| |
Anti-empire forces
strike back
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Representatives of a new coalition
of prominent foreign policy scholars and analysts whose
political views range from right to center-left
announced on Thursday that they hope to spearhead
opposition to the imperial policies pursued by the
administration of US President George W Bush.
Leaders of the "Coalition for a Realistic
Foreign Policy" charged that the administration is
moving "in a dangerous direction toward empire", an idea
that they said has never been embraced by the US public.
The spokespersons said that they will hold a
series of policy forums and conferences around the
country, publish papers and articles, and represent an
anti-imperial viewpoint on television and radio, media
that, since September 11, 2001, have been largely
dominated by pro-imperial or pro-war voices.
"We
are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across
the political spectrum who believe that the move toward
empire must be halted immediately," says the coalition's
charter statement, signed by 44 foreign policy
specialists.
''We are united by our desire to
turn American national security policy toward realistic
and sustainable measures for protecting US vital
interests in a manner that is consistent with American
values," it added. "The time for debate is now," the
charter states, noting that imperial policies "can
quickly gain momentum, with new interventions begetting
new dangers".
Among the more prominent
right-wing signers are Doug Bandow, a special assistant
to former president Ronald Reagan and now a senior
officer at the libertarian Cato Institute, Scott
McConnell, chief editor of "The American Conservative"
magazine and Alan Tonelson of the US Business &
Industrial Council Educational Foundation.
Representing more centrist positions are Steven
Clemons of the New America Foundation, former senator
Gary Hart and Harvard international relations professor
Stephen Walt.
More left-wing figures in the
group include Charles Kupchan, an aide to former
president Bill Clinton now with the Council on Foreign
Relations and Kenneth Sharpe, a prominent foreign policy
analyst from Swarthmore College in Philadelphia.
The launch of the coalition, which intends to
recruit other members, comes amid growing concern in
both the US Congress and the public about the aftermath
of Washington's invasion of Iraq last March.
Congress is currently debating the fate of an
administration request for some US$87 billion over the
next year for US military operations and reconstruction
in Iraq. While the package is expected to be approved
with only minor modifications, it has provoked
substantial unhappiness, even from Bush's fellow
Republicans, who worry that the occupation could turn
into a quagmire.
In addition, the
administration's proposed new anti-terrorist legislation
has provoked considerable opposition on Capitol Hill,
among lawmakers who claim that it jeopardizes many
constitutional rights and gives too much power to the
state.
And while public-approval ratings for
Bush's foreign policy, which fell precipitously through
the summer, have stabilized, his support as measured by
a series of polls this month, continues to erode.
Thursday's launch of the coalition was tied to
the change in the national debate, according to Kupchan,
who noted that the public dialogue on Washington's
global role had been far too muted, if one-sided, since
September 11 attacks.
"Now there's been a shift
in the country that has taken place," he said. "The fact
that we're all together here speaks volumes about the
degree to which our foreign policy is off course. We're
finally getting our act together," said Christopher
Preble, a Cato analyst who played a key role in
convening the group.
The coalition does not
intend to recruit from the grassroots, where a number of
existing movements oppose the war on Iraq. It will
instead focus on the recruitment of foreign policy
specialists and analysts who can help frame the context
for public and media debate.
A major target of
the group will be the neo-conservative strategists in
and around the administration, especially those close to
Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, who led the charge into Iraq, and who continue
to argue for military and other actions against Syria,
Iran and North Korea, and promote the larger strategic
vision of global US military dominance.
The
coalition's purpose appears to be, above all, to
publicly take on those who support the administration's
imperial policies, beginning with its National Security
Strategy.
That document, issued 13 months ago,
calls for Washington to maintain its predominant
position in the world at all costs, even to the extent
of waging pre-emptive war against would-be rivals, and
to reshape regions of the world in ways that are
compatible with US interests and values.
"While
officials in the Bush administration publicly reject the
terms 'empire' and 'imperialism'," according to Preble,
"empire fever appears to have seized those on both the
political left and the political right," he added,
citing a recent assertion by prominent neo-conservative
writer Max Boot that "America's destiny is to police the
world".
Despite their various political and
foreign policy philosophies, all members of the group
accept the basic notion that the pursuit of US military
domination will ultimately prove self-defeating. "We can
expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power
forming against us. People resent and resist domination,
no matter how benign," asserts the charter, titled "The
Perils of Empire".
"Empire is problematic
because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of
citizens at home, while simultaneously thwarting the
will of people abroad," it notes. "An imperial strategy
threatens to entangle America in an assortment of
unnecessary and unrewarding wars." An imperial strategy
also "threatens to weaken us as a nation, overextending
and bleeding the economy and straining our military and
federal budgets".
"We are more isolated from the
general opinions of mankind than at any time in
history," said McConnell, adding that he shares the
concerns of conservative icon Edmund Burke, who worried
in the early 19th century that Britain's very power at
the time would result both in opposition around the
world and in taking on costs that it could not afford in
the long run.
Kupchan said that the
administration's basic assumptions had already proven
deeply flawed. Among those, he said, were its belief
that "the stronger America is, the more uncompromising
its leadership, the more likely the rest of the world
would follow along".
"The United States today is
far less safe than it was several years ago, because we
have weakened the international architecture which
helped protect us," Kupchan said.
(Inter Press
Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
