The emerging consensus for preventive war

Survival

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 115-136

  Dombrowski, Peter ^a   Payne, Rodger A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747719378     PISSN: 00396338     EISSN: 14682699     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00396330600765419     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington DC, September 2002; George W. Bush, Speech at West Point, 1 June 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/ 20020601-3.html. The US commitment to preventative action is reiterated in the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington DC, March 2006, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/ nss2006.pdf.
2. See, for example, François Heisbourg, 'A Work in Progress: The Bush Doctrine and Its Consequences', The Washington Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 75-88.
3. See Donald C.F. Daniel, Peter J. Dombrowski and Rodger A. Payne, 'The Bush Doctrine: Rest in Peace?', Defence Studies, Spring 2004, pp. 18-39; Donald C.F. Daniel, Peter J. Dombrowski and Rodger A. Payne, 'The Bush Doctrine is Dead; Long Live the Bush Doctrine?', Orbis, vol. 49, no. 2, Spring 2005, pp. 199-212.
4. See Thomas M. Nichols, 'Anarchy and Order in the New Age of Prevention', World Policy Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, Fall 2005, pp. 1-23.
5. For a thorough overview of the literature on construction of international norms, see Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, 'International Norm Dynamics and Political Change', International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, Autumn 1998, pp. 887-917.
6. White House, Operation Iraqi Freedom, 'Coalition Members', 27 March 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html.
7. See Stephen Lee, 'Members of the "Coalition of the Willing"', 7 October 2004, http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-7.html.
8. Almost as remarkably, Japan has publicly declared a willingness to use force according to traditional notions of preemption. See Shane Green, 'Japan Rready to Strike First if Threatened: PM', Sydney Morning Herald, 22 May 2003, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/21/ 1053196642080.html?oneclick=true. See also Amitav Acharya, 'The Bush Doctrine and Asian Regional Order', in Mel Gurtov and Peter Van Ness (eds), Confronting the Bush Doctrine: Critical views from the Asia-Pacific (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 218.
9. A spokesperson for the Howard government claimed in a media briefing that Iraq 'was not a pre-emptive strike as such. This was an action to enforce a range of UN Security Council resolutions that had required Saddam Hussein to disarm.' Minister Robert Hill, Australian Department of Defence Media Release, 'Transcript, Media Briefing Australia's contribution to Global Operations', 15 April 2003, http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DeptTpl.cfm?CurrentId=2625.
10. 'Interview: John Howard', Political Transcripts ninemsn, 1 December 2002, http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/ article_1192.asp.
11. Myint Zan, 'Comment: John Howard's "Pre-emptive Strike Thesis"', Journal of South Pacific Law, vol. 7, 2003, http://law.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/jspl/2003%20Volume7Number1/wp1.
12. Chris Reus-Smit, 'US Grand Strategy and Australia', Australian Defence College Conference on United States Grand Strategy: Implications for Alliance Partners, Canberra, 1 August 2003, http://www.defence.gov.au/ adc/Conference_Papers/web%20Reus-Smit.doc.
13. Dan Murphy, 'Terror-preemption Talk Roils Asia', Christian Science Monitor, 5 December 2002, available at www.csmonitor.com.
14. See Brendan Nicholson, 'Howard Defiant: I would Launch Strike', The Age, 20 September 2004, http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/19/ 1095532176122.html?oneclick=true.
15. Quoted by Frank Bruni, 'Berlusconi Urges Support for U.S. on Iraq', The New York Times, 5 December 2003, p. A18.
16. Gordon R. Hammock, 'Iraq, Preemption, and the Views of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary', Air & Space Power Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, Fall 2003, pp. 84-92.
17. The Program on International Policy Attitudes, 'In 18 of 21 Countries Polled, Most See Bush's Reelection as Negative for World Security', http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/BBCworldpoll/html/bbcpoll011905.html. Obviously, in this section we attribute to states the views of their national leaders. Democratic politics can be fickle, as illustrated by Spain's post-election troop withdrawal from Iraq.
18. 'Full Text: Tony Blair's Speech', The Guardian, 5 March 2004, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12956%2C1162991%2C00.html. All the quotations from Blair in this paragraph come from this speech.
19. 10 Downing Street, 'Prime Minister's Speech: Doctrine of the International Community at the Economic Club, Chicago',24 April 1999, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1297.asp. Many members of the 'coalition of the willing', by contrast, have withdrawn or are withdrawing their national forces from Iraq. At least one withdrawal can be linked to discontent with the Bush Doctrine. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, elected shortly after the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, explained the decision to recall Spanish troops on the day he was sworn into office: 'The mission in Iraq, which is showing itself every day to be a failure, should serve as a lesson to the international community: Preemptive wars, never again; violations of international law, never again'. In the same remarks, Zapatero also emphasised multilateral solutions: 'The real and most efficient fight against terrorism is through the cooperation of all democratic countries, all free countries, in the United Nations with the cooperation of all and not via unilateral interventions, which only lead to failure.' 'Spain's PM: Iraq Should Serve as A Lesson', Associated Press, 2 May 2004.
