Annually, the President of the United States is required by law to submit a paper to Congress delineating his foreign policy.  President Bush did so last week.  Among other things, Bush dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, and prosperity and rule of law to struggling nations around the globe.  Further, he commits the nation to combating disease, alleviating poverty and increasing foreign aid.  But it is the other aspects of his policy statement that are the focus of this first perspective.

• First, the President affirms that American military power must be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from ever trying to challenge America’s military supremacy.  He also asserts that the US is free to take preemptive action against hostile states developing weapons of mass destruction.  He therefore argues that the Cold War strategies of containment backed up by the threat of massive retaliation to deter aggression are now outdated, obsolete and unworkable.  To prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, treaties are ineffective; only force will work.  In short, he maintains, striking first is the only reasonable way to deal with groups like al Qaeda and Iraq.  The shift from containment to preemption is a huge shift in American foreign policy that needs national debate and focus.  But if 9/11 demonstrated anything it demonstrated that we live in a new world, where terrorism knows no borders and where vigilance demands knowing what terrorists will do before they do it.  When it comes to the issue of America’s national interest, there are few other workable choices in this new age.

• Second, it has been fascinating for me to reflect on the Democratic response to the President’s UN speech.  For weeks the Democratic leadership has been chastising the President’s approach to Saddam Hussein; but they are now cheering his appearance before the UN.  Bush’s 12 September speech argued that Hussein must obey UN resolutions and thereby rescue the UN from its perceived irrelevance.  When the President frames the issue of Iraq and terrorism in the national interest, Democrats protest.  When he frames the issue as an aspect of the UN, he is praised by the party of liberal internationalism.  (At its heart, liberal internationalism is deeply suspicious of actions for reasons of national interest.)  But this is the Party that voted overwhelmingly against the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s.  This is the party that was in power in the 1990s when the UN sat on its hands and did nothing about Iraq, despite the clarity of UN resolutions.  So, maybe the UN is irrelevant.  It is focusing on Iraq now only because of US pressure.  Why the Democratic party leadership thinks this is a good thing is beyond me.  Tom Daschle, for example, insists that the UN stamp of approval is central for the Senate to act.  Why?  Does the UN really have a sense of legitimacy when it comes to Iraq?  Do China, Russia and France really add the blessing of moral authority to this matter?  China, Russia and France are acting out their perceived national interests.  Why is it so ethically wrong for America to do the same?

• Finally, some comments about Europe and Iraq.  Robert Kagan, in an important article published this summer in “Policy Review,” argues that the European Union is multilateral, legalistic, and driven by economics.  America, by contrast, is unilateral, realistic and driven by national interest.  Since the European Union has grown, Europe seems less likely to spend its resources on the military.  But it also no longer speaks with one voice on such matters.  There is apparent confusion and lack of unity as well.  Who really speaks for Europe?  Germany, France and Britain obviously do not agree on the issue of Iraq.  So who represents Europe?  This confusion illustrates the cleavage between Europe and the US.  Americans believe that their legitimate democratic institutions have significance for all mankind.  Europeans, by contrast, regard the violent history of the first half of the 20th century as the direct outcome of the unbridled exercise of national sovereignty.  The European Union is a deliberate attempt to embed those sovereignties in layer of rules, norms and regulations to prevent those sovereignties from ever spinning out of control again.  This difference between Europe and the US is a fundamental one that will be the chief focus for many years to come.  It is a debate about the future.

See New York Times editorial and “Week in Review” article, p. 8 (22 September 2002); Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post (20 September 2002); Francis Fukuyama, Washington Post (11 September 2002).

Back to top

ISLAM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Last week Singapore officials reported some startling news:  Islamic extremist groups with roots in at least five Southeast Asian countries have forged a coalition that seeks to establish a single, regional Islamic state.  This alliance, formed over the last three years, is the brainchild of Riduan Isamuddin, an Indonesian Muslim considered to be one of al Qaeda’s chief operatives in the region.  He is the region’s most wanted man. 

