Dr M Ali Hamza
In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz; the then US Secretary of Defense, produced a policy paper that was unofficially called ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’, and later labeled as ‘Bush doctrine’. Not intended for public release, but got leaked to the New York Times in the same year. This document when leaked faced a lot of criticism and sparked a public controversy about US foreign and defense policy. Edward Kennedy; an American lawyer and politician who served as a US senator from Massachusetts for almost 47 years, from 1962 until his death in 2009, categorically declared the document as “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept”. Other critiques called the policy a reflection of ‘Imperialist mindset’. The document outlined a policy of ‘Unilateralism’ and preventive military action to suppress perceived potential threats from other nations and discourage countries from rising to superpower status.
The main points of the document were; I) ‘US is the world’s only superpower and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status bypreventing the re-emergence of a new rival’. Put it simply,US will not allow any country to challenge it. II) ‘US will lead the new world order and will shape the future’. To put it straight, US will remain super power and will help its allies to remain superior by using US arms. III) ‘US have a right to intervene when and where it believed necessary’. This point of the policy shows US declaring a self-imposed claim, not as a leader but a lord of the post-cold war world.IV) ‘In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil’. So US hegemony was the wish, therefore controlling black gold is a main point in defense policy. V) ‘US continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others.US must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States’. In a simplest words,keep an eye on Russia and use newly emerged states against it.This point of the policy relates to the present conditions in Ukraine.
Examining last three decades can help anyone to easily understand that since the fall of USSR in 1991, US and its western allies: NATO, are engaged in creating chaos and disorder in most of the eastern regions of the globe. The design for political instability, and disorder in the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is just to gain few objectives like i) selling US weapons; sadly in transaction of human blood, ii) maintaining financial supremacy through funding in name of support and help; as happening in Ukraine now, iii) and keep a closer eye on the most possible threat; Russia.
As the geographical control of US has shrink significantly in last few years, considering the case of Middle East, and Afghanistan. US plan for Syria is obstructed by Russia. US manipulation has decreased in Pakistan. US ability of close surveillance and deployment of weapons become difficult, thuswhat could be a better option than engaging Ukraine to serve the purpose and the purpose is to maintain the status of a super-power. Putting sanctions on Russia, and donating 2 billion USD to support Ukraine showcases western frustration to not let Russia rise again. Or maybe not let East dominate the world. Real question is ‘why Western powers are keen to make Ukraine a member of NATO, even on the cost of war?
It is evident that ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’ is still in the bloodline of US defense policy, and such a policy can never unite the world. Such an imperialist mindset can never be a binding force. History has repeatedly shown that self-centered and egocentric powers never survived long. Such inconsiderate powers can damage for their interest but at the end get damaged by their own decisions.
On a lighter but profound note, US have frozen Russian assets because RussiainvadedUkraine and at the same time US has frozen Afghan assets because the US invaded Afghanistan. Look at the irony and what an anomaly.
