killmicrosoft
29-02-2008, 11:21 PM
just found this
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/80.pdf
The Foreign Policy Centre
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 1
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and The
New World Order after Iraq
Andrew Tyrie
2 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrew Tyrie has been Conservative Member of Parliament for Chichester
since May 1997. His publications include A Cautionary Tale of EMU (Centre
for Policy Studies, 1991); The Prospects for Public Spending (Social Market
Foundation, 1996); Reforming the Lords: a Conservative Approach
(Conservative Policy Forum, 1998); Leviathan at Large; the new regulator for
the financial markets (with Martin McElwee, Centre for Policy Studies, 2000);
Mr Blair’s Poodle: an Agenda for reviving the House of Commons (Centre for
Policy Studies, 2000); Back from the Brink (Parliamentary Mainstream, 2001)
and Statism by Stealth: New Labour, new collectivism (Centre for Policy
Studies 2002).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Peter Ainsworth MP, David Goodhart, Boris Johnson
MP, Mark Leonard, John Maples MP, Martin McElwee, Archie Norman MP,
Lord Skidelsky and Giles Taylor for many helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this paper. I would particularly like to thank Tim Youngs, and the staff
at the House of Commons Library, for their customary efficiency. Mrs Ann
Marsh provided first class editorial support.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 3
FOREWORD
Will a war in Iraq lead to a new world order, or provoke anarchy? This
question has dominated political discourse and fractured traditional alliances.
Andrew Tyrie’s thoughtful, searching and powerful essay on the tone of
western foreign policy and the post-11 September re-ordering of the world
makes an important contribution to these debates. The conservative position
he stakes out – arguing that both the Blair and Bush doctrines of foreign
policy are potentially destabilising in the longer term whatever the outcome of
a possible conflict in Iraq – is a powerful one. We are both delighted to be
working in partnership on such an important topic at a time when public
opinion is clearly receptive to foreign policy debate.
For the Bow Group, this publication marks a return to the Group’s study of
foreign policy at a timely moment. Some of the most intensive diplomatic
activity for over a decade has produced an environment that questions the
sustainability of some of the assumptions behind recent western foreign
policy. Projecting beyond simply the immediate question of policy towards
Iraq, Tyrie asks whether foreign policy can breed stability when it operates
outside the bounds of consensus. He also questions how similar American
and UK foreign policy really is, and whether each has sufficiently adjusted to
the world of asymmetric warfare and the threat we face.
For The Foreign Policy Centre, Tyrie’s pamphlet follows in a series of works
that reflect on the long-term consequences of 11 September. The Centre’s
collection of essays on Re-ordering the World tried to map out the contours of
an internationalist political project, and Iraq: a new approach (published with
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) showed how this ideal of a
world community could be reconciled with realpolitik in the West’s policy
towards Iraq. While Tyrie’s worldview – based on the primacy of non-
intervention – is very different from that put forward in our other publications,
we feel that the arguments he makes need to be understood and addressed.
In this regard, it sits well alongside John Lloyd’s pamphlet making the case
for intervention.
By working together in this way, we hope that these ideas reach the broadest
possible audience, whose attention they deserve.
Giles Taylor Mark Leonard
The Bow Group The Foreign Policy Centre
www.bowgroup.org www.fpc.org.uk
The views expressed in this pamphlet remain those of the author.
4 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
INTRODUCTION
“Realism can be a very good thing: it all depends whether it means the
abandonment of high ideals or of foolish expectations.”
Martin Wighti
Much ink has been spilt about the threat of militant Islam to international
order. Not enough attention is being paid to another - the new challenge to
that order from the West, particularly from America and to some extent from
Britain. If we take at face value what George Bush and Tony Blair have been
saying about the need for a new global order, they are making the world a
more dangerous place to live in. Let us hope they don’t mean what they say.
A NEW THREAT TO GLOBAL ORDER
We all have a huge interest in orderly relations between states. The stability
of the international system has at its core a mutual recognition of the
legitimacy of other states to exist, to secure their frontiers and to maintain
domestic law and order. The doctrine is highly developed in international law
but its origin lies in a commonsense principle: don’t invade my house; I won’t
intrude on yours.
For much of the Cold War years the Soviet Union articulated a rhetoric which
rejected this neighbourly view of the world. Their explicit ultimate moral and
practical purpose was to impose their notion of justice by spreading
communism throughout the world. That meant undermining other states and
exporting revolutionary communism.
It was Henry Kissinger’s achievement to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that
they had an interest in an international order based on mutual recognition of
sovereign independence, including their own. Subsequent policy-makers and
their teams, particularly Ronald Reagan’s, built on it. Through détente, and
the increasingly sophisticated rules and agreements which accompanied it,
the West engaged with the Soviet Union to the point where they had a
greater interest in recognising the rights of other states to exist than they did
in seeking to undermine them. The Soviet Union, tentatively at first, joined the
US in becoming multilateralist.
America was the world’s leading multilateralist throughout the Cold War. The
US did the world a huge service, not only by playing a crucial role in
maintaining regional and global order, but providing the necessary stability to
enable European and Japanese recovery and by laying the foundations for
i
Power Politics, Leicester University, 1978.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 5
western prosperity. We owe the Americans a great debt. However, in recent
years, and particularly since 11 September, it has been America which has
been challenging the multilateralist view of the world of which they were until
recently the leading advocates.
George Bush is articulating the case for a new world order. This is
underpinned by two new doctrines. The first is the doctrine of regime change:
the removal by force, if necessary, of the leaders of rogue states. The second
is the doctrine of pre-emptive military action: the view that in the case of
rogue and failed states, military action may be taken even in the absence of a
clear and imminent threat from those countries to America's interests, or
those of her allies.
These doctrines are inherently destabilising of international relations. The
notion that a pre-emptive strike may be undertaken without clear evidence of
an imminent attack undermines the most basic principle of the relations
between states - that military action can generally be justified only in self-
defence. The doctrine of regime change is equally corrosive. For who should
decide when a country's leadership must be changed?
Sooner or later, if persisted with, the language of pre-emption and regime
change will be used by other countries to justify military action with which the
West profoundly disagrees or which is against western interests. Perhaps this
has begun. Vladimir Putin has already rehearsed President Bush's rhetoric in
a speech to justify his recent bombing of Georgia and also further repression
in Chechnya. The Foreign Ministry of North Korea has recently suggested
that a pre-emptive strike by them may be justifiable. Such arguments will not
be lost on the Chinese or Prime Minister Sharon, among others, either.
The roots of the new doctrines pre-date George Bush’s presidency and partly
lie in several speeches by Madeline Albright in which she divided the world’s
states into four categories, two of which were rogue and failed states.ii
Likewise, when Madeline Albright pounded her fist on the table during the
Kosovo crisis and said: “getting rid of Milosevic is my highest personal
priority. I want him gone before I’m gone”, she was unmistakably calling for
regime change. A succession of apparent military successes - Bosnia,
Kosovo, Afghanistan - also contributed by bolstering US confidence.
Nonetheless, it is only in the speeches of President Bush and his closest
advisers that the strands of the new approach have been drawn together and
described by them as a doctrine.
ii
Address and Question and Answer Session before the Council on Foreign Relations
New York, New York, 30 September 1997.
6 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
The emphasis of the new doctrine varies with the policy-maker articulating it,
particularly between the unilateralist and nationalist rhetoric of Donald
Rumsfeld and the democratic missionary zeal of Paul Wolfowitz, but no-one
reading their speeches, together with those of Condoleezza Rice and
President Bush himself, can be left in any doubt that a new doctrine has
emerged. Regime change is a recurring theme and pre-emption was
extensively discussed in last September’s National Security strategy paper.iii
And what about Prime Minister Blair’s view of the world? He has a new world
order of his own in mind. It is at odds with most British post-war foreign policy
and also with George Bush’s world view. The Prime Minister has told us that
he wants much greater intervention around the world to impose our notion of
justice and freedom. For him globalisation means that anyone's internal
conflict may affect everybody and therefore that interference may be justified
in the affairs of other states, even military intervention in the internal affairs of
other states. The first exposition of what one might call the Blair doctrine was
delivered in a speech in an effort to justify intervention during the Kosovo
crisis.iv A little over a year ago Mr Blair took his doctrine further and gave it a
messianic flavour:
"This is a fight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for justice too . . .
justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people
around the world. . . . the economic and social freedom to develop their
potential to the full . . . the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the
ignorant, those living in wanton squalor, from the deserts of North Africa to
the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they are our
cause. . . . The kaleidoscope [of the international order] has been shaken.
The pieces are in flux . . . Before they [settle] let us reorder this world around
us."v
That new international order is to be an order based on our values, secured
by western economic, diplomatic and, in some cases, military strength. Mr
Blair is saying, "Either adopt western values or we may be round to see you."
– he is saying that we carry sticks as well as carrots. This is dangerous talk.
In the contest between values in the world the West should not be neutral.
Where broad based international support can be assembled there is a strong
case for humanitarian intervention. But in cases where it cannot, if the West
goes beyond persuasion and tries to reconstruct a new world order in its
image, many countries in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere around the
world that do not share our values will feel threatened. Worse still, a smaller
group of stronger countries will see an opportunity in the new policy to justify
iii
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 17 September 2002.
iv
Speech to the Chicago Economic Club, 22 April 1999.
v
Speech to the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, 2 October 2001
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 7
action in the name of their own values, just as they already do in George
Bush’s unilateralism. If we continue to take unilateral military action in the
name of western values, we will be treading the path not towards a new
international order, but a new international anarchy. Shaking the
kaleidoscope further, in the name of western values, will destabilise weaker
countries who do not share our values and provide the opportunity for strong
countries to justify actions we would otherwise condemn.
Of course, the Prime Minister would try to argue that his foreign policy and
America’s are one and the same, but they are very different. The Prime
Minister’s new world order is internationalist, almost messianic, and draws on
the rhetoric of human rights; America’s is implicitly unilateralist and designed
to facilitate the expression of US power. Both are at odds with the
multilateralist view of the world espoused by most western countries for the
past half a century, led by the US.
NO MORE THAN RHETORIC?
There are two main objections to my concerns about the Blair, and
particularly the Bush doctrines. The first - it may be objected - is that the
rhetoric is just that and no more. Whatever the language the West’s actions
are still in practice based on the solid ground of international law and they
reinforce international order. The second is the opposite of this view, that we
are in uncharted territory with one new hyper-power and that a new
international order built by it can both enhance our security and spread
western values to most of the globe. Security and values can march happily
together.
There is some evidence to support the first view. One could interpret the new
doctrines as no more than rhetoric designed to bolster western and
particularly US domestic opinion for military action which otherwise would be
difficult to mobilise. This could help explain the contradictions between the
Bush and Blair rhetoric: each is designed for its own market. George Bush’s
apparent unilateralist militarism reflects the enormous impact of 11
September on US public opinion. Tony Blair’s messianic rhetoric is a
response to greater hesitancy in British public opinion and especially in the
parliamentary Labour Party about military action. Originally conceived to
justify action over the Kosovo crisis, Mr Blair hopes to mobilise support in his
own party against Saddam by rehearsing the same language of moral
indignation that he deployed against Milosevic. With any luck, so the
argument might go, other countries, with whom we must continue to do
diplomatic business will understand that the Prime Minister’s universalist
interventionist rhetoric is only for domestic consumption. In which case the
damage to international order wrought by it will be small. Likewise, so the
argument goes, the rest of the international community should take account
8 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
of the transformation of domestic US attitudes as a consequence of 11
September, and interpret the President’s rhetoric primarily as a means of
managing it.
Evidence that there has been a gap between rhetoric and policy was
provided by the international coalition which the West tried to build after 11
September. The West initially tried to work with states such as Russia,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Malaysia, China,
Egypt and even Iran, whose human rights records are poor and whose
regimes, in some cases, we find utterly repugnant. In doing so we were
participating in a coalition of the current international order, not some putative
one. We were putting the suppression of terrorism ahead of the imposition of
any new world order.
Whatever the rhetoric, the immediate post-11 September diplomacy could be
seen as coalition-building to uphold international legitimacy - the legitimacy
that derives from the notion that only states have the right to use force in
international society and the principle that states should not interfere in other
states' affairs. The coalition’s target was the terrorists, the revolutionaries and
outlaws of international society, not states. Only if states harboured outlaws
would they become targets.
Likewise, the West’s military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of 11
September, led by the Americans, did not need explanation by reference to a
new doctrine. It was justifiable on grounds of customary international law as
well as the self-defence provisions of the UN Charter,vi backed by two UN
resolutions: America had been attacked, a major source of that attack lay
with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and therefore America was justified in taking
action to defend itself by responding against the regime which had harboured
the terrorists.
The fact that the explanatory rhetoric – in President Bush’s case an early
outing for his rogue and failed states doctrine; in Prime Minister Blair’s case
much talk of the Taliban’s atrocious human rights record – was not the main
motive for military action may not matter so much. The important point is that
legitimate action was taken in an effort to suppress a very real terrorist threat.
Iraq is another matter. There is less scope for ambiguity. If the West sticks at
arguing that we are threatening military action because Iraq has been in
breach of UN resolutions passed after the Gulf War a decade ago, such
action could be justified on the grounds that it strengthened respect for
international order. But what if we go beyond that? What if the West seeks to
justify military action on pre-emptive grounds – arguing that military action is
vi
Article 51.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 9
necessary even though we cannot provide strong evidence of a threat to the
West’s interests? Or what if we seek to justify military action on the ground
that Saddam’s regime is abhorrent and should be changed?
These latter two arguments erode global stability. The same arguments will
become the common currency of other countries to justify actions we abhor.
The gap between the Blair and the Bush rhetoric, still blurred in the Afghan
case, is also much clearer over Iraq. Prime Minister Blair is emphasising that
his government is partly on a humanitarian crusade. He publishes details of
Saddam’s human rights abuses, even as part of dossiers billed as
cataloguing weapons of mass destruction.vii George Bush, meanwhile, and
particularly his advisers, are suggesting that their explicit purpose is to
reorder the political landscape of the whole of the Middle East – a stark threat
to 30 odd states there. Nonetheless, even in the Iraq case, some scope for
ambiguity remains. It cannot be unequivocally stated that the US has
discarded the existing order, at least not yet. It is true that the US has
repeatedly said that it will act unilaterally whatever the UN says – summed up
in the oft-repeated Bush/Rumsfeld phrase, a “coalition of the willing”. Nor did
the Bush administration emphasise non-compliance with Resolution 687 as
part of its new-found resolve to tackle Saddam. Regime change was to the
fore.
Yet the practice has not so far matched the rhetoric. The US - perhaps partly
as a consequence of British persuasion, for which the Prime Minister may
turn out to deserve much praise - has been operating largely through the UN.
Resolution 1441 was the result. It papered over the cracks, not just of
conflicting views in the Security Council, but also in the US administration
and the Washington foreign policy elite about the most appropriate action to
take against Iraq. The test - whether the US is prepared to act unilaterally or
whether it has now bound itself into a multilateral process - is yet to come.
A NEW WORLD ORDER FOR A NEW HYPER-POWER?
A second riposte to the view that the US is putting our security at risk by
articulating a new international order is the opposite of the first - not that US
and UK rhetoric disguises a well-tried and reliable foreign policy but that it
provides an intelligent and radical response to changed global
circumstances. The argument goes that, since the end of the Cold War the
US has been in an unprecedentedly powerful position. There is now one
hyper-power; the bi-polar or multi-polar worlds have gone. A new policy is
needed and America is providing it.
vii
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government,
24 September 2002.
10 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
The argument runs that a historic opportunity is available to the US to seize
the moment and spread democracy throughout the world. The Middle East,
the source of much instability and terrorism since the Second World War, is a
good place to start. Behind the unilateralist rhetoric also lies a noble, if
hopeful assumption: a more democratic world would also be more
prosperous and more peaceful. Democracy restrains leaders’ bellicosity.
Prosperity grows with peace and contact with western economic ideas. As
peoples’ economic stakes in society increase so does the amount put at risk
by war. Democracy is therefore a brake on militarism.
It is argued that the main effect of 11 September on US foreign policy was to
end an internal US debate about whether isolationism – always a strong
strand in domestic opinion and strongly articulated from time to time on
Capitol Hill – could resume the ascendancy in foreign policy thinking it had
enjoyed between the wars. By this argument the internationalists won out in
Washington. But it has been at the expense of multilateralism, and rightly so.
It is held that the new doctrines, and the massive projection of US military
and diplomatic power implied by them, will make the world a safer and more
prosperous place for all of us. We can all benefit from the beneficence of a
democratic hyper-power. Why, some policy makers may complain in their
Washington offices, is much of the rest of the democratic world so reluctant
to help? The US will even do most of the work. Surely, they argue, a US
dominated empire in the Middle East and a European dominated sub
Saharan Africa will be better for their peoples, more stable and more peaceful
than present arrangements. Some of the new policy’s strongest advocates in
Washington resent European diffidence: only cynicism, jealousy, hints of
timidity bordering on appeasement, and a lack of imagination in an old world
scarred by centuries of war, prevent the countries of Europe from embracing
the new order.viii
There are many problems with this view, both practical and philosophical. It is
worth examining at least three. By far the most important is that America is
not powerful enough. Nor are her values shared by a sufficient number of
other countries. The underlying premise about the relationship between
democracy, peace and prosperity is also at best questionable.
America and the West will not be able to prevent other states flexing their
muscles. Preponderant though the US is, she is not strong enough to impose
her will, nor impose her values on the whole globe. It is true that the US can
project power in an unprecedented manner and that her preponderance is
greater than that of any other country in history in relation to its nearest rival.
viii
Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks at the recent NATO meeting reflect this mood. See
‘France and Germany Round on Rumsfeld’, Financial Times, 24 January 2003.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 11
Reflecting this, at times the rhetoric of the most hawkish in the US
administration seems to indicate a bid for ‘total security’ – a bid to ensure that
no other country can hurt America or her interests.
Attempting this will prove to be a dangerous delusion. The US’s ability to
project power is heavily constrained. The existence of nuclear weapons
creates a form of equality of threat among the possessors which limits the
ultimate expression of power – the annexation, imposition of suzerainty or
coercion of other countries. If Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons
capability, and a delivery mechanism able to hit a number of US cities, or
those of her allies, US policy towards Iraq would be very different. The
disparity of treatment of North Korea and Iraq illustrates the point. North
Korea, although categorised by Washington as a rogue state, is being treated
much more gingerly than Iraq. No massive US build up is attending the far
more roguish behaviour by North Korea over the past decade than anything
yet proven to have been perpetrated by Saddam. This has been noticed by
others: the Iranian leadership was recently reported as saying that the lesson
of different treatment of Iraq and North Korea was to acquire a nuclear
weapons capacity. The presentational consequences of the disparity are also
serious. As a senior US diplomat is reported as saying “We will be facing
considerable scepticism on the question of how we can justify confrontation
with Saddam when he is letting inspectors into the country, and a diplomatic
solution with Kim when he’s just thrown them out”.ix
It is clear to the international community that the main reason for such
inconsistent treatment is the fact that one is a nuclear power and the other is
only an aspirant. As a result a strong and dangerous signal is inadvertently
being sent to non nuclear powers, especially dictatorships, that a means of
avoiding coercion is to acquire such weapons. It is very important to try to
prevent Iraq, or other countries, from obtaining nuclear weapons. But, until
there is clearer evidence that Iraq is close to obtaining them, the kind of
military coercion being exercised over Iraq at the moment may precipitate a
protective proliferation from small states.
Another major constraint on the projection of US power is the response it
may provoke from those who fear they may have US and western values
imposed on them. Some, particularly in the Islamic world, believe that their
values are under threat from America. Such reactions and beliefs are the
seed-bed of militant Islam. This is why, far from reducing the threat of
terrorism, military action in Iraq may cause an increase in Islamic inspired
terrorist activity.
ix
Quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, 5 January 2003.
12 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
The conflict of values between militant Islam and the West cannot be won
militarily. As many others have observed, it will be determined in the battle for
the hearts and minds of moderate Moslem opinion, among our own Moslems
in the West as well as in the Middle East and beyond. Nor is it likely that the
battle to quell support by so-called ‘rogue states’ can be won purely militarily,
either, although force can play a role. Where states articulate a universalist
ideology as a justification for their actions, as the Soviet Union did for half a
century, the best prospect for peace often lies more with persuading them of
the benefits of participation in international society, buttressed by military
containment of them, than by threatening their regimes with extinction.
International society today is not sustained by a highly developed common
culture as was the almost entirely Christian European society of the 18th and
19th Centuries.x The most powerful glue of the looser and more global
international society of today is the primordial desire of most states to
survive, reflected in their need for mutual recognition and the consolidation of
their sovereign independence. This is particularly true of 150 of the world’s
countries that have been in existence for only a few decades. Shaking that
kaleidoscope by force will create a climate favourable to terrorism, especially
so if done in the name of ‘alien’ western values.
Despite appearances to the contrary, America remains dependent, as all
previous super powers have been, on the maintenance and management of
regional balances of power. She cannot fully protect her ally Israel from the
threat of attack from other states in the region. Nor can she fully protect
Japan from a military threat from North Korea or China. America must
balance forces, construct alliances and weigh interests, as super powers
have always done.
America rightly castigates squeamishness in much of European culture about
the use of force. The semi-neutrality of a number of West European states is
an abdication of responsibility. Yet the self-imposed restraint of the
Europeans, which derives from the still lingering trauma of the first half of the
20th Century, is not unique to them. It has a counterpart in the United States -
a residual reluctance, post Vietnam, to take casualties. Perhaps 11
September assuaged it somewhat. While it remains it is a further severe
practical restraint on the projection of US power for which the encouragement
of allies and the use of proxies are an inadequate substitute.
Underlying much of the rhetoric of the new Bush doctrines is another
fundamental misconception, that western values, and particularly western
democratic values, are inherently peaceful and that a fully democratic world
x
See Headley Bull & A Watson, eds. The Expansion of international society
(Oxford:Clarendon Press), 1984.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 13
would abjure war. One senses that, not far away in some American policy
makers’ minds is the thought that if only “everyone was like us” there would
be peace in the world. As Professor Adam Roberts has pointed out: “similar
ethnocentric fantasies have informed Islamic, communist and other beguiling
visions of world peace. All such fantasies can lead only too easily to attempts
to impose the favoured system on benighted foreigners by force – regardless
of the circumstances and sensibilities that made the undertaking hazardous.”
The notion that populist jingoism and democratically expressed nationalist
resentments often cause and inflame wars seems to elude those who cling to
such misconceptions.xi
Power politics is not absent between democracies, even mature ones.
Democracies all over the world have found a readiness to fight at various
times, often imposing their will on smaller countries. Arguably it is more
difficult to sustain a long war in a democracy but it is unlikely to be less
difficult to start one.
A MORE SECURE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
The US is in danger of overreaching itself. Iraq may mark that point; it could
come later. Out of a curious mixture of a new vulnerability and a complacent
and misplaced sense of supremacy a dangerous American foreign policy is
being forged, and a more reliable and orderly foreign policy discarded. The
awkward truth is that an overreaction in the US to 11 September may be
responsible. Several things now need to be done.
The West, led by America, needs to return to a policy which recognises the
paramountcy of stability and order in international society. This piece began
by arguing that the new doctrines of Messrs Bush and Blair were making the
world a less safe place. Other states are watching and listening; where the
President and the Prime Minister lead others will follow. A world in which
states can use pre-emptive action, can change the regimes of their
neighbours and espouse a rhetoric to justify intervention in support of their
value systems (whether Judaeo Christian, Islamic, Communist or whatever)
will be a much more unstable place.
Order in international society is a value. The bedrock of order is the doctrine
of non-interference and both President Bush’s doctrines and Blairite
salvationist rhetoric are threats to it. Pre-emption should not be used to justify
the threat or use of force by the West in the absence of clear evidence of
imminent aggression. The doctrine of regime change should not be used to
xi
For an examination of both sides of this debate see Liberal Peace, Liberal War,
John M Owen, Cornell University Press and Adam Roberts’ review in The Times
Literary Supplement, 6 November 1998.
14 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
justify military intervention, whether for humanitarian or other purposes, in the
absence of broad-based support from the international community. This
often, but not always, means the UN.
It is a sobering thought that the rhetoric of the past 18 months is bringing
about a need for the West to restate that most elementary principle of
international society – we will respect the integrity of other states as long as
they do the same. This principle of co-existence implies the acceptance of
basic rules of international behaviour – respect for the territorial integrity of
other states, respect for international law and for boundaries to the legitimate
use of force. These rules reflect the essential common interests which bind
together a society of states.
The West has a huge interest in maximizing respect for such rules and
mobilising consent for the existing international order implied by them. Where
possible, we should seek to encourage compliance with international law
through the United Nations. Of course, there will be exceptions. No state can
afford to rely on the UN for approbation before taking action to defend itself
from an imminent threat. The UN does not have a veto on the doctrine of self-
help but respect for that doctrine requires any response to be proportionate.
Once a more stable framework - and one which gives greater scope for
mobilising support from the whole of the international community - has been
put at the heart of policy the priorities for western security can more
effectively be addressed. At least three deserve a mention: the immediate
threat from terrorism; the longer run dangers of nuclear proliferation; the
global clash of value systems.
First, the growth of global terrorism is the clearest challenge to international
order at the moment. It may turn out to be more pervasive and violent than
any terrorist threat that we have seen in the past. The broadest possible
coalition needs to be assembled against it, which will include many states
whose values we do not share. The more that non-state violence is outlawed
the more our security will be enhanced.
We need to be mindful that terrorism’s very purpose is to destabilise and
destroy international order. To achieve it all terrorists, and certainly bin
Laden, depend upon an overreaction from their more powerful victims. Our
security in the years ahead will depend on the extent to which we can build
the widest possible coalition in the globe against the threat of non state
violence represented by terrorists and against states who harbour them.
In the campaign against terrorism, on the evidence provided by our
governments, Iraq is simply not our highest priority. Despite strenuous efforts
to find one, no connection has been discovered between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 15
Indeed, there is extreme mutual antipathy between secular Iraq and militant
Islam – if bin Laden had set foot in Baghdad he would most likely have been
shot. Nor, as far as we have been told, have extensive links recently been
found between the Iraqi regime and other terrorists, excepting Palestine, in
which to some degree most countries of the Middle East could be construed
as complicit.
The Palestinian conflict, not Iraq, is the greatest threat and source of
instability to western interests in the Middle East, and probably the greatest
inspiration for international terrorism. It is to the resolution of that problem
that the US should be directing all its diplomatic efforts if it wishes to bear
down on anti-western terrorism emanating from the Middle East.
Second, the West’s long-term focus needs to be on the greatest single threat
to the security of the world – the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The larger
the number of nuclear players the greater the risk of miscalculation by the
authorities capable of making nuclear war, the greater the risk of accidental
war and the greater the risk of such weapons falling into the hands of non-
state actors. Much has already been done by the West to limit proliferation,
especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the enhanced
security and prestige afforded by possession of nuclear weapons creates a
huge incentive for some states to acquire them and suggests that any
attempt to freeze the nuclear club at its existing membership is unlikely to be
successful.
It is true that in most respects we have moved from a bi-polar world to a
world of one hyper-power but the spread of nuclear weapons and the
increasing likelihood of access to its technology, particularly to deliver such
weapons over longer distances, creates a multi polarity of nuclear threat. It
also fosters the growth of regional nuclear balances of power, posing a
profound challenge to the international community. The Cold War may have
ended but we are still in the age of nuclear deterrence.
It will not be easy to prevent further proliferation. There are limits to the extent
to which aspirants in a nuclear club can be coerced into abandoning their
projects, as the spread of a nuclear capability to the Indian subcontinent has
recently illustrated. A surgical strike, such as that which retarded the Iraqi
nuclear programme in 1981 and which preserved Israel’s regional nuclear
monopoly, was not a serious western option with respect to India and
Pakistan. Such action may be appropriate in Iraq but, as yet, the evidence
that the Iraqi regime is on the threshold of a nuclear capacity has not been
forthcoming. Other methods of preventing the spread will also be less than
watertight. Neither attempts physically to restrict the export of the technology,
scientists or fissile material, nor economic bribery will be enough to
16 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
counterweigh the geo-strategic benefits that motivate some aspirant nuclear
powers.
In addition to the above the West needs a foreign policy which can assuage
the perceived need of some countries to obtain such weapons. The more that
western policy can enhance the security and sense of sovereign
independence of some of these countries the more likely it is that they will
seek to play a role in and benefit from engagement in the international
community, reducing their incentive to obtain the technology. As already
pointed out, the coercion implied by America’s new doctrines may push some
countries in the other direction, encouraging proliferation as a source of
protection from threats.
