The Hindu : A dangerous doctrine

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 02, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

A dangerous doctrine

THE FINANCE MINISTER, Jaswant Singh, is treading dangerous ground in endorsing the doctrine of pre-emption that is being articulated by the U. S. President, George W. Bush, and his senior officials. He is quite mistaken in claiming a right for India to act in pre-emptive mode and in trying to minimise the ill-effects of a doctrine that has ominous portents irrespective of the circumstances and context in which it is to be applied. Mr. Singh has taken a line from the U. S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who tried to play down the doctrine's ramifications by implying that it is merely an "elevation" of the many tools at the disposal of the Governments and not one that excludes or eliminates the other means available for promotion of national security and military strategy. However, the very term pre-emption in itself signifies a willingness to project power on terms significantly different from those set by the traditional doctrines, of containment and deterrence. As per these traditional doctrines, nations could build and possess a quantum of force as would deter any potential adversary from launching an offensive and would try to prevent a source of threat from acquiring the means to initiate aggression. Pre-emption would mean that a nation can conduct itself pro-actively and launch an attack as soon as it reached a conclusion that some other state or non-state actor, like a terror network, had begun to acquire the means to pose a threat. In taking recourse to such a doctrine, each nation would be essentially reserving for itself both the sole right to identify the source of risk and its magnitude and the right to act without needing to advert to other assessments that do not strike the same conclusion.

Articulated in the broad and generalised fashion as it has been, the doctrine is a recipe for chaos as it suggests that any state — irrespective of the quality of its decision-making processes — can take it upon itself to act when it perceives a threat whether that threat is real or not. In this context, it is interesting that the first question that has been raised at every forum before which U. S. officials presented the doctrine is whether it could be rightly said to pertain to the India-Pakistan situation as well. A perception of being under threat is strong in this country and there are hotheads who believe that doctrines propounded by Washington can be expropriated by New Delhi. There is of course a much closer match in power between India and Pakistan that it would be sheer madness for anyone in New Delhi to seriously consider the adoption of this doctrine. Even the indication of a desire to do so would further vitiate an already poisonous atmosphere.

It is to be hoped that Washington's re-framing of its strategic doctrine is a work in progress and that the final product will take into account the diversities and complexities of a still very dangerous world. Gen. Powell, unlike some others in the higher echelons of U. S. policy-making, has shown a receptivity to the sensitivities and concerns of other nations. The U. S. National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in another articulation of the doctrine of pre-emption, has spoken of the need for responsible nations to identify common values and coordinate their positions preliminary to the resort to force. It would be a far greater service to the cause of global peace and stability if the makers of grand strategy devoted more attention to developing an understanding of the political, even philosophical, dimensions of the complex current global situation. Instead, the inclination appears to be to search for arguments that will support the casting off of existing restraints.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

A dangerous doctrine

Lack of concern

Gandhi's altruistic individualism

Does anyone believe in the free market?

Making power reforms apolitical, safe option

A test case for global war against terrorism