20. It should be noted, however that some states have chosen to re-emphasise that preemption is not an option in presenting revised strategic doctrine and white papers. Unsurprisingly, Minister of Defence Peter Stuck 'expressly ruled out pre-emptive operations' when he presented Germany's Defence Policy Guidelines, 21 May 2003, http://www.eng.bmvg.de/ C1256F1200608B1B/CurrentBaseLink/N264WS4R915MMISEN. North Korea, by contrast, has emphasised preemptive policies to threaten the United States and South Korea. See Paul Alexander, 'N. Korea Won't Rule Out Pre-emptive Attack', Associated Press, 24 May 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=786050.
21. Press Trust of India, 'Israel Considered Destroying Pak N-Facilities in 1979', 8 March 2004, http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/08us1.htm.
22. See Ross Dunn, 'Israel Threatens Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Targets', Scotland on Sunday, 23 November 2003.
23. Quoted in Christine Kucia, 'Russia Mulls Altered Nuclear Doctrine', Arms Control Today, vol. 33, no. 9, November 2003, p. 34.
24. Judith Ingram, 'Russia Says It May Hit Terrorists In Other States', Associated Press, 4 December 2004.
25. Quoted by Nicholas Kralev, 'Russia Vows Pre-emptive Terror Hits', The Washington Times, 9 September 2004, http://www.washtimes.com/world/ 20040909-121215-7046r.htm.
26. Quoted by CNN, 'Russia Considers Terror Strikes', 17 September 2004, http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/17/russia.putin/.
27. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 'Joint statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Gerhard Schroder', Moscow, 9 September 2004, http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/ ee4fa16d2e62d426c3256f0b003c6910?OpenDocument.
28. The quotations in this paragraph are from Kralev, 'Russia Vows Pre-emptive Terror Hits'.
29. Ranjit Devraj, 'Delhi, Islamabad Try to Shift Blame', Asia Times, 17 April 2003, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ED17Df02.html.
30. R. Suryamurthy, 'Pak Fit Case for Pre-emptive Strikes: Fernandes', The Tribune (Chandigarh, India), 11 April 2003, http://www.tribuneindia.com/ 2003/20030412/nation.htm.
31. Indian Army Doctrine: Part I (October 2004), http://indianarmy.nic.in/ indianarmydoctrine_1.doc, p. 31.
32. Quoted in Devraj, 'Delhi, Islamabad Try to Shift Blame'.
33. Acharya, in Gurtov and Van Ness, Confronting the Bush Doctrine, pp. 215-16. Unsurprisingly, at the time of the Iraq War, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell denied parallels between the Pakistan-India case and the Iraq case. 'Exporting the Preemption Doctrine', Hindustan Times, 11 April 2003.
34. Peter Van Ness, 'China's Response to the Bush Doctrine', World Policy Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, Winter 2004/05, p. 44. See also Jing-dong Yuan, 'Chinese perspectives and responses to the Bush Doctrine', in Gurtov and Van Ness, Confronting the Bush Doctrine, pp. 108-30.
35. China may have made a deal with the United States not to veto American proposals in the UN Security Council in return for the United States renouncing the use of force to resolve the North Korean nuclear weapons crisis. 'U.S. Cuts Deal with China over Iraq', Chosun Ilbo, 4 March 2003, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200303/ 200303040004.html, citing Arirang TV.
36. See Luis Ramirez, 'China Lashes Out at Bush Foreign Policy on Eve of US Election', Voice of America News, 1 November 2004, http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-01-voa21.cfm.
37. Antoaneta Bezlova, 'China in Full Damage Control After Scathing Qian Comment', Inter Press Service News Agency, 5 November 2004, http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=26158.
38. Ahmad Lutfi, 'Uyghur Separatism And China's Crisis Of Credibility In The War On Terror', Jamestown Foundation China Brief, vol. 4, no. 3, 4 February 2004, http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php? volume_id=395&issue_id=2905&article_id=23510.
39. Rob Radtke, 'Iraq effect on US role in Asia', Christian Science Monitor, 8 May 2003, http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p11s02-coop.html.
40. Quoted by Ted Anthony, 'China Outlines Nonproliferation Plans', Associated Press, 3 December 2003, http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/ 0312nn/031203nn.htm.
41. Vassily Mikheev, 'China's Foreign Policy and Current Challenges to Russian-Chinese Relations', Far Eastern Affairs, vol. 31, no. 3, October-December 2003, pp. 9-10.
42. Lisa Bryant, 'Defense Strategy Seen Shifting to Pre-Emption: Paris Denies Report of Stance Moving Away From Deterrence', Washington Times, 28 October 2003, p. 15. According to the Washington Times report the full document was available at http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualities/ dossier/d140/index.htm. Multiple attempts to access the document failed. However, media reports continue to suggest that France has embraced a position similar to the US strategy. See Michael A. Taverna, 'Repositioning; France may Reconsider Preemptive Strike Policy', Aviation Week & Space Technology, 6 June 2005.
43. 'France's Deterrence Policy in Question', Arms Control Today, vol. 33, no. 9, November 2003, p. 43.
