→⑤より続く
"United Nations" and "UN" occur altogether four times in the document:
each mention is brief and three of the four references are negative and
dismissive
the term "Security Council" does not occur
the expression "international law" does not occur
the terms "treaty" and "treaties" occur altogether 9 times, referring
to non-proliferation treaties, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and
the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty: every reference is negative,
stressing the inconvenience of treaties for Pax Americana
the possibility of using, strengthening or developing institutions of
global cooperation, whether related to policing, law, culture or
anything else, is otherwise entirely ignored
the importance of friends and allies is acknowledged, but it is assumed that the U.S. will exert dominance in such relationships
(iv) Although the United States is already the world's preeminent
military power (for example, "the U.S. Navy enjoys a level of global
hegemony that surpasses that of the Royal Navy during its heyday"),
this preeminence should be increased. With the defeat of the Soviet
Union the U.S. faces an opportunity for global dominance that might not
come again. Far from permitting a "peace dividend" or military
"procurement holiday," the U.S. must maintain its military spending at
high levels, extending its control over regions of the world where such
control is now weak and preparing to face rising military powers that
may wish to exert dominance in their own regions.
U.S. dominance in space (which reinforces all other forms of dominance
and is by no means restricted to matters of defense) is crucial to Pax
Americana and must be drastically increased; otherwise new technology
may erode current American preeminence
the U.S. must also dominate cyberspace
the U.S. must remain in the forefront of
all research relating to the "art of warfare," including "the world of
microbes" ("advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target'
specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool")
(v) Global dominance requires long-term planning, massive funding, the
ability to take anticipatory action, the ability and willingness to
intervene militarily anywhere in the world when it is needed, and
constant innovation and research so that no other state power can
extend its own control through technological developments that might
"level the playing field."
Using RAD to Understand the Impending War with Iraq
(i) RAD affirms that U.S. military intervention in many regions of the
world will be required for the foreseeable future. Defense of the
homeland (i.e., what most people in the world probably understand by
the word "defense") is listed by RAD as one of three major aims of the
U.S. military, and my guess is that it is the cheapest aim to achieve.
The other two major aims of the military are: to "fight and decisively
win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" wherever required and to
"perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security
environment of critical regions." In other words, global policing, in
the interests of the United States and with accountability to no
supra-national organization, as well as the fighting of wars on foreign
soil for whatever motive, are central tasks for the U.S. military
system. I suspect that these tasks can be expected to consume the
lion's share of "defense" spending.
(ii) The Persian Gulf region is a "region of vital importance" to the
United States. The U.S. has longstanding "interests" (not explained in
the document) in "the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing
region." Because of these interests, a long-term U.S. presence in the
area will be needed, probably extending beyond the passing of Saddam
Hussein (Iran, for example, is a concern). More military bases should
be acquired to service the region.
(viii) Although RAD asserts that there are crucial American ideals, it
makes no serious effort to explain what these are or to show concretely
how American military policy aims, has aimed, or will aim to assure the
fulfillment of these ideals.
The expression "human rights," so important to the current discourse on Iraq, does not occur in the document.
(ix) RAD shows awareness of resistance to American military bases by
people in several parts of the world, but it does not recommend closing
the bases. There is no acknowledgment of levels of hostility to
American military presence and intervention (among Muslims and others)
so extreme that they may doom RAD's entire strategy. This is probably
both because of willful blindness and because such hostility (as
evidenced in the Pew Global Attitudes Survey of 2002) has increased
significantly since the document was written.
Concluding Remarks
"Pax Americana" is not a new term. It was at one time commonly used for
the post WWII global dominance (economic, political and military) of
the U.S. It is modeled on "Pax Romana" or "Roman Peace," which refers
to the condition of relative stability in the Roman empire from
Augustus, the first Roman emperor, to Marcus Aurelius. The authors of
RAD find "Pax Americana" useful because it indicates beneficent
dominance (in effect: our domination of you will be good for us and
good for you too). This is, of course, the usual claim of imperial
intellectuals.
RAD says little about economic matters, being focused on military
affairs, so we are not given access to the ideas of these thinkers on
the precise relations between the economic and military spheres.
American economic dominance of the world has eroded significantly since
the post-WWII period. I assume (reading a certain amount into the
frequent references to American "interests") that these thinkers regard
military dominance as the key to winning back lost economic dominance.
What are the implications of RAD for our understanding of the invasion
of Iraq? Currently, an atmosphere of fear is being induced in the
American populace (duct tape, plastic sheeting, and the rest of it)
through the claim that the government of Iraq--an evil human rights
violator and proponent of terror--possesses weapons of mass destruction
with which it may carry out aggressive actions against the United
States. Substantial numbers of Americans (and non-Americans in the
English-speaking West) have become convinced that defense of the
American homeland is required, and that, under the extreme threat posed
by WMDs, this defense may reasonably take the form of preventive
military action.
⑦に続く→
