National Security Strategy
At this juncture, to my mind, the deadliest policy development has been the release by the Bush administration of its National Security Strategy on September 26, 2002, followed by the recent announcement on December 10, 2002, of what would be the US response to the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks on US soil or against US troops or its overseas allies. In the latter document the US has embraced the doctrine of pre-emptive strike as part of its national strategy. For the first time it has openly and publicly committed to the preemptive use of military and covert force, although it has practised that in the Americas before. Alongside this it has made the further declaration to use unlimited retaliation to any such attack, including the use of nuclear weapons. Tellingly the Washington Post has reported that a top secret Appendix to the latter document refers specifically to Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya!

This policy stance follows the Bush administration's disengagement and/or retreat from a number of major international undertakings, which are directed at limiting weapons of mass destruction, preserving the environmental stability of the globe, and controlling global crime. The first includes agreements to ban nuclear testing and the International Convention Against Biological Weapons. While the second and third respectively, refer to the global programme to reduce global warming and the formation of an International Criminal Court. Of note these pronouncements were followed within a few days by the announcement that the USA had commenced to build its Star Wars Defense Programme, initially proposed by President Reagan at the peak of the Cold War.

Two options
As I stressed last week, the evidence is unmistakable that globalisation is now confronted with two stark choices, both of which cannot be advanced in a sustainable manner simultaneously, as each is the direct antithesis of the other. One is for the international community to move in the direction of a multi-polar interdependent world, which sets peace with justice and the abolition of poverty as its overriding objective. In this instance US power and wealth are used to advance this agenda. The other option is for the US to use its might to coerce the world into its grand design for it. As the undisputed superpower of our times, the US' hegemony in all the important areas of social existence is frightening in its totality. The temptation, therefore, to seek to make the world after its own image, is backed by an enormous capacity to make a real effort at it. While the temptation to try is enormous in truth, however, history has taught us one unchallengeable lesson, that is, no empire and for that matter no hegemonic state, can maintain its 'rulership' for all time and all ages. The mortality of humans and the constancy of change will always ensure this outcome.

Having said that, however, throughout history we find that a great deal of human effort and lives have been wasted because ruling groups delude themselves into believing in their own invincibility and eternity. It was for me extremely timely that only last week (published in last Sunday's SN) former President Bill Clinton found it necessary to remind the world-at-large, including the Bush administration and fellow Americans that within three decades the Chinese economy could well become as large as the USA. And, for that matter, so too could the Indian economy (if resources are not directed to the struggle with Pakistan), and the European Union (if it forged a political unity). This reminder was no doubt a prod aimed at deflecting the US administration away from its present course of action, which could bring incalculable harm not only to itself, but also to common humanity.