Furthermore, to the extent that American unilateralism over Iraq creates
fissures between the existing nuclear powers it will also increase the risk of
proliferation. For it is an uncomfortable fact that most of the smaller nuclear
states obtained their capacity, not entirely by their independent efforts, but
with covert support from Security Council members, for example China’s from
the USSR; Israel’s partly from France.xii
Third, the ‘clash of global values’ needs much more careful management.
Other states should be reassured that they will not be attacked nor their
regimes undermined, for failure to conform to western values. Persuasion,
not threats of coercion, will be the tool used to convince other states of the
rectitude of democratic structures and of the benefits of free enterprise
society. Only just over a decade ago half a continent embraced western
values and shrugged off communism, not primarily as a consequence of a
military threat but as a result of a victory at the level of ideas. A number of
states, in the dock for their human rights record, are noticing that the US’s
attachment to individual freedom is being compromised by the denial of
access of al-Qaida suspects, held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, to any
judicial process and by allegations that a number of them may even have
been removed to countries so that they can be tortured. To the extent that
these allegations are substantiated they will undermine the credibility of the
values that the West is seeking to export.
Furthermore, once the case for humanitarian intervention has been widely
proclaimed, as it was by the Prime Minister over Afghanistan, it is important
to make every effort to deliver on our promises. A British presence reduced to
three hundred soldiers in Kabul, and a country largely controlled by tribal war-
lords scarcely more respectful of human rights than the Taliban, is not
xii
For more detail on WMD capabilities and the provenance of the nuclear capacity of
several states, see the Federation of American Scientists web site at
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 17
consistent with the Prime Minister’s nation-building rhetoric at the time of the
invasion, nor with his emotive promise that ‘this time we [the West] will not
walk away’.xiii All the same, such glaring anomalies are more relevant for UK
domestic opinion than they are corrosive of western foreign policy. The Blair
doctrine’s strategic significance will count for little unless it infects US policy-
makers and, as already pointed out, the two are intellectually incompatible.
By far the greater threat to our long-term security comes from the Bush
doctrine.
Much of the strategy advocated in this paper - largely the strategy of
successive US Presidencies since the war - is antithetical to the new foreign
policy espoused by parts of the US administration. The new policy could
stimulate, rather than suppress terrorism. The crucial distinction, of great
value for order in international society, between state and non-state violence
is not sufficiently drawn. Proliferation may be inadvertently encouraged. The
castigation of countries which do not share western values may be seen by
some on the receiving end as cultural imperialism and will render the policy of
persuasion and engagement suggested here more difficult.
How might the approach outlined inform policy towards Iraq? On the
evidence in the public domain at the moment, the impending war against Iraq
appears to be disproportionate to the threat.xiv To the extent that this view is
sustained it will weaken respect for international law and international order.
In the early stages of the current Iraq crisis it appeared that the US
administration was not attentive to the legal case for action and dismissive of
the United Nations’ role. The US’s subsequent return to Resolution 687 has
not fully expunged that impression.
The case against the pre-11 September policy of containment has not been
made – an imminent threat has not been demonstrated. In its absence the
risks to western interests attending military action become particularly
important in assessing the overall costs and benefits of military action.
It is worth considering the likely effects of an invasion by reference to the
three challenges for western policy just enumerated: terrorism, nuclear
proliferation and the contest of values. It is by no means clear that military
action furthers western policy on any of these. Islamic terrorism may be
provoked more than it is suppressed. Some states may perceive a need or
opportunity for protective proliferation; western values may be perceived as a
xiii
The Prime Minister used similar language a number of times. See Hansard 14
November 2001, col 864.
xiv
On proportionality see Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Third
Edition), Cambridge Univesity Press, 2001, pp 208-212.
18 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
threat, making it more difficult to persuade some states of the benefits of
participation in the international community.
Nor has the argumentation adequately distinguished between different types
of threat. It is disingenuous to seek to roll together chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons into the single ‘omnibus’ of weapons of mass destruction.
The threat from nuclear proliferation is of an altogether greater magnitude
than the other two. Nor is the logic of weapons of mass destruction even-
handedly deployed – it is widely reported that, for example, Israel, Syria and
Egypt have chemical and biological weapons, yet they are being recruited as
part of the alliance against Iraq. Nor is it yet clear what ‘regime change’
means with respect to Iraq. Initially, it was held to require the expulsion of
Saddam. For a few weeks late last year it was clarified by the State
Department that the removal of weapons of mass destruction constituted
regime change, even if Saddam remained in power. Recently, regime change
appears to be reverting to its original meaning - Saddam must go.xv
It is in the interests of all leaderships, and particularly those of democracies,
that military action should command a measure of popular support, both
within countries and between those in alliance. It therefore weakens our
security that western domestic opinion, in Europe and the US, can conclude
from the failure to win the argument over Iraq that the US has ulterior
motives. Some now believe, probably wrongly, that the real motive for US
foreign policy is oil. Others, more plausibly, sense that it is at least partly
‘unfinished business’ from the last Gulf War, inspired by a small group of the
President’s closest advisers.
Throughout America’s century of global ascendancy she has been a source
of global conservatism, recognising the value of order in international society
and mindful of the risks to it, and to the West, inherent in the projection of
power. Some might say too much so, particularly for most of the first half of
the last century.
The US foreign policy and academic establishment has tested the post war
policy consensus many times. There have been strong calls for isolationism,
particularly from Capitol Hill and, in the late 1940s, for the unilateral
deployment of nuclear power. Briefly in 1954 the US appeared to discard
containment for John Foster Dulles’s doctrine of ‘massive retaliation’. Global
Salvationists, human rights theorists and Wilsonian utopians have all done
their best to shake the consensus. President Bush’s presidency is not the first
to be influenced by those making the case for a new international order but
xv
The Foreign Secretary has not always been abreast of the latest interpretation. See
Hansard 7 November 2002, cols 440 and 451.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 19
he is the first, at least for any length of time, to place a new order at the
centre of policy making.
America’s restraint has been an exception to a characteristic of dominant
powers. Many of them justified the exercise of their might by recourse to
revolutionary doctrines: revolutionary France in the Napoleonic Wars and
Soviet Russia being two salient examples. As an Atlanticist I do not doubt
that America’s heart is in the right place. Their open society values are ours
and not comparable to Napoleon’s dictatorship or communism’s
totalitarianism. Yet it is doubtful whether America realises how unsettling her
new rhetoric sounds to the international community.
We must try to convince the US administration that pre-emptive military
intervention and regime change can never become accepted doctrines of the
international community. They are inherently revolutionary in scope, even if
inspired by – to western eyes – benign objectives. The rhetoric alone, even if
not matched by action, is destabilising. In the absence of solidarity in the
international community about their implementation they amount to a breach
of the contract of coexistence between states. These doctrines will always be
seen to be the policy of the strong, resented by the weak and exploited by
those who can get away with it.
As America’s oldest ally, and as one of the few countries in the world willing
and able to deploy power, the British government should be playing a leading
role in encouraging the United States to find safer ground on which to
construct its contribution to global order. The leadership we need now from
the Prime Minister is not merely that of interlocutor between the US and a few
churlish, and instinctively anti-American, European governments. It is the
leadership of a sustained diplomatic initiative to bring the US back to the
fundamental principles of international relations which have informed US
foreign policy since the war. The Iraq crisis and a likely war may or may not
lead to unintended and unpleasant consequences for the West. There are too
many imponderables to judge. Ultimately, the West should and probably will
unite behind the US because, even if the majority of leaders disagree with the
policy, the damage to the Atlantic Alliance of doing otherwise could be too
great. But that will not be the end of the matter. Far more serious than any
immediate consequences will be the repercussions in the international
community of America’s doctrinal justification for policy.
20 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
OTHER PUBLICATIONS FROM THE
FOREIGN POLICY CENTRE
IRAQ: THE CASE FOR INTERVENTION
By John Lloyd
John Lloyd argues that it is important to back up an interventionist rule-based
vision for foreign policy with political will and military capabilities. He argues
that there is a genuine resolve for a new world order and conservative
attachments to the status quo will be counter-productive and lead to
instability.
IRAQ: A NEW APPROACH
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with The Foreign Policy Centre.
REORDERING THE WORLD: The Long-Term Implications of 11
September
By Mark Leonard (ed.), Ehud Barak, Ulrich Beck, Tony Blair, Fernando
Cardoso, Malcolm Chalmers, Robert Cooper, Fred Halliday, David Held,
Mary Kaldor, Kanan Makiya, Joseph Nye, Amartya Sen, Jack Straw and
Fareed Zakaria.
Details of The Foreign Policy Centre’s previous publications can be
found at www.fpc.org.uk. Alternatively, they can be ordered from Central
Books on 0845 458 9910.
BOW GROUP RESEARCH
Ending Road Rationing: Refining the Transport Market
By Mark Nicholson & Mark Wheatley – March 2003
Looking at the tough decisions required to resolve the UK’s growing transport
dilemma, the paper argues for an end to the government monopoly on
transport infrastructure development and a fresh look at taxation.
Labour’s corrosive ‘dumbing down’ of education
By Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith MP
A keynote speech given at The Bow Group’s Annual Dinner on 3rd February
2003, developing the themes of Conservative education policy.
The Ideas Book for London
Edited by Giles Taylor
As the Group’s major publication from Autumn 2002, The Ideas Book for
London tackles issues in punchy fashion, the book sets out innovative ideas
for London’s second Mayor.
The Bow Group now posts all policy papers and policy briefs on its
website, www.bowgroup.org. Please contact The Bow Group, 1A Heath
Hurst Road, London NW3 2RU to order hard copies.
