WASHINGTON, July 10: The United States tried on Monday to redefine its controversial policy of pre-emption, saying that the strike-first strategy made famous by the Iraq invasion did not necessarily imply military action.
“I think there’s a misconception that pre-emption means war. It doesn’t. Pre-emption means stopping somebody before they can do you harm. There are diplomatic ways to do that,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow.
Mr Snow had been asked about recent media reports suggesting that President George Bush had given up on ‘cowboy diplomacy’ and unilateral action in favour of diplomatic outreach, especially in dealings with Iran and North Korea.
“Pre-emption also can be a diplomatic strategy. What you try to do, for instance, in the case of North Korea, is to pre-empt activity,” said Mr Snow. “Pre-emption is not merely a military doctrine.”
But while the US National Security Strategy, made public by the White House in March, puts a premium on diplomacy as a first remedy, it leaves little doubt that pre-emption refers to military means.
“If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack,” the document says.
“When the consequences of an attack with WMD (weapons of mass destruction) are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of pre-emption,” according to the strategy.
“The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same,” the document said.—AFP