This information was gained through the arrest of 21 suspects in Singapore for alleged involvement in extremist activities, including a plot to blow up the American embassy and three other embassies.  The activities of this group were to not only further the work of al Qaeda but also to destabilize existing governments and further the creation of the Islamic state they envision.  Among projects contemplated were attacks on pipelines in Singapore that transport water from Malaysia.  They also targeted the Singapore Defense Ministry.  According to the Singapore government, “The aim was to create a situation in Malaysia and Singapore conducive to overthrowing the Malaysian government and making Malaysia an Islamic state.”  Hopefully, this strategy would foment ethnic strife between Singapore’s majority Chinese community and the majority Muslim population of Malaysia, creating a situation where Muslims would respond to a call for jihad.

For this plot in Singapore, Isamuddin drew upon members of the Jemaah Islamiah organization, a radical militant network operating in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.  Overall, he is seeking to coordinate the activities of the Jemaah Islamiah network with Muslim radicals in Thailand and Muslim separatists in the southern Philippines.  His goal is a regional alliance called Rabitatul Mujaheddin, the precursor to a Muslim state comprising all of these Southeast Asian countries.  The types of support provided by Isamuddin to these various groups include combat training and money.

In short, the next violent stage in the terrorist struggle just might be Southeast Asia.  It is fertile ground for radical Islam and the Rabitatul Mujaheddin might be the next al Qaeda.

See the report by Alan Spires and Ellen Nakashima in The Washington Post (20 September 2002).

Back to top

AMERICAN CULTURE: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Decisions we make in our personal lives often have unintended consequences.  That is no less so when it comes to culture.  There are decisions that American culture, through its government and through its courts, that have had unintended and devastating consequences.  Allow me to illustrate:

• First, a group of pro-life groups have filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration to revisit the year 2000 approval of the abortion-drug[s] RU-486.  Based on 22 months of investigation from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians, Concerned Women for America and the Christian Medical Association, the petition requests that the FDA suspend its decision to approve Mifeprex—one-half of the two-drug abortion procedure.  Four points are made in the petition:  (1)  The Clinton administration railroaded Mifeprex through an accelerated review process with the FDA, normally reserved for drugs intended to treat life-threatening illnesses.  (2)  The creation of a regimen for Mifeprex that does not reflect safeguards used in other FDA clinical trials.  (3)  The failure to test the drugs on adolescents - even though they represent the target market.  (4)  The lack of objective research methods.  For example, unlike its normal procedures, the FDA did not select its subjects randomly and no one received a placebo.  At least, this evidence prompts one to consider if the FDA decision was not more political than medical. 

See World (31 August 2002), p. 25.

• Second, the legal profession continues to seek the novel when it comes to domestic law.  One of the newest strategies is something called “parental alienation.”  This doctrine stresses that the one thing a court should never allow to happen is for a parent to be alienated from his or her children.  This is a strange twist because long ago the courts abandoned the idea that they can take a position on whether adultery is ethically wrong or not.  Further, the courts have refused to get involved in the various issues that lead to the breakup of a marriage.  But what the courts are now being asked to do is establish as a legal doctrine the absolute that no parent should be denied an equitable share of the company of his or her children.  This includes the goodwill and esteem of their children.  But think of the unintended consequences of “parental alienation.”  If the stepfather of children treats those children well and is a good dad to them, that could be an alienating situation for the divorced biological father, who by contrast is not as good as the step-father.  Or consider the situation where the mother and step-father are now Christians and their church is teaching that adultery is wrong and that marriage is intended to be permanent.  Such situations could be interpreted as a form of parental alienation.  How so?  In a recent court case where parental alienation was being argued, the defendant played a videotape of a sermon to determine if the tone of the sermon might have tilted the children’s thinking about their father.  This is becoming so ridiculously complicated that perhaps Joel Belz’s advice to the courts is wise:  “If you leave your marriage and your home, for whatever reason, we won’t penalize you.  But if that is your choice.  Don’t come whining back to us about wanting part of what you left behind.  You’ve got the freedom to make your choice.  You also have to live with the consequences.”  I like that counsel!  I am very doubtful that the US courts will take his advice, but he is correct.  Should a spouse choose to leave the marriage, they also lose privileges.  Parents cannot have it both ways. 

See World (21 September 2002), p. 3.

Back to top