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/80.pdf
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/80.pdf
The Foreign Policy Centre
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 1
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and The
New World Order after Iraq
Andrew Tyrie
2 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrew Tyrie has been Conservative Member of Parliament for Chichester
since May 1997. His publications include A Cautionary Tale of EMU (Centre
for Policy Studies, 1991); The Prospects for Public Spending (Social Market
Foundation, 1996); Reforming the Lords: a Conservative Approach
(Conservative Policy Forum, 1998); Leviathan at Large; the new regulator for
the financial markets (with Martin McElwee, Centre for Policy Studies, 2000);
Mr Blair’s Poodle: an Agenda for reviving the House of Commons (Centre for
Policy Studies, 2000); Back from the Brink (Parliamentary Mainstream, 2001)
and Statism by Stealth: New Labour, new collectivism (Centre for Policy
Studies 2002).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Peter Ainsworth MP, David Goodhart, Boris Johnson
MP, Mark Leonard, John Maples MP, Martin McElwee, Archie Norman MP,
Lord Skidelsky and Giles Taylor for many helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this paper. I would particularly like to thank Tim Youngs, and the staff
at the House of Commons Library, for their customary efficiency. Mrs Ann
Marsh provided first class editorial support.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 3
FOREWORD
Will a war in Iraq lead to a new world order, or provoke anarchy? This
question has dominated political discourse and fractured traditional alliances.
Andrew Tyrie’s thoughtful, searching and powerful essay on the tone of
western foreign policy and the post-11 September re-ordering of the world
makes an important contribution to these debates. The conservative position
he stakes out – arguing that both the Blair and Bush doctrines of foreign
policy are potentially destabilising in the longer term whatever the outcome of
a possible conflict in Iraq – is a powerful one. We are both delighted to be
working in partnership on such an important topic at a time when public
opinion is clearly receptive to foreign policy debate.
For the Bow Group, this publication marks a return to the Group’s study of
foreign policy at a timely moment. Some of the most intensive diplomatic
activity for over a decade has produced an environment that questions the
sustainability of some of the assumptions behind recent western foreign
policy. Projecting beyond simply the immediate question of policy towards
Iraq, Tyrie asks whether foreign policy can breed stability when it operates
outside the bounds of consensus. He also questions how similar American
and UK foreign policy really is, and whether each has sufficiently adjusted to
the world of asymmetric warfare and the threat we face.
For The Foreign Policy Centre, Tyrie’s pamphlet follows in a series of works
that reflect on the long-term consequences of 11 September. The Centre’s
collection of essays on Re-ordering the World tried to map out the contours of
an internationalist political project, and Iraq: a new approach (published with
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) showed how this ideal of a
world community could be reconciled with realpolitik in the West’s policy
towards Iraq. While Tyrie’s worldview – based on the primacy of non-
intervention – is very different from that put forward in our other publications,
we feel that the arguments he makes need to be understood and addressed.
In this regard, it sits well alongside John Lloyd’s pamphlet making the case
for intervention.
By working together in this way, we hope that these ideas reach the broadest
possible audience, whose attention they deserve.
Giles Taylor Mark Leonard
The Bow Group The Foreign Policy Centre
www.bowgroup.org www.fpc.org.uk
The views expressed in this pamphlet remain those of the author.
4 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
INTRODUCTION
“Realism can be a very good thing: it all depends whether it means the
abandonment of high ideals or of foolish expectations.”
Martin Wighti
Much ink has been spilt about the threat of militant Islam to international
order. Not enough attention is being paid to another - the new challenge to
that order from the West, particularly from America and to some extent from
Britain. If we take at face value what George Bush and Tony Blair have been
saying about the need for a new global order, they are making the world a
more dangerous place to live in. Let us hope they don’t mean what they say.
A NEW THREAT TO GLOBAL ORDER
We all have a huge interest in orderly relations between states. The stability
of the international system has at its core a mutual recognition of the
legitimacy of other states to exist, to secure their frontiers and to maintain
domestic law and order. The doctrine is highly developed in international law
but its origin lies in a commonsense principle: don’t invade my house; I won’t
intrude on yours.
For much of the Cold War years the Soviet Union articulated a rhetoric which
rejected this neighbourly view of the world. Their explicit ultimate moral and
practical purpose was to impose their notion of justice by spreading
communism throughout the world. That meant undermining other states and
exporting revolutionary communism.
It was Henry Kissinger’s achievement to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that
they had an interest in an international order based on mutual recognition of
sovereign independence, including their own. Subsequent policy-makers and
their teams, particularly Ronald Reagan’s, built on it. Through détente, and
the increasingly sophisticated rules and agreements which accompanied it,
the West engaged with the Soviet Union to the point where they had a
greater interest in recognising the rights of other states to exist than they did
in seeking to undermine them. The Soviet Union, tentatively at first, joined the
US in becoming multilateralist.
America was the world’s leading multilateralist throughout the Cold War. The
US did the world a huge service, not only by playing a crucial role in
maintaining regional and global order, but providing the necessary stability to
enable European and Japanese recovery and by laying the foundations for
i
Power Politics, Leicester University, 1978.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 5
western prosperity. We owe the Americans a great debt. However, in recent
years, and particularly since 11 September, it has been America which has
been challenging the multilateralist view of the world of which they were until
recently the leading advocates.
George Bush is articulating the case for a new world order. This is
underpinned by two new doctrines. The first is the doctrine of regime change:
the removal by force, if necessary, of the leaders of rogue states. The second
is the doctrine of pre-emptive military action: the view that in the case of
rogue and failed states, military action may be taken even in the absence of a
clear and imminent threat from those countries to America's interests, or
those of her allies.
These doctrines are inherently destabilising of international relations. The
notion that a pre-emptive strike may be undertaken without clear evidence of
an imminent attack undermines the most basic principle of the relations
between states - that military action can generally be justified only in self-
defence. The doctrine of regime change is equally corrosive. For who should
decide when a country's leadership must be changed?
Sooner or later, if persisted with, the language of pre-emption and regime
change will be used by other countries to justify military action with which the
West profoundly disagrees or which is against western interests. Perhaps this
has begun. Vladimir Putin has already rehearsed President Bush's rhetoric in
a speech to justify his recent bombing of Georgia and also further repression
in Chechnya. The Foreign Ministry of North Korea has recently suggested
that a pre-emptive strike by them may be justifiable. Such arguments will not
be lost on the Chinese or Prime Minister Sharon, among others, either.
The roots of the new doctrines pre-date George Bush’s presidency and partly
lie in several speeches by Madeline Albright in which she divided the world’s
states into four categories, two of which were rogue and failed states.ii
Likewise, when Madeline Albright pounded her fist on the table during the
Kosovo crisis and said: “getting rid of Milosevic is my highest personal
priority. I want him gone before I’m gone”, she was unmistakably calling for
regime change. A succession of apparent military successes - Bosnia,
Kosovo, Afghanistan - also contributed by bolstering US confidence.
Nonetheless, it is only in the speeches of President Bush and his closest
advisers that the strands of the new approach have been drawn together and
described by them as a doctrine.
ii
Address and Question and Answer Session before the Council on Foreign Relations
New York, New York, 30 September 1997.
6 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
The emphasis of the new doctrine varies with the policy-maker articulating it,
particularly between the unilateralist and nationalist rhetoric of Donald
Rumsfeld and the democratic missionary zeal of Paul Wolfowitz, but no-one
reading their speeches, together with those of Condoleezza Rice and
President Bush himself, can be left in any doubt that a new doctrine has
emerged. Regime change is a recurring theme and pre-emption was
extensively discussed in last September’s National Security strategy paper.iii
And what about Prime Minister Blair’s view of the world? He has a new world
order of his own in mind. It is at odds with most British post-war foreign policy
and also with George Bush’s world view. The Prime Minister has told us that
he wants much greater intervention around the world to impose our notion of
justice and freedom. For him globalisation means that anyone's internal
conflict may affect everybody and therefore that interference may be justified
in the affairs of other states, even military intervention in the internal affairs of
other states. The first exposition of what one might call the Blair doctrine was
delivered in a speech in an effort to justify intervention during the Kosovo
crisis.iv A little over a year ago Mr Blair took his doctrine further and gave it a
messianic flavour:
"This is a fight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for justice too . . .
justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people
around the world. . . . the economic and social freedom to develop their
potential to the full . . . the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the
ignorant, those living in wanton squalor, from the deserts of North Africa to
the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they are our
cause. . . . The kaleidoscope [of the international order] has been shaken.
The pieces are in flux . . . Before they [settle] let us reorder this world around
us."v
That new international order is to be an order based on our values, secured
by western economic, diplomatic and, in some cases, military strength. Mr
Blair is saying, "Either adopt western values or we may be round to see you."
– he is saying that we carry sticks as well as carrots. This is dangerous talk.
In the contest between values in the world the West should not be neutral.
Where broad based international support can be assembled there is a strong
case for humanitarian intervention. But in cases where it cannot, if the West
goes beyond persuasion and tries to reconstruct a new world order in its
image, many countries in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere around the
world that do not share our values will feel threatened. Worse still, a smaller
group of stronger countries will see an opportunity in the new policy to justify
iii
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 17 September 2002.
iv
Speech to the Chicago Economic Club, 22 April 1999.
v
Speech to the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, 2 October 2001
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 7
action in the name of their own values, just as they already do in George
Bush’s unilateralism. If we continue to take unilateral military action in the
name of western values, we will be treading the path not towards a new
international order, but a new international anarchy. Shaking the
kaleidoscope further, in the name of western values, will destabilise weaker
countries who do not share our values and provide the opportunity for strong
countries to justify actions we would otherwise condemn.
