| bibo:abstract |
New Security Policy of the Bush Administration
Yun Duk-min
Professor, IFANS
<>
It is expected that the Bush Administration will establish a new national security system to better conform with the information age, as it recognizes that the current American national security policy does not completely account for the fast-changing strategic environment, but rather maintains the policies and armed forces of the cold-war period. As a result, the U.S. may reorganize national security organizations (such as the NSC) and conduct a comprehensive review of defense strategy.
The U.S. may also seek a new defense strategy through this security policy, based on a mix of offensive and defensive forces which drastically reduces the dependence on strategic nuclear power and conventional weapons. As for the 'rogue states' that are considered to be the most threatening element to American national security in the future, the U.S. will probably pursue a strategy that will deepen political engagement and arms control negotiations, while making a firm stance by developing missile defense (MD).
The Bush Administration is looking for a new national security policy while at the same time it is reviewing the policies of the Clinton Administration and the strategic environment of the U.S. The direction of the national security policy of the Bush Administration will probably differ greatly from that of the Clinton Administration. It will reflect the strategic environment of the 21st century, yet maintain its consistency on national security policy. It will also probably reflect the traditional realism of the Republican Party.
A significant influence on the direction of the Bush Administration's national security policy is its view of the policies of the former administration. The Bush Administration's assessment of the Clinton Administration’s policies may be summarized as follows:
First, Bush Administration officials believe that the Clinton Administration merely responded to disputes arising from foreign security concerns with short-term solutions, without any consistent policies that were based on national interests. This was particularly noticeable, for example, in the case of the Clinton Administration's policies regarding North Korea. Second, the Bush Administration believes that the Clinton Administration over-reached its limits by overextending its military power through intervention in minor conflicts, despite reductions in the defense budget. Third, the Bush Administration holds that the Clinton Administration maintained cold-war type policies and armed forces, even though the cold war has ended and the current threats are based on the ICT(Information and Communication Technology) revolution. Finally, the Bush Administration asserts that the Clinton Administration created tension and distrust in US-Russia and US-China relations through inconsistent and short-term policies.
Based on its consideration of these problems in the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration will pursue a differentiated policy. The Bush Administration emphasizes countermeasures against threats to the national security and prosperity of the US in the future, although it believes that there will be no such threat from full-scale military confrontation as during the cold war period. Instead, the mainland US may be threatened by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), such as chemical or biological weapons, or even nuclear weapons. It is believed by the US that the information age will expedite the proliferation of military technology, to the point where even developing countries may come to possess powerful weapons (and the long-range missiles to deliver them) in the near future. The "Committee for National Security and the 21st Century", an advisory committee in Congress, pointed out in its non-partisan report presented to Mr. Bush on Jan. 1, 2001, that the biggest concern of the US within the next 25 years will be the threat of direct attack on the mainland US by WMD. In particular, the report stated that those countries where the market economy and democracy have not taken hold would concentrate on the development of WMD. It went on to state that this constitutes a considerable threat to US national security. George Tenet, the head of the CIA, testified in a Senate hearing in Feb. 2001 that the combustible combination of failed states and the proliferation of weapons is a global threat to national security.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration considers China a strong threat to the status quo in Southern Asia, an area in which the US has strong interest. However, China is not but considered it a direct threat to the US. In other words, the US does not consider China as a power supporting the status quo, but as a country which will attempt to change the balance of power among Asian countries in such a way as to benefit China. In short, the Bush Administration considers China as a strategic competitor.
If the Clinton Administrations policy was focused on engagement and enlargement-in other words, attempting to expand the value and policies of the US based on universalism , which is the political line of the democratic party-then the national security policy of the Bush Administration will be focused on returning to a policy of realism based on particularism, which is the traditional political line of the Republican party. The Bush Administration will probably concentrate on maintaining peace in strategic areas such as the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf countries and Europe. This policy will have a considerable effect on national interests. Bush Administration officials believe it is not possible or reasonable to extend America's values around the globe. Therefore, the US will take a strong position against the emergence of hostile powers in the above-mentioned areas. In particular, the Bush Administration believes that military involvement in humanitarian crises should be minimized and that these are best addressed through political and foreign policy channels.
The Bush Administration will probably try to establish a new national security system that corresponds to the information age, recognizing that the current US national security policy does not reflect the rapid changes of the strategic environment, but maintains the policies and military power of the cold war.
The Bush Administration will try to change the organization of the foreign affairs and national security branches of the government. The current organization of national security within the US government is based on the National Security Act of 1947, which focused on the cold war.
Therefore, the need for restructuring national security organizations has emerged from the Bush Administration's efforts to cope with the new challenges and the strategic environment of the 21st century. Accordingly, administration officials have developed a plan to restructure the National Security Council. In particular, national security advisor Condoleeza Rice plans to change the organization into one focused on planning and mediation, as opposed to drafting and executing policies.
As a first step in the restructuring, the total number of NSC employees was reduced by one third; furthermore, the departments and functions of the entire organization were reduced through a merger of the separate departments in charge of Europe and the Balkans into a single department. This implies that the administration will not treat Russia in a special way or increase intervention in Kosovo. Also, the administration has closed down the department related to international environment and health issues.
Meanwhile, in order to emphasize the economic aspect of foreign affairs and national security policy, the administration has established a deputy economic advisor system; the aide to the NSC may now have meetings not only with the secretary of state and defense secretary but also with the treasury secretary. Also, in accordance with the restructuring of the organizations within the NSC and their functions, the NSC has regained its role in planning and mediation, and the State Department and the Department of Defense have been given the role executing foreign affairs. Later, the functions and the status of the State Department will probably be strengthened.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Bush promised that he would minimize American soldiers’ intervention in foreign countries, increase the defense budget and improve the welfare of US military personnel. To respond to the strategic environment of the 21st century, he is planning to reorganize military personnel stationed in foreign countries and to revise US military policy as well.
He asked the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, for a top-to-bottom review related to the strategies, structure and responsibilities of US military forces. Bush deferred all decisions related to the procurement of new arms and passage of new military-related bills until the results of the review have been disseminated.
Mr. Rumsfeld assigned responsibility for review to Andrew Marshall, a defense strategy specialist. The results of the review are expected to come out by the middle of March. The results are expected to considerably affect not only military doctrine but also the size of the military and arms systems as well. In particular, plans for the deployment of new arms are very likely to be cancelled and the defense budget will probably be drastically reduced.
The Marshall Team undertook its top-to-bottom review in the following areas: 1) potential enemies; 2) prospects of future wars; 3) necessities for coping simultaneously with two wars; and, 4) military directions needed to cope with such situations.
Mr. Marshall has innovative strategic ideas; he once argued the following:
1) The future threat to the US will not come from Europe but from Asia, and the military focus on Europe should be shifted to Asia;
2) Tanks and aircraft carriers are no longer necessary due to the fast growth of sophisticated high-tech arms, and F22 fighter planes should not be manufactured because their flying range is too short; and
3) It is necessary to develop and establish long-range, highly effective and highly mobile forces, thereby reducing the necessity of overseas bases.
A comparison between nuclear arms deterrence and missile defense is included in the review work. In particular, the Bush Administration thinks that the US military is over-deployed in foreign countries. Therefore, a thorough restructuring of the deployment of the US soldiers in foreign countries may be expected.
The core part of the restructuring of the US defense policy is to seek a new defense based on the combination of nuclear deterrence and missile defense. The Bush Administration concludes that the probability that the US will be attacked by WMD is increasing due to the spread of missile technology, although the threat of full-scale nuclear war has been drastically reduced. In particular, it considers that the biggest threat to US national security is the possibility of an attack on the US by one of the ‘rogue states’ using WMD.
While the nuclear deterrence policy of the cold war era (under which only Russia was considered as part of the balance of nuclear power) was successful, the US recognizes that it is no longer appropriate, due to the possibility of unpredictable actions from failed states and the increase in irrational behavior by countries that have WMD. The Clinton Administration sought to develop the NMD system to defend the US against a limited missile attack by a failed state. It seems that the deployment of the system is inevitable. The Bush Administration continued the NMD plan of its predecessors pursuant to Missile Defense.
According to recent research by McLaughlin & Associates related to NMD, about 70% of Americans support its deployment, and of these about 58.1% consider themselves as liberal and about 63% consider themselves as Democrats.
Although the Bush Administration will minimize the power of the US strategic attack capability, it will build up a strong deterrence through the offense-defense mix with the deployment of the MD system. In other words, the US will build up a system that will deter a limited attack by a failed state and a full-scale or accidental war through a combination of nuclear deterrence and the missile defense system. The unilateral nuclear deterrence of the US may become a lever for negotiation related to the revision of the ABM Treaty with Russia, whose poor economic situation makes it difficult for it to maintain the Russia-US strategic power balance.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is expected to use a dual policy of economic and political engagement on the countries it considers as having the potential of solving their domestic problems and participating in the international community, and containment on military issues. By using an engagement policy with rogue states (and Russia), the US is considering that the domestic insecurity of those countries is the very element that increases any potential threats. The US will attempt to eliminate any potential threat so that these countries may maintain economic growth, social security and stability.
In the meantime, the US will also follow an engagement policy with China, strengthening the political and economic ties, and will stimulate China to open its political doors by encouraging it to join the international economic system.
Contrary to the concerns that the Bush Administration may use a strong national security policy based on power, it will probably strengthen its foreign relations approach. Traditionally, the Republicans preferred to use foreign relations and the balance of power, rather than military power, in addressing foreign relation issues. As the Bush Administration firmly decided to reduce its overseas military involvement, it will probably strengthen the tendency to use diplomacy in solving international disputes. Also, considering that the domestic insecurity of failed states is one of the biggest threats to the US, the effectiveness of the use of military force is not high.
One of the special characteristics of the Bush Administration’s national security policy is that it considers Asian countries very important. As mentioned before, the Bush Administration recognizes that the biggest future threat to the US is not from Europe but from Asia. China has emerged as the strategic competitor of the US, and India may become more important than Russia in terms of politics and military power within the next 25 years. Although Japan is an ally of the US, its competitive power may also become a threat. Furthermore, most of the rogue countries are located in Asia.
Therefore, the US policy on Asian countries may emerge as the core of the national security policy of the Bush Administration. As mentioned above, Mr. Marshal argues that the future threat to the US is not from Europe but from Asia, and the military focus will be shifted from Europe to Asia. At his meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister in January 2001, Mr. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, pointed out that the US will maintain 100,000 soldiers in the Asia-Pacific region for the time being, although there are possibilities that this number may be reduced in the future.
The Bush Administration has criticized the Clinton Administration for maintaining the military security policies of the cold war period even after the cold war was over. Therefore, it is devising plans to maintain the new order that will contribute to US national interests, now that the US is the only super-power in the post cold war information age.
As a result, Mr. Bush said on May 1 of this year that the US is ready to implement a unilateral decrease in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and declared that the US and other countries will build a multi-national missile defense system to prepare for future threats from rogue countries.
The Bush Administration will establish the offense-defense mix and strengthen its realism-based foreign policy through the top-to-bottom review of its military power and the national security policies of the cold war period. This aims to reflect the new strategic environment of the 21st century and the changes in its perception of threats to America's national interests.
|