44. Quoted in Howard LaFranchi, 'Doubt Grows Over Preventive War', Christian Science Monitor, 4 February 2004, p. 1.
45. France's 2003-2008 Military Programme Bill Of Law, September 2002, p. 4 (emphasis added). Available at http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/ mindafa.pdf.
46. Ibid., pp. 6-7.
47. Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (New York: United Nations, 2004), para. 191.
48. 'General Assembly Critiques High Level Report', UN Press Release, 1 February 2005.
49. 'In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All', A/59/2005, http://www.un.org/largerfreedom, Article 125.
50. Espen Barthe Eide, 'Introduction: The Role of the EU in Fostering -Effective Multilateralism:, in Espen Barthe Eide (ed.), 'Effective Multilateralism': Europe, Regional Security and a Revitalized UN (Brussels: The Foreign Policy Centre and British Council, 2004), p. 3.
51. 'The EU's Foreign Policy Doctrine', BBC News, 20 June 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3007878.stm#graph.
52. Mark Leonard and Richard Gowan, Implementing the European Security Strategy (Brussels: The Foreign Policy Centre and the British Council, 2004), http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/187.pdf, p. 7.
53. Sven Biscop, The European Security Strategy: Implementing a Distinctive Approach to Security (Brussels: Royal Institute for International Relations, 2004), p. 23.
54. Alyson J.K. Bailes, The European Security Strategy: An Evolutionary History, SIPRI Policy Paper No. 10 (Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Institute, 2005), p. 16, n. 46.
55. Jonathan Dean, 'Nonproliferation: European Union Action to Strengthen the Non-Proliferation Regime', foreign affairs ejournal, 2 July 2003, http://www.unanca.org/newspublications/faejournal.htm.
56. On general European contributions to global security after 11 September 2001, see Christina M. Schweiss, 'Sharing Hegemony: The Future of Transatlantic Security', Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, vol. 38, no. 3, September 2003, pp. 211-34, esp. pp. 213-15.
57. Thomas E. Ricks and Vernon Loeb, 'Bush Developing Military Policy of Striking First: New Doctrine Addresses Terrorism', The Washington Post, 10 June 2002, p. A1.
58. Video interview, NATO Headquarters, 16 December 2003; transcript available at http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s031216a.htm.
59. For a full accounting of the Prague Summit and other NATO efforts see 'NATO's Contribution to the Fight against Terrorism', http://www.nato.int/terrorism/index.htm.
60. International Military Staff, 'NATO's Military Concept for Defence against Terrorism', 15 December 2003, http://www.nato.int/ims/docu/ terrorism.htm.
61. Jeffrey Simon, 'Can We Mediate the Transatlantic Relationship or Are We Headed for Divorce?', in Sabrina A.-M. Auger (ed.), Transatlantic Relationship: Problems and Perspectives (Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2003), p. 73.
62. Eric Schmitt, 'Rumsfeld Fervently Defends Iraq War to European Critics', The New York Times, 8 February 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/ international/middleeast/.
63. Schweiss, 'Sharing Hegemony', p. 215.
64. 'To take appropriate actions to (1) stop and/or search in their internal waters, territorial seas, or contiguous zones (when declared) vessels that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes to or from states or non-state actors of proliferation concern and to seize such cargoes that are identified; and (2) to enforce conditions on vessels entering or leaving their ports, internal waters or territorial seas that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes, such as requiring that such vessels be subject to boarding, search, and seizure of such cargoes prior to entry.' 'At their own initiative or upon the request and good cause shown by another state, to (a) require aircraft that are reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes to or from states or non-state actors of proliferation concern and that are transiting their airspace to land for inspection and seize any such cargoes that are identified; and/or (b) deny aircraft reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes transit rights through their airspace in advance of such flights.' Fact Sheet, 'Proliferation Security Initiative: Statement of Interdiction Principles', The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC, 4 September 2003, http://www.state.gov/t/np/ rls/fs/23764.htm.
65. Ibid.
66. Proliferation Security Initiative operations also may occur in port, on land or in the air. The Container Security Initiative, by contrast, more narrowly covers cargo containers shipped to US ports. China participates in the latter, but not the former. See Department of Homeland Security Press Release, 'China Formally Joins U.S. Container Security Initiative', 29 July 2003, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/ display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m= July&x=20030729142155kaisn0.8961603&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html.
67. Andrew C. Winner, 'PSI as Strategy', The Monitor, vol. 10, no. 1, Spring 2004.
68. Andrew C. Winner, 'The Proliferation Security Initiative: The New Face of Interdiction', The Washington Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, Spring 2005, pp. 129-43.
69. Quoted by Fabrice Pothier, The Proliferation Security Initiative: Towards a New Anti-Proliferation Consensus?, Basic Notes: Occasional Papers On International Security Policy (London: British American Cooperation Council, 2004).
70. White House, 2002 National Security Strategy.
71. This outcome has been discussed in greater detail in Daniel, Dombrowski and Payne, 'The Bush Doctrine: Rest in Peace?'.
72. Robert Kagan, 'America's Crisis of Legitimacy', Foreign Affairs, vol. 83, no. 2, March/April 2004, pp. 65-87.