PDA

View Full Version : Statement of principals



Qtec
09-06-2003, 04:40 AM
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Qtec
09-06-2003, 04:42 AM
Ex-minister attacks US over war
Former minister Michael Meacher has blamed the Iraq war on the US desire for world domination.
Mr Meacher also suggested the Americans might have failed to prevent 11 September as it gave a pretext for military action.

His comments come as Britain prepares to send more troops to Iraq to cope with the deteriorating security situation.

Mr Meacher was environment minister until three months ago and has already spoken out in opposition to the war, describing the case for it as an "uncertain fantasy".

Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Mr Meacher said the 11 September attacks gave an invaluable excuse for attacking Afghanistan.

And he said the US Government intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power because of its need for further secure oil supplies.


It seems that the so-called war on terrorism is being used largely as a bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives
Michael Meacher

Mr Meacher also criticised the British Government for what he called its collusion with the US and its own scramble for oil.
Tony Blair's office distanced itself from his remarks, with a spokeswoman pointing out profits from Iraqi oil were being put in a trust fund for the country's reconstruction.

In his piece Mr Meacher wrote: "It seems that the so-called war on terrorism is being used largely as a bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.

"The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 11 September.

'Political myth'

"The global war on terrorism has all the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said this agenda had been outlined by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) - a thinktank associated with leading neoconservative hawks within the US administration.

Challenged to explain the presence of prominent non-neoconservatives within the administration such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, he said:

"I think you need to look at the broad stretch of US policy and decide what determines it. I would say to a great degree that it is not Colin Powell but fits very closely with the [PNAC]."

'No attempt' to catch Bin Laden

In his article, Mr Meacher also said the US had passed up opportunities to catch Osama Bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda figures.

"No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden," he claimed.

Mr Meacher told the Today programme he was not a conspiracy theorist and said he was simply "in favour of giving people the facts".

A spokesman for the US embassy told the Guardian Mr Meacher's views were ridiculous.

"His fantastic allegations - especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible."