American globalism, U.S. military policy and its influence on the development of the situation in the world and Asia Pacific
Material posted: -Publication date: 20-10-2003

The end of the XX century was characterized by large-scale transformation of the lifestyle of a society – the processes of globalization, the tremendous achievements in various fields of science and technology has led to profound changes in the field of international relations. The most common feature, reflecting the uniqueness of the military-political processes in the modern world, is their dual nature.

On the one hand, there is still a desire to use military violence in its various forms as an instrument of policy of those or other social forces has amply demonstrated the aggression against Iraq. On the other hand, at the turn of the century there is a clear tendency to reduce the effectiveness of the use of military force as the only means of achieving political goals. So, according to research by the Stockholm research Institute in the world, the number of inter-state armed conflicts throughout the world slowly but steadily decreased from 36 conflicts in 32 regions of the planet in 1989, to 25 conflicts in 24 regions in 1997, and currently continues to decline.

However, despite the end of the cold war, a qualitative improvement of relations between Russia and the West, the military-political situation in the world generally characterized as unstable. On the formation of a significant impact of the emerging unipolar model of the world: there is clearly a US desire to establish or strengthen its dominance in a number of regions of exclusive economic and strategic military value. The destruction of the bipolar socialist-capitalist model, has long held the world in fear of war, did not stop the bloodshed, because the causes of war have not been eliminated. This caused a rapid increase in the number of local armed conflicts, the aggravation of social problems in a number of countries, the escalation of terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The results of several studies conducted by the International Institute for strategic studies in London, research Institute in Oslo, as well as at Leiden University in the Netherlands confirm that in recent years has dramatically increased the number of domestic conflicts of low intensity.

Overall current stage of development of mankind is characterized, according to several leading Russian and foreign experts, the fact that there is a rapid global formation of a global society on the basis of advances in information and telecommunications revolution. Grow the scale of the crisis of the spiritual sphere of human activity. In the world created a single global information space, which unfolded in a geo-strategic information warfare between leading countries of the world for achieving leadership on key development parameters. The modern world is not only a world in which material resources, mineral resources, resources are the objects of fierce competition. In XXI century the key to success will lie in the skillful management of information capabilities and resources — strategic planning and management.

Such a significant, important and rapid changes have resulted in a desire to keep forcing global leadership today, the leaders of some developed countries to reconsider the role and place of their countries in the new world, to change the fundamental approaches to the conduct of foreign and domestic policy.

In recent years much is spoken about the "revolution in military Affairs", however, according to the American experts already should also talk about the "revolution in diplomacy".

The changing geopolitical and geostrategic situation in the world, as well as the transformation objectives of the national strategy of the United States makes experts of the Pentagon actively to develop a new geopolitical concept, designed to mark the main landmarks of the United States to restructure the world in the twenty-first century.

As suggested by military experts, the basis of a new geopolitical concept will be the notion that the US position as the leader of the new world order will largely depend on how successfully will develop the processes of globalization in the modern world. Ever since the end of the cold war, the US administration was in constant search of a new theory of world governance and the necessary support for its military strategy. This instrument was found in the mid 90-ies of XX century. It turned out to globalization: only under the condition of globalization, the entire planet, the US leading position can be maintained.

According to experts of the Pentagon, the part of the modern world, which embraced the model of globalization proposed by the United States, today may well be controlled by non-military means and, above all, means of information manipulation. The same part of the world's population that has not embraced the processes of globalization, needs to be "colonized" with the use of military force.

The key paradigm of the new strategy is the thesis of"disunity is a danger". According to the authors of the concept, the regime of Saddam Hussein was dangerous removed from the globalizing world, from its rules of conduct, its norms and relationships, which include in a single country, the US-controlled mechanism. That is why the war with Iraq has nothing to do with the disarmament of Iraq or a continuation of the U.S. global war on terror. This war is, in their opinion, an important turning point, with which Washington begins to implement its new strategy of domination in the era of globalization.

Many say that implanted and cultivated the US policy of globalization in recent years has resulted in an extraordinary stratification of society: on the one hand, highly globalized countries of Western Europe and Japan, and on the other poor Nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America. However, according to experts of the Pentagon, the future of the modern world will be defined by those regions of the world where globalization has become an integral part of society.

The rest of the world not covered by the processes of globalization, seen as "UN-integrated Gap". American military experts call this Hole "the ozone hole of globalization", through which the civilized world erupts in evil and hatred.

Speaking about the further development of "anti-terrorist" operation of the US armed forces, Pentagon experts emphasize that the main purpose for started global operations - the reduction or complete elimination of Loopholes that will allow to establish complete control of Washington over the whole territory of the planet as part of a major campaign of globalization.

In accordance with this strategy, the true cause of the war with Iraq is not that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, and not that his regime supported the terrorist network. The real reason is that folding is not in favor of America's economic and political situation in the world forces the US administration to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic space from which emanates a real threat to the very existence of America.

As the main principle used to classify a particular country to the Breach, is determined by the following thesis: the situation of the country, guaranteeing a US military response is inversely proportional to its possibilities for perception of globalization.

According to forecasts of American experts, the U.S. by 2015 will remain a leading force in the global community. The global influence of the United States in economic, technological, military and diplomatic spheres will have no equal among States and transnational organizations. This power not only will ensure America's superiority, but also aims to make it a leading force in global development.

The US government seeks to use the current period of maximum take-off its power to ensure the formation of an international order which would preserve the integrity of the lead and the prosperity of the United States for the foreseeable future.

In this regard, the new national security Strategy, signed by the President of the United States in 2002 she, brings the United States a Messianic role in the reconstruction of the world.

The greatest threat faced by the United States of America, according to President George W. Bush, "...located at the crossroads of radicalism and technology...". In his view, terrorists and enemies of the United States is determined to create and use weapons of mass destruction. Addressing this threat requires the United States use all of the features – "...of military force, the best defence of the metropolis, law enforcement, intelligence and active efforts to suppress the financing of terrorists...".

Despite the proclaimed willingness to cooperate with the UN, the new Strategy leaves US the possibility of applying "pre-emptive