A Vacuum in Strategic Thinking The Honorable J. Ørstrøm Møller In the National Interest Updated 12/3/04
Present day strategic thinking is looked at through the prism of the Clausewitzian model of crisis, conflict, confrontation and ultimately war. The primary power parameter is pursuance of national interests sheltered by the old fashioned and out dated interpretation of national sovereignty. Globalisation as configured by the final decades of the 20th century thrives on exactly the opposite - co-operation therefore effectively destroying the Clausewitzian model. Strategic thinking and the way the world actually works are not only on divergent tracks. They are on head on collision course. Globalisation is based on western ideas, rationalism, materialism, market economy, respect for the individual, democracy. Fortunately, the new impetuous national states, China, India, Brazil, have accepted the materialist model. They have joined the existing global system albeit demanding a revision of its mechanics reflecting their economic clout and political weight. They did not choose to rally the non-western world under the banner of an alternative model opening the floodgates for world wide anarchy, autarchy and egoism. Fundamentalists of all kinds have not, and neither have the rogue states and all those who find shelter within their frontiers. They have left the Clausewitzian model. They do not seek concessions from a beaten enemy but wish to eradicate, destroy and annihilate the existing global model - nothing less. The sophisticated globalised world is so sensitive, so bound up with other political and economic units, that there is no place for outsiders, especially when these are bent on the destruction of the international system. International co-operation must therefore be global, not only geographically, but also conceptually. As things are, this conceptual framework for new strategic thinking is absent, and so is respect for rules of accepted behaviour in international politics. The confusion extends to the post-1945 great powers. They face a dilemma. To contain and defeat the rogue states and terrorism as only they can do they need the support of the new great powers. That seems simple, but is not, for the real long-term threat to the position of the post-1945 powers as they perceive it is not the rogue states and their allies, but the new great powers. If the established powers try to enrol them in the fight against terrorism offering concessions to that effect they undermine their own primogeniture. If they do not, the efforts and resources required to defeat the rogue states and terrorism will enervate them, thus jeopardising their control over global politics and economics paving the way for the new powers in an enhanced role. For the post-1945 powers operating in a Clausewitzian model it is like being caught between the devil and the deep sea. This is the dilemma that faces the new mega power, the USA, where Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and al-Qaeda are concerned. An empire creates a world in its own image, in America's case the model is capitalism. History tells us that when empires fall, they take the model they established, which the surrounded world has accepted, with them. Yet the USA is the first imperial power that can establish a real international society, a society which can survive and continue to function when the resources of the USA are exhausted. A condition for such an outcome, however, is that the USA exercises less power than its resources make possible. The reward will be a more durable international system created in conformity with American interests, but not fully reflecting the current values of the American empire. Unrestricted exercise of the imperial power is the alternative. The probable consequence will be the generation of a new world view, but not one bearing the stamp of globalisation and internationalism, perhaps the opposite. It is an illusion - for some a beautiful illusion - to imagine a multi-polar world established against and not in conformity with US policy. This defines the challenge for the EU. Keeping in mind historic ties, sharing of basic principles combined with the obvious common interests in maintaining globalisation EU is probably the only player having some leverage on US policy. The EU can choose to be a partner with the USA (more or less grumbling) or an independent operator on the international scene with a leaning either towards or against the USA, or even see itself as an adversary. Or perhaps internal bickering will prevent the emergence of a common position and the individual states will pursue their own course at this critical juncture in world history, ending in the ditch themselves together with the international society of which they themselves were the progenitor and remain enthusiastic supporters. The USA's dilemma shows itself in a combination of determination and fumbling to do the right thing in the right way against the rogue states. This is blurring the big picture for the Europeans, which in turn generates uncertainty in the attitude to the EU by the Americans and to the USA by the EU. The EU's dilemma shows itself in the form of surprise, astonishment, and perhaps ignorance, about the real content and purpose of the USA's policy towards the rogue states, and a certain distance in attitude with regard to a common policy against them and terrorism, no matter how obvious it is that a partnership is in the interests of both parties. The choices made by the USA will affect the Europeans, but this does not release them from showing their colours. The EU has the opportunity to influence the USA, and hence the great game, but can the Europeans see it and if so will they rise to the challenge? No better time to do it than now. J. Ørstrøm Møller is the ambassador of Denmark to Singapore and an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