Of course, the Prime Minister would try to argue that his foreign policy and
America’s are one and the same, but they are very different. The Prime
Minister’s new world order is internationalist, almost messianic, and draws on
the rhetoric of human rights; America’s is implicitly unilateralist and designed
to facilitate the expression of US power. Both are at odds with the
multilateralist view of the world espoused by most western countries for the
past half a century, led by the US.
NO MORE THAN RHETORIC?
There are two main objections to my concerns about the Blair, and
particularly the Bush doctrines. The first - it may be objected - is that the
rhetoric is just that and no more. Whatever the language the West’s actions
are still in practice based on the solid ground of international law and they
reinforce international order. The second is the opposite of this view, that we
are in uncharted territory with one new hyper-power and that a new
international order built by it can both enhance our security and spread
western values to most of the globe. Security and values can march happily
together.
There is some evidence to support the first view. One could interpret the new
doctrines as no more than rhetoric designed to bolster western and
particularly US domestic opinion for military action which otherwise would be
difficult to mobilise. This could help explain the contradictions between the
Bush and Blair rhetoric: each is designed for its own market. George Bush’s
apparent unilateralist militarism reflects the enormous impact of 11
September on US public opinion. Tony Blair’s messianic rhetoric is a
response to greater hesitancy in British public opinion and especially in the
parliamentary Labour Party about military action. Originally conceived to
justify action over the Kosovo crisis, Mr Blair hopes to mobilise support in his
own party against Saddam by rehearsing the same language of moral
indignation that he deployed against Milosevic. With any luck, so the
argument might go, other countries, with whom we must continue to do
diplomatic business will understand that the Prime Minister’s universalist
interventionist rhetoric is only for domestic consumption. In which case the
damage to international order wrought by it will be small. Likewise, so the
argument goes, the rest of the international community should take account
8 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
of the transformation of domestic US attitudes as a consequence of 11
September, and interpret the President’s rhetoric primarily as a means of
managing it.
Evidence that there has been a gap between rhetoric and policy was
provided by the international coalition which the West tried to build after 11
September. The West initially tried to work with states such as Russia,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Malaysia, China,
Egypt and even Iran, whose human rights records are poor and whose
regimes, in some cases, we find utterly repugnant. In doing so we were
participating in a coalition of the current international order, not some putative
one. We were putting the suppression of terrorism ahead of the imposition of
any new world order.
Whatever the rhetoric, the immediate post-11 September diplomacy could be
seen as coalition-building to uphold international legitimacy - the legitimacy
that derives from the notion that only states have the right to use force in
international society and the principle that states should not interfere in other
states' affairs. The coalition’s target was the terrorists, the revolutionaries and
outlaws of international society, not states. Only if states harboured outlaws
would they become targets.
Likewise, the West’s military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of 11
September, led by the Americans, did not need explanation by reference to a
new doctrine. It was justifiable on grounds of customary international law as
well as the self-defence provisions of the UN Charter,vi backed by two UN
resolutions: America had been attacked, a major source of that attack lay
with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and therefore America was justified in taking
action to defend itself by responding against the regime which had harboured
the terrorists.
The fact that the explanatory rhetoric – in President Bush’s case an early
outing for his rogue and failed states doctrine; in Prime Minister Blair’s case
much talk of the Taliban’s atrocious human rights record – was not the main
motive for military action may not matter so much. The important point is that
legitimate action was taken in an effort to suppress a very real terrorist threat.
Iraq is another matter. There is less scope for ambiguity. If the West sticks at
arguing that we are threatening military action because Iraq has been in
breach of UN resolutions passed after the Gulf War a decade ago, such
action could be justified on the grounds that it strengthened respect for
international order. But what if we go beyond that? What if the West seeks to
justify military action on pre-emptive grounds – arguing that military action is
vi
Article 51.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 9
necessary even though we cannot provide strong evidence of a threat to the
West’s interests? Or what if we seek to justify military action on the ground
that Saddam’s regime is abhorrent and should be changed?
These latter two arguments erode global stability. The same arguments will
become the common currency of other countries to justify actions we abhor.
The gap between the Blair and the Bush rhetoric, still blurred in the Afghan
case, is also much clearer over Iraq. Prime Minister Blair is emphasising that
his government is partly on a humanitarian crusade. He publishes details of
Saddam’s human rights abuses, even as part of dossiers billed as
cataloguing weapons of mass destruction.vii George Bush, meanwhile, and
particularly his advisers, are suggesting that their explicit purpose is to
reorder the political landscape of the whole of the Middle East – a stark threat
to 30 odd states there. Nonetheless, even in the Iraq case, some scope for
ambiguity remains. It cannot be unequivocally stated that the US has
discarded the existing order, at least not yet. It is true that the US has
repeatedly said that it will act unilaterally whatever the UN says – summed up
in the oft-repeated Bush/Rumsfeld phrase, a “coalition of the willing”. Nor did
the Bush administration emphasise non-compliance with Resolution 687 as
part of its new-found resolve to tackle Saddam. Regime change was to the
fore.
Yet the practice has not so far matched the rhetoric. The US - perhaps partly
as a consequence of British persuasion, for which the Prime Minister may
turn out to deserve much praise - has been operating largely through the UN.
Resolution 1441 was the result. It papered over the cracks, not just of
conflicting views in the Security Council, but also in the US administration
and the Washington foreign policy elite about the most appropriate action to
take against Iraq. The test - whether the US is prepared to act unilaterally or
whether it has now bound itself into a multilateral process - is yet to come.
A NEW WORLD ORDER FOR A NEW HYPER-POWER?
A second riposte to the view that the US is putting our security at risk by
articulating a new international order is the opposite of the first - not that US
and UK rhetoric disguises a well-tried and reliable foreign policy but that it
provides an intelligent and radical response to changed global
circumstances. The argument goes that, since the end of the Cold War the
US has been in an unprecedentedly powerful position. There is now one
hyper-power; the bi-polar or multi-polar worlds have gone. A new policy is
needed and America is providing it.
vii
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government,
24 September 2002.
10 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
The argument runs that a historic opportunity is available to the US to seize
the moment and spread democracy throughout the world. The Middle East,
the source of much instability and terrorism since the Second World War, is a
good place to start. Behind the unilateralist rhetoric also lies a noble, if
hopeful assumption: a more democratic world would also be more
prosperous and more peaceful. Democracy restrains leaders’ bellicosity.
Prosperity grows with peace and contact with western economic ideas. As
peoples’ economic stakes in society increase so does the amount put at risk
by war. Democracy is therefore a brake on militarism.
It is argued that the main effect of 11 September on US foreign policy was to
end an internal US debate about whether isolationism – always a strong
strand in domestic opinion and strongly articulated from time to time on
Capitol Hill – could resume the ascendancy in foreign policy thinking it had
enjoyed between the wars. By this argument the internationalists won out in
Washington. But it has been at the expense of multilateralism, and rightly so.
It is held that the new doctrines, and the massive projection of US military
and diplomatic power implied by them, will make the world a safer and more
prosperous place for all of us. We can all benefit from the beneficence of a
democratic hyper-power. Why, some policy makers may complain in their
Washington offices, is much of the rest of the democratic world so reluctant
to help? The US will even do most of the work. Surely, they argue, a US
dominated empire in the Middle East and a European dominated sub
Saharan Africa will be better for their peoples, more stable and more peaceful
than present arrangements. Some of the new policy’s strongest advocates in
Washington resent European diffidence: only cynicism, jealousy, hints of
timidity bordering on appeasement, and a lack of imagination in an old world
scarred by centuries of war, prevent the countries of Europe from embracing
the new order.viii
There are many problems with this view, both practical and philosophical. It is
worth examining at least three. By far the most important is that America is
not powerful enough. Nor are her values shared by a sufficient number of
other countries. The underlying premise about the relationship between
democracy, peace and prosperity is also at best questionable.
America and the West will not be able to prevent other states flexing their
muscles. Preponderant though the US is, she is not strong enough to impose
her will, nor impose her values on the whole globe. It is true that the US can
project power in an unprecedented manner and that her preponderance is
greater than that of any other country in history in relation to its nearest rival.
viii
Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks at the recent NATO meeting reflect this mood. See
‘France and Germany Round on Rumsfeld’, Financial Times, 24 January 2003.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 11
Reflecting this, at times the rhetoric of the most hawkish in the US
administration seems to indicate a bid for ‘total security’ – a bid to ensure that
no other country can hurt America or her interests.
Attempting this will prove to be a dangerous delusion. The US’s ability to
project power is heavily constrained. The existence of nuclear weapons
creates a form of equality of threat among the possessors which limits the
ultimate expression of power – the annexation, imposition of suzerainty or
coercion of other countries. If Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons
capability, and a delivery mechanism able to hit a number of US cities, or
those of her allies, US policy towards Iraq would be very different. The
disparity of treatment of North Korea and Iraq illustrates the point. North
Korea, although categorised by Washington as a rogue state, is being treated
much more gingerly than Iraq. No massive US build up is attending the far
more roguish behaviour by North Korea over the past decade than anything
yet proven to have been perpetrated by Saddam. This has been noticed by
others: the Iranian leadership was recently reported as saying that the lesson
of different treatment of Iraq and North Korea was to acquire a nuclear
weapons capacity. The presentational consequences of the disparity are also
serious. As a senior US diplomat is reported as saying “We will be facing
considerable scepticism on the question of how we can justify confrontation
with Saddam when he is letting inspectors into the country, and a diplomatic
solution with Kim when he’s just thrown them out”.ix
It is clear to the international community that the main reason for such
inconsistent treatment is the fact that one is a nuclear power and the other is
only an aspirant. As a result a strong and dangerous signal is inadvertently
being sent to non nuclear powers, especially dictatorships, that a means of
avoiding coercion is to acquire such weapons. It is very important to try to
prevent Iraq, or other countries, from obtaining nuclear weapons. But, until
there is clearer evidence that Iraq is close to obtaining them, the kind of
military coercion being exercised over Iraq at the moment may precipitate a
protective proliferation from small states.
Another major constraint on the projection of US power is the response it
may provoke from those who fear they may have US and western values
imposed on them. Some, particularly in the Islamic world, believe that their
values are under threat from America. Such reactions and beliefs are the
seed-bed of militant Islam. This is why, far from reducing the threat of
terrorism, military action in Iraq may cause an increase in Islamic inspired
terrorist activity.
ix
Quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, 5 January 2003.
12 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
The conflict of values between militant Islam and the West cannot be won
militarily. As many others have observed, it will be determined in the battle for
the hearts and minds of moderate Moslem opinion, among our own Moslems
in the West as well as in the Middle East and beyond. Nor is it likely that the
battle to quell support by so-called ‘rogue states’ can be won purely militarily,
either, although force can play a role. Where states articulate a universalist
ideology as a justification for their actions, as the Soviet Union did for half a
century, the best prospect for peace often lies more with persuading them of
the benefits of participation in international society, buttressed by military
containment of them, than by threatening their regimes with extinction.
International society today is not sustained by a highly developed common
culture as was the almost entirely Christian European society of the 18th and
19th Centuries.x The most powerful glue of the looser and more global
international society of today is the primordial desire of most states to
survive, reflected in their need for mutual recognition and the consolidation of
their sovereign independence. This is particularly true of 150 of the world’s
countries that have been in existence for only a few decades. Shaking that
kaleidoscope by force will create a climate favourable to terrorism, especially
so if done in the name of ‘alien’ western values.
Despite appearances to the contrary, America remains dependent, as all
previous super powers have been, on the maintenance and management of
regional balances of power. She cannot fully protect her ally Israel from the
threat of attack from other states in the region. Nor can she fully protect
Japan from a military threat from North Korea or China. America must
balance forces, construct alliances and weigh interests, as super powers
have always done.
America rightly castigates squeamishness in much of European culture about
the use of force. The semi-neutrality of a number of West European states is
an abdication of responsibility. Yet the self-imposed restraint of the
Europeans, which derives from the still lingering trauma of the first half of the
20th Century, is not unique to them. It has a counterpart in the United States -
a residual reluctance, post Vietnam, to take casualties. Perhaps 11
September assuaged it somewhat. While it remains it is a further severe
practical restraint on the projection of US power for which the encouragement
of allies and the use of proxies are an inadequate substitute.
Underlying much of the rhetoric of the new Bush doctrines is another
fundamental misconception, that western values, and particularly western
democratic values, are inherently peaceful and that a fully democratic world
x
See Headley Bull & A Watson, eds. The Expansion of international society
(Oxford:Clarendon Press), 1984.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 13
would abjure war. One senses that, not far away in some American policy
makers’ minds is the thought that if only “everyone was like us” there would
be peace in the world. As Professor Adam Roberts has pointed out: “similar
ethnocentric fantasies have informed Islamic, communist and other beguiling
visions of world peace. All such fantasies can lead only too easily to attempts
to impose the favoured system on benighted foreigners by force – regardless
of the circumstances and sensibilities that made the undertaking hazardous.”
The notion that populist jingoism and democratically expressed nationalist
resentments often cause and inflame wars seems to elude those who cling to
such misconceptions.xi
Power politics is not absent between democracies, even mature ones.
Democracies all over the world have found a readiness to fight at various
times, often imposing their will on smaller countries. Arguably it is more
difficult to sustain a long war in a democracy but it is unlikely to be less
difficult to start one.
A MORE SECURE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
The US is in danger of overreaching itself. Iraq may mark that point; it could
come later. Out of a curious mixture of a new vulnerability and a complacent
and misplaced sense of supremacy a dangerous American foreign policy is
being forged, and a more reliable and orderly foreign policy discarded. The
awkward truth is that an overreaction in the US to 11 September may be
responsible. Several things now need to be done.
The West, led by America, needs to return to a policy which recognises the
paramountcy of stability and order in international society. This piece began
by arguing that the new doctrines of Messrs Bush and Blair were making the
world a less safe place. Other states are watching and listening; where the
President and the Prime Minister lead others will follow. A world in which
states can use pre-emptive action, can change the regimes of their
neighbours and espouse a rhetoric to justify intervention in support of their
value systems (whether Judaeo Christian, Islamic, Communist or whatever)
will be a much more unstable place.
Order in international society is a value. The bedrock of order is the doctrine
of non-interference and both President Bush’s doctrines and Blairite
salvationist rhetoric are threats to it. Pre-emption should not be used to justify
the threat or use of force by the West in the absence of clear evidence of
imminent aggression. The doctrine of regime change should not be used to
xi
For an examination of both sides of this debate see Liberal Peace, Liberal War,
John M Owen, Cornell University Press and Adam Roberts’ review in The Times
Literary Supplement, 6 November 1998.
14 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
justify military intervention, whether for humanitarian or other purposes, in the
absence of broad-based support from the international community. This
often, but not always, means the UN.
It is a sobering thought that the rhetoric of the past 18 months is bringing
about a need for the West to restate that most elementary principle of
international society – we will respect the integrity of other states as long as
they do the same. This principle of co-existence implies the acceptance of
basic rules of international behaviour – respect for the territorial integrity of
other states, respect for international law and for boundaries to the legitimate
use of force. These rules reflect the essential common interests which bind
together a society of states.
The West has a huge interest in maximizing respect for such rules and
mobilising consent for the existing international order implied by them. Where
possible, we should seek to encourage compliance with international law
through the United Nations. Of course, there will be exceptions. No state can
afford to rely on the UN for approbation before taking action to defend itself
from an imminent threat. The UN does not have a veto on the doctrine of self-
help but respect for that doctrine requires any response to be proportionate.
Once a more stable framework - and one which gives greater scope for
mobilising support from the whole of the international community - has been
put at the heart of policy the priorities for western security can more
effectively be addressed. At least three deserve a mention: the immediate
threat from terrorism; the longer run dangers of nuclear proliferation; the
global clash of value systems.
First, the growth of global terrorism is the clearest challenge to international
order at the moment. It may turn out to be more pervasive and violent than
any terrorist threat that we have seen in the past. The broadest possible
coalition needs to be assembled against it, which will include many states
whose values we do not share. The more that non-state violence is outlawed
the more our security will be enhanced.
We need to be mindful that terrorism’s very purpose is to destabilise and
destroy international order. To achieve it all terrorists, and certainly bin
Laden, depend upon an overreaction from their more powerful victims. Our
security in the years ahead will depend on the extent to which we can build
the widest possible coalition in the globe against the threat of non state
violence represented by terrorists and against states who harbour them.
In the campaign against terrorism, on the evidence provided by our
governments, Iraq is simply not our highest priority. Despite strenuous efforts
to find one, no connection has been discovered between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 15
Indeed, there is extreme mutual antipathy between secular Iraq and militant
Islam – if bin Laden had set foot in Baghdad he would most likely have been
shot. Nor, as far as we have been told, have extensive links recently been
found between the Iraqi regime and other terrorists, excepting Palestine, in
which to some degree most countries of the Middle East could be construed
as complicit.
The Palestinian conflict, not Iraq, is the greatest threat and source of
instability to western interests in the Middle East, and probably the greatest
inspiration for international terrorism. It is to the resolution of that problem
that the US should be directing all its diplomatic efforts if it wishes to bear
down on anti-western terrorism emanating from the Middle East.
Second, the West’s long-term focus needs to be on the greatest single threat
to the security of the world – the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The larger
the number of nuclear players the greater the risk of miscalculation by the
authorities capable of making nuclear war, the greater the risk of accidental
war and the greater the risk of such weapons falling into the hands of non-
state actors. Much has already been done by the West to limit proliferation,
especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the enhanced
security and prestige afforded by possession of nuclear weapons creates a
huge incentive for some states to acquire them and suggests that any
attempt to freeze the nuclear club at its existing membership is unlikely to be
successful.
It is true that in most respects we have moved from a bi-polar world to a
world of one hyper-power but the spread of nuclear weapons and the
increasing likelihood of access to its technology, particularly to deliver such
weapons over longer distances, creates a multi polarity of nuclear threat. It
also fosters the growth of regional nuclear balances of power, posing a
profound challenge to the international community. The Cold War may have
ended but we are still in the age of nuclear deterrence.
It will not be easy to prevent further proliferation. There are limits to the extent
to which aspirants in a nuclear club can be coerced into abandoning their
projects, as the spread of a nuclear capability to the Indian subcontinent has
recently illustrated. A surgical strike, such as that which retarded the Iraqi
nuclear programme in 1981 and which preserved Israel’s regional nuclear
monopoly, was not a serious western option with respect to India and
Pakistan. Such action may be appropriate in Iraq but, as yet, the evidence
that the Iraqi regime is on the threshold of a nuclear capacity has not been
forthcoming. Other methods of preventing the spread will also be less than
watertight. Neither attempts physically to restrict the export of the technology,
scientists or fissile material, nor economic bribery will be enough to
16 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
counterweigh the geo-strategic benefits that motivate some aspirant nuclear
powers.
In addition to the above the West needs a foreign policy which can assuage
the perceived need of some countries to obtain such weapons. The more that
western policy can enhance the security and sense of sovereign
independence of some of these countries the more likely it is that they will
seek to play a role in and benefit from engagement in the international
community, reducing their incentive to obtain the technology. As already
pointed out, the coercion implied by America’s new doctrines may push some
countries in the other direction, encouraging proliferation as a source of
protection from threats.
