The new movie “Vice” purports to
tell the story of former US Vice President Dick Cheney’s rise to power and the
damage he did to the U.S., other countries, and US standing in the world.
Cheney and his cohorts are depicted as ruthless, reckless, and rapacious in
their lust for power and in their use of it to reshape US policy to match their
vision. My immediate reaction was: “could ‘this’ really happen this way?
Wouldn’t those around him refuse, object to, or –like Jim Mattis—resign in
protest of such deceitful, possibly illegal maneuvers rather than aid and abet
them by their silence? Or did they believe– like he did– that the ends
justified the means?”
Whether fact or fiction, the movie
raises troubling questions about the security policy of the US government and
those who lead it. In particular, could history be repeating itself? This
question should be addressed to and by those around and under the influence of
John Bolton, the National Security Advisor confirmed only eight months
ago.
Bolton is referenced in the movie as
being part of the Cheney cabal. Like Cheney he is controversial to say
the least. When he was nominated for the powerful post, I wrote that “There is
great fear that he will run roughshod over the prevailing system, setting the
world alight and leaving a legal and political mess for future generations in
the process.” Bolton is an iconoclast –and an extreme American
nationalist. He believes that US sovereignty and freedom of action are wrongly
constrained by international law, multilateral organizations—especially the
UN—and global treaties. To Bolton these are political impediments to be ignored
or re-interpreted as expedience dictates. He strongly prefers unilateralism or if
appropriate “coalitions of the willing” created and led by the U.S. and acting
independently of the UN. “https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/boltons-threat-to-international-law-and-order
I am not alone in my assessment. A recent article in the conservative The
National Interest calls him a “nationalist uber hawk”.
Like Cheney he has wide experience
in government and would like to make US policy and actions more ‘muscular’. He
has been an Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security in the
State Department. While in that position, he tried to change long standing
international law to enable unilateral extra-UN interdiction of other
countries’ flagged vessels on the high seas. As Ambassador to the United
Nations, he harshly criticized and tried to reshape it in the US favor.
He was an early supporter of the Iraq War and
continues to aggressively defend his position while many others involved in
that decision have tried to distance themselves from it. He also has
continuously supported military action and regime change in North Korea
and Iran.
Bolton’s style is reputedly
similar to that of Cheney– at least as depicted in the movie-– aggressive,
manipulative, secretive, conniving, combative, coercive, and vindictive. Like
Cheney his diverse government experience means he may well have ‘his people’ in
many branches of government, including in the Defense Department. Mira
Ricardel, Bolton’s deputy, who was summarily fired by the White House, and who
often clashed with Mattis, is rumored to be headed for the Defense
Department. Also like Cheney, he wants to be much more than an
advisor. He wants to make US security policy. Moreover, he does not
want to hear opposing views. Thus there is little consideration of
options and more important, an increased risk of impulsive escalation. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/us/politics/bolton-iran-pentagon.html
He now has the opportunity to do so.
Mattis seemed to be able to keep both Bolton and Trump in check. But he is
gone. His interim replacement, Patrick Shanahan –his Deputy and a former
Boeing executive–had no prior political, military or foreign policy experience
before assuming the Deputy position. US President Donald Trump is clearly
increasingly distracted by the ‘Russia probe’ and trade issues. Moreover
despite Trump’s often belligerent rhetoric, he is not so quick to use military
power.
Nevertheless he shows no signs of
restraining Bolton’s freelancing : including “a China focused, hawkish Africa
policy, proclaiming a troika of tyranny in Latin America” and increasing
pressure on Iran. Bolton has called Chinese behavior in the South China
Sea, “dangerous” and said the United States was determined to keep
international sea lanes open. “This is something the Chinese need to
understand,” he said, adding that allies including Britain and Australia were
also sailing through the South China Sea to make this point. On the sidelines
of the recent ASEAN Summits, Bolton made clear that the U.S. is preparing to
build up its forces in the region and in particular its patrols in the South
China Sea. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/duterte-says-china-already-in-possession-of-south-china-sea-tells-us-to-end-military
China has proposed a clause in the
draft ASEAN-China Code of Conduct for the South China Sea stating that “the
Parties shall not hold joint military exercises with countries from outside the
region, unless the parties concerned are notified beforehand and express no
objection.” In apparent reference to this proposal, Bolton said that “the
US would oppose any agreements between China and other claimants that limit
free passage to international shipping and that American naval vessels would
continue to sail through these waters”. http://www.atimes.com/article/us-drops-the-gauntlet-in-the-south-china-sea/
He elaborated that “any COC has to
be acceptable to all countries that have legitimate maritime and naval rights
to transit and other associated rights that we don’t want to see infringed”.
That left no doubt that the U.S. was ‘all in’ regarding the China-ASEAN COC
negotiations and that the COC has to be acceptable to it even though it is not
a party to it or the negotiations. This may be the kiss of death for a
successful negotiation and for ASEAN unity on this matter. http://www.atimes.com/article/us-drops-the-gauntlet-in-the-south-china-sea/
At least in the near future, Bolton
will have increased influence on US security policy and actions. Indeed,
according to the New York Times, Bolton appears to have now
concentrated control of security matters.
This shift in control may be
incipiently manifest in the South China Sea. The US-China confrontation
there is considered one of the world’s major potential flash points for kinetic
conflict between big powers. So it is critical for regional stability
that the U.S. gets its South China Sea policy and tactics ‘right’.
There has already been a recent
incremental shift to a more aggressive US military posture there. Now the
Pentagon’s top Asia official, Randall Schriver, has just urged Australia and
other US allies to boost their military presence in the South China Sea. He
said ” I think what could potentially bring more pressure on the Chinese is
other partners and allies joining in these activities” there. ” If not freedom
of navigation operation–just joint patrols, presence operations”. Given
the increasingly tense state of US-China relations, this is quite provocative.
Such US led military ‘incrementalism’ there is compatible with Bolton’s
penchant for taking greater risks than his recent predecessors. The
context of stepped up US military ‘shows of force’ there and Bolton’s increased
influence on security policy raises the question of whether Schriver’s renewed
appeal to allies for help in the South China Sea is a simple continuation of
Mattis’ policies or indicative of a new more pugnacious military posture
initiated or encouraged by Bolton.
This is but one example of what US
security policy might look like totally under Bolton’s control. No major abrupt
shifts but incrementally increased pressure until there is the desired (or
undesired) response. Asia and the world should be on guard against a repeat of
the Cheney debacle. Whether the new US Defense Secretary will have the personal
clout and connections to counterbalance impulsive escalatory decisions by
Bolton on South China Sea issues and elsewhere is an open question.
This piece first appeared in the IPP
Review. http://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/879.html
No comments:
Post a Comment