di pensare , puo' fare molto di piu' di una rivoluzione. Mi dirai che scuola
, lavoro e societa' sono progettati per omologare il modello di pensiero
alle necessita' del capobranco di turno, ma io penso che cio' non sara'
sufficiente quando arriveranno i tempi cupi.
 Quando sara' minacciata la cuccia di ciascuno, molti impareranno a pensare,
e puoi stare certo che non servira' un modello omologato di pensiero: potra'
sopravvivere  solo chi sapra' pensare per conto suo.
 Gli altri, i conformisti e gli omologati, saranno tra i "danni
collaterali", tra il cibo, o nella migliore delle ipotesi , tra i sudditi
degli ultimi despoti.
Possiamo chiamarli rompipalle, ok, ma sopravviveranno perche' sapranno
pensare da soli, perche' oggi sanno spegnere il televisore, perche' non
vivono aspettando la pensione.
E se cio' non si verifichera' , sara' veramente un problema , perche' con
questo schema di contesto non e' in dubbio il futuro, e' in dubbio
l'evoluzione del genere homo.
 A me importa sega, perche' non avro' mai discendenti, ma per tutti coloro a
cui necessita un futuro per appropriarsi del proprio pezzetto di eternita'
pensi proprio che cio'  che abbiamo sia la cosa giusta?
Raffaele

 vivono aspettando la pensione.
Ti dico una cosa per esperienza diretta.
Non uso piu' la TV da circa un anno ormai, e le prime cose a decadere
quando non la vedi piu' non sono le boiate di fede, sono gli eccessi di
bile, l'odio rancoroso, il digrignare i denti malefico, la rabbia feroce,
dei 'pacifisti".
Lev
-- 
##############################Lev's' ICQ#50817865########################
   HEA bbs: 
http://news.streghe.cc
 Lev's Coven 
http://www.streghe.cc
                   Conclusa acqua corrumpitur.

 comecambiarlo.
scorrendo la storia delle rivoluzioni sembrerebbe che la maggior parte di
loro non sapesse cosa stava facendo, perlomeno nel senso che poi gli
avvenimenti avrebbero preso portandoli alla morte violenta.
Nella rivoluzione francese e russa la cosa sembra abbastanza evidente: la
rivoluzione genera al suo interno un movimento rivoluzionario continuo che
travolge chi un momento prima travolgeva.
Davvero queste persone avevano la visione del proprio futuro? O non erano
invece i piu' accecati?
Marco