|
By Da Wei
During the second term of President George W. Bush, there have been some changes in the global strategy of the United States, as well as on the home front.
The most eye-catching are the following.
First, pushing for "democracy" worldwide has become the Bush administration's new buzzword, which is reflected in a number of "color revolutions" in the former Soviet bloc and greater Middle East.
Second, guarding against the rise of any big power has become the US Government's new strategic focus. Heated discussions about "China's rise" among US strategic planners and researchers seem to point to the shift of emphasis.
Third, the havoc wrought by Hurricane Katrina, the "Intel-Gate" scandal and the rising number of US casualties in Iraq have all helped to weaken the Bush administration's position.
In this context, is the US anti-terror campaign playing out, or deepening, or has it metamorphosed into an undertaking with other geopolitical purposes?
The following phenomena may be revealing.
First, fighting terrorism is still at the core of US global strategy but the level of American public concern about it has dropped.
Of Bush's 44 broadcast addresses between January and October, for example, 18 were about domestic matters and 15 about Iraq, the Middle East, the anti-terror war, nuclear proliferation and homeland security. This shows that in US diplomacy and national security considerations terrorism remains the No 1 priority.
But on the other side, the American public is increasingly showing symptoms of "anti-terror weariness" because the US anti-terror campaigns have not made impressive progress and no new terrorist attacks have taken place in the United States.
A poll conducted by the PEW Research Center for the People and the Press shows 42 percent of Americans think the United States "should take care of its own affairs," a ratio similar to that recorded shortly after the Viet Nam War.
Second, the United States' anti-terror objective has been stretched to cover "Islamic extremism."
The US Defence Department stated in a national anti-terror military plan issued in March that the influence of al-Qaida had increased. The target of the US anti-terror war has extended from al-Qaida and the Taliban in the first phase to Iraq in the second phase and now to "Islamic extremism" as a whole.
This, while indicating the expansion of the United States' anti-terror objectives, means overstretching its anti-terrorism strategy to some extent.
Third, the role played by the US military in the anti-terror campaign is being weakened.
Some reports in February said the Bush administration planned to replace the concept of "anti-terror war" with "global struggle against violent extremism."
In August, Britain's Financial Times newspaper reported that the United States was readjusting its anti-terror strategy.
The focus would be improving the image of America in the Islamic world, spreading democracy in the Middle East and adjacent areas, helping governments in some Middle Eastern countries to strike against local terrorism and strengthening anti-terror co-operation with other big countries, while obsession with exclusively military means would be dropped.
This is reflected in the United States' massive rescue and aid efforts extended to tsunami victims in the Indian Ocean at the beginning of this year, its pushing for democracy-orientated reforms in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt later and its going all out to ensure the smooth running of the referendum for Iraq's draft constitution.
Fourth, keeping a tight grip on the fruits of its Iraq adventure will be of great importance to the Bush administration.
The anti-US insurgency shows no signs of dying down, with round after round of attacks on US troops in Iraq pushing the casualty list above the 2,000 mark. Anti-war forces inside the United States are becoming increasingly vocal.
Confronted with this dire situation, President Bush started making speeches centered on the "anti-terror war" in August, refusing to set a timetable for a pullout in an effort to boost morale among the troops and the general public.
But after coming under pressure at home, Bush recently admitted there is a withdrawal plan. One thing is certain the Bush administration will not rush to pull out of Iraq. On this matter the White House counts on support from influential congressmen from both the Senate and the House.
Because Iraq has become the "rallying point" for anti-US elements and terrorists in the Middle East, being able to hold on in Iraq will mean the difference between success and failure for Bush's anti-terror war in the next two or three years.
In view of this, the Bush administration is ironclad in its determination to see the smooth operation of the Iraqi regime.
Bush has decided to approach terrorism from multiple angles, taking into account ideology and social factors, having realized the limits of military power. This is down to the deadlock in the anti-terror war.
The metamorphosis theory has no practical significance because at the outset of the Iraq war, at least, the US anti-terror campaign was no longer a pure anti-terrorism act.
The readjustments in US anti-terror strategy will have some impact on international relations.
First, promoting American values in the Islamic world will further offend Muslims and, in turn, intensify anti-US sentiments.
Second, big-country relations will become more complicated now that the United States needs to co-operate more with other big countries in this respect while its pursuit of unilateralism has made these countries disgruntled.
Third, China's status in the United States' global strategy will be enhanced thanks to the combination of China's own rapid development and the US public's "anti-terror weariness."
The author is a researcher from the Institute for America Studies under the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.
(China Daily December 19, 2005)
|
