[A-List] US imperialism: a Clintonian view

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

How a superpower should use strength
By Samuel Berger
Financial Times: September 11 2002

One year after September 11, the US has made progress in the war on
terrorism. The Taliban is gone. America has substantially disrupted,
although by no means destroyed, al-Qaeda. And by responding in a fierce
but focused way, the US has frustrated what I believe was Osama bin
Laden's fundamental purpose: to provoke indiscriminate retaliation that
would further polarise the US and the Islamic world and help bring down
regimes from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.

Regardless of the current debate over Iraq, the fight against violent
jihadists must remain a priority. It will involve targeted military
action where necessary and intense intelligence, law enforcement and
diplomatic co-operation where possible. America's staying-power in the
fight will be as important as its firepower.

But just as important as unrelenting focus is peripheral vision. If our
conduct in the world isolates the US, not the extremists, and if our
pursuit of victory comes at the expense of other priorities, we, the
American people, may find ourselves no safer than before.

September 11 exposed America's vulnerability but it also starkly
demonstrated our interdependence. Even Manhattan is not an island: what
happens beyond our borders can directly affect our lives and well-being.
We cannot walk away from the world, not least because the world will not
walk away from us. As we use American power to protect ourselves from
terrorists and aggressors who imperil our interests, we must lead, with
equal energy, to tackle other threats to the world's shared well-being.

Using our power to help build a less bitter and divided world is a
national security imperative, not simply because it is morally right but
because it defies those who foment anger against an America they
perceive as self-absorbed. We will strengthen the fight against terror
if we lead across a broader agenda, defined not only by what we are
against but by what America is for. What are some of the elements of
that broader agenda?

First, we must lead an energised effort to prevent the spread of the
world's most dangerous weapons. Beyond the issues involved in dealing
with Iraq, we should strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and
the chemical weapons convention - and lend our weight to, not walk away
from, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the biological weapons
convention enforcement protocol.

We must give energy and direction to the Group of Eight leading
industrial nations' recent commitment of $20bn (£12.8bn) over the next
decade to secure nuclear weapons and materials worldwide. And,
particularly against a shadowy enemy, we must strengthen our homeland
defences. The better prepared we are to detect and respond to insidious
attacks, the less likely we are to confront them.

Second, the US must use its influence to defuse, if not resolve,
enduring conflicts from the Balkans to the Korean peninsula and south
Asia. The overriding challenge remains the Middle East, where, as every
US president since Richard Nixon has recognised, our role is critical.

After nearly two years of bloodshed, there will be no sudden
breakthrough. But only the US can craft opportunity out of exhaustion,
orchestrating reciprocal steps that can help break the death grip.
Israel will do what it believes necessary to protect itself. But US
leadership can help change the physics of the situation so that those
Palestinians who seek the necessary change of leadership and direction
are propelled by a picture of what they will gain if they relinquish
violence and respect Israel's existence.

Third, we need to offer leadership on the crisis in emerging markets.
This is not a simple matter. The orthodoxy of the 1980s and 1990s - open
markets and investment, external support and discipline in times of
crisis - has had mixed results at best. Open trade and investment remain
indispensable to growth but they are not sufficient. That is why we need
to lead the wealthiest nations in relieving the debts of poor countries
that invest the savings in their people; why we should lower barriers to
imports from the poorest countries; why universal education, public
health and breaking the deadly momentum of the HIV/Aids crisis must be
international priorities. We must close the gap between what is spent
and what is needed in order to prevent the world from becoming bitterly
and violently divided a generation from now.

Fourth, we must continue to integrate Russia and China into the
international community. There are historic opportunities here but the
future is not pre-ordained. China is engaged in the boldest economic
experiment in human history. Can it also develop the rule of law and the
pluralism that are essential to distribute the costs and benefits of
change in a peaceful and stable fashion?

Russia has a leader who understands its weakness and is compelled by
modernisation. But will the need for order come at the cost of dissent?
Will Russia's economic expansion come at the expense of its neighbours?

Of course, these issues will be resolved by the Chinese and the Russians
themselves. But our posture matters - either respectful and principled
or dismissive and self-serving.

Fifth, we must act today to protect the environment we are leaving to
the future. We know that global surface temperature is rising. Nine of
the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1990. If Kyoto is
flawed, we should use our influence to fix it. A rising tide will sink
all boats.

Meeting these and other challenges depends in no small measure on
whether and how America leads. We must prevail in our campaign against
terrorism. But we can define neither all threats as terrorism, nor our
only threat as terrorism. If we use our power only for self-protection,
and in a manner that is self- righteous, we shall fuel the fires of
resentment. If we also use our power in co-operative efforts to advance
our shared well-being, our reward will be not only a better, more
peaceful world but also the influence and authority we command within
it.

The writer was President Bill Clinton's national security adviser. He is
now chairman of Stonebridge International, a global strategy firm