Furthermore, to the extent that American unilateralism over Iraq creates
fissures between the existing nuclear powers it will also increase the risk of
proliferation. For it is an uncomfortable fact that most of the smaller nuclear
states obtained their capacity, not entirely by their independent efforts, but
with covert support from Security Council members, for example China’s from
the USSR; Israel’s partly from France.xii
Third, the ‘clash of global values’ needs much more careful management.
Other states should be reassured that they will not be attacked nor their
regimes undermined, for failure to conform to western values. Persuasion,
not threats of coercion, will be the tool used to convince other states of the
rectitude of democratic structures and of the benefits of free enterprise
society. Only just over a decade ago half a continent embraced western
values and shrugged off communism, not primarily as a consequence of a
military threat but as a result of a victory at the level of ideas. A number of
states, in the dock for their human rights record, are noticing that the US’s
attachment to individual freedom is being compromised by the denial of
access of al-Qaida suspects, held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, to any
judicial process and by allegations that a number of them may even have
been removed to countries so that they can be tortured. To the extent that
these allegations are substantiated they will undermine the credibility of the
values that the West is seeking to export.
Furthermore, once the case for humanitarian intervention has been widely
proclaimed, as it was by the Prime Minister over Afghanistan, it is important
to make every effort to deliver on our promises. A British presence reduced to
three hundred soldiers in Kabul, and a country largely controlled by tribal war-
lords scarcely more respectful of human rights than the Taliban, is not
xii
For more detail on WMD capabilities and the provenance of the nuclear capacity of
several states, see the Federation of American Scientists web site at
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 17
consistent with the Prime Minister’s nation-building rhetoric at the time of the
invasion, nor with his emotive promise that ‘this time we [the West] will not
walk away’.xiii All the same, such glaring anomalies are more relevant for UK
domestic opinion than they are corrosive of western foreign policy. The Blair
doctrine’s strategic significance will count for little unless it infects US policy-
makers and, as already pointed out, the two are intellectually incompatible.
By far the greater threat to our long-term security comes from the Bush
doctrine.
Much of the strategy advocated in this paper - largely the strategy of
successive US Presidencies since the war - is antithetical to the new foreign
policy espoused by parts of the US administration. The new policy could
stimulate, rather than suppress terrorism. The crucial distinction, of great
value for order in international society, between state and non-state violence
is not sufficiently drawn. Proliferation may be inadvertently encouraged. The
castigation of countries which do not share western values may be seen by
some on the receiving end as cultural imperialism and will render the policy of
persuasion and engagement suggested here more difficult.
How might the approach outlined inform policy towards Iraq? On the
evidence in the public domain at the moment, the impending war against Iraq
appears to be disproportionate to the threat.xiv To the extent that this view is
sustained it will weaken respect for international law and international order.
In the early stages of the current Iraq crisis it appeared that the US
administration was not attentive to the legal case for action and dismissive of
the United Nations’ role. The US’s subsequent return to Resolution 687 has
not fully expunged that impression.
The case against the pre-11 September policy of containment has not been
made – an imminent threat has not been demonstrated. In its absence the
risks to western interests attending military action become particularly
important in assessing the overall costs and benefits of military action.
It is worth considering the likely effects of an invasion by reference to the
three challenges for western policy just enumerated: terrorism, nuclear
proliferation and the contest of values. It is by no means clear that military
action furthers western policy on any of these. Islamic terrorism may be
provoked more than it is suppressed. Some states may perceive a need or
opportunity for protective proliferation; western values may be perceived as a
xiii
The Prime Minister used similar language a number of times. See Hansard 14
November 2001, col 864.
xiv
On proportionality see Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Third
Edition), Cambridge Univesity Press, 2001, pp 208-212.
18 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
threat, making it more difficult to persuade some states of the benefits of
participation in the international community.
Nor has the argumentation adequately distinguished between different types
of threat. It is disingenuous to seek to roll together chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons into the single ‘omnibus’ of weapons of mass destruction.
The threat from nuclear proliferation is of an altogether greater magnitude
than the other two. Nor is the logic of weapons of mass destruction even-
handedly deployed – it is widely reported that, for example, Israel, Syria and
Egypt have chemical and biological weapons, yet they are being recruited as
part of the alliance against Iraq. Nor is it yet clear what ‘regime change’
means with respect to Iraq. Initially, it was held to require the expulsion of
Saddam. For a few weeks late last year it was clarified by the State
Department that the removal of weapons of mass destruction constituted
regime change, even if Saddam remained in power. Recently, regime change
appears to be reverting to its original meaning - Saddam must go.xv
It is in the interests of all leaderships, and particularly those of democracies,
that military action should command a measure of popular support, both
within countries and between those in alliance. It therefore weakens our
security that western domestic opinion, in Europe and the US, can conclude
from the failure to win the argument over Iraq that the US has ulterior
motives. Some now believe, probably wrongly, that the real motive for US
foreign policy is oil. Others, more plausibly, sense that it is at least partly
‘unfinished business’ from the last Gulf War, inspired by a small group of the
President’s closest advisers.
Throughout America’s century of global ascendancy she has been a source
of global conservatism, recognising the value of order in international society
and mindful of the risks to it, and to the West, inherent in the projection of
power. Some might say too much so, particularly for most of the first half of
the last century.
The US foreign policy and academic establishment has tested the post war
policy consensus many times. There have been strong calls for isolationism,
particularly from Capitol Hill and, in the late 1940s, for the unilateral
deployment of nuclear power. Briefly in 1954 the US appeared to discard
containment for John Foster Dulles’s doctrine of ‘massive retaliation’. Global
Salvationists, human rights theorists and Wilsonian utopians have all done
their best to shake the consensus. President Bush’s presidency is not the first
to be influenced by those making the case for a new international order but
xv
The Foreign Secretary has not always been abreast of the latest interpretation. See
Hansard 7 November 2002, cols 440 and 451.
Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq 19
he is the first, at least for any length of time, to place a new order at the
centre of policy making.
America’s restraint has been an exception to a characteristic of dominant
powers. Many of them justified the exercise of their might by recourse to
revolutionary doctrines: revolutionary France in the Napoleonic Wars and
Soviet Russia being two salient examples. As an Atlanticist I do not doubt
that America’s heart is in the right place. Their open society values are ours
and not comparable to Napoleon’s dictatorship or communism’s
totalitarianism. Yet it is doubtful whether America realises how unsettling her
new rhetoric sounds to the international community.
We must try to convince the US administration that pre-emptive military
intervention and regime change can never become accepted doctrines of the
international community. They are inherently revolutionary in scope, even if
inspired by – to western eyes – benign objectives. The rhetoric alone, even if
not matched by action, is destabilising. In the absence of solidarity in the
international community about their implementation they amount to a breach
of the contract of coexistence between states. These doctrines will always be
seen to be the policy of the strong, resented by the weak and exploited by
those who can get away with it.
As America’s oldest ally, and as one of the few countries in the world willing
and able to deploy power, the British government should be playing a leading
role in encouraging the United States to find safer ground on which to
construct its contribution to global order. The leadership we need now from
the Prime Minister is not merely that of interlocutor between the US and a few
churlish, and instinctively anti-American, European governments. It is the
leadership of a sustained diplomatic initiative to bring the US back to the
fundamental principles of international relations which have informed US
foreign policy since the war. The Iraq crisis and a likely war may or may not
lead to unintended and unpleasant consequences for the West. There are too
many imponderables to judge. Ultimately, the West should and probably will
unite behind the US because, even if the majority of leaders disagree with the
policy, the damage to the Atlantic Alliance of doing otherwise could be too
great. But that will not be the end of the matter. Far more serious than any
immediate consequences will be the repercussions in the international
community of America’s doctrinal justification for policy.
20 Axis of Anarchy: Britain, America and the New World Order after Iraq
OTHER PUBLICATIONS FROM THE
FOREIGN POLICY CENTRE
IRAQ: THE CASE FOR INTERVENTION
By John Lloyd
John Lloyd argues that it is important to back up an interventionist rule-based
vision for foreign policy with political will and military capabilities. He argues
that there is a genuine resolve for a new world order and conservative
attachments to the status quo will be counter-productive and lead to
instability.
IRAQ: A NEW APPROACH
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with The Foreign Policy Centre.
REORDERING THE WORLD: The Long-Term Implications of 11
September
By Mark Leonard (ed.), Ehud Barak, Ulrich Beck, Tony Blair, Fernando
Cardoso, Malcolm Chalmers, Robert Cooper, Fred Halliday, David Held,
Mary Kaldor, Kanan Makiya, Joseph Nye, Amartya Sen, Jack Straw and
Fareed Zakaria.
Details of The Foreign Policy Centre’s previous publications can be
found at www.fpc.org.uk. Alternatively, they can be ordered from Central
Books on 0845 458 9910.
BOW GROUP RESEARCH
Ending Road Rationing: Refining the Transport Market
By Mark Nicholson & Mark Wheatley – March 2003
Looking at the tough decisions required to resolve the UK’s growing transport
dilemma, the paper argues for an end to the government monopoly on
transport infrastructure development and a fresh look at taxation.
Labour’s corrosive ‘dumbing down’ of education
By Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith MP
A keynote speech given at The Bow Group’s Annual Dinner on 3rd February
2003, developing the themes of Conservative education policy.
The Ideas Book for London
Edited by Giles Taylor
As the Group’s major publication from Autumn 2002, The Ideas Book for
London tackles issues in punchy fashion, the book sets out innovative ideas
for London’s second Mayor.
The Bow Group now posts all policy papers and policy briefs on its
website, www.bowgroup.org. Please contact The Bow Group, 1A Heath
Hurst Road, London NW3 2RU to order hard copies.
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/80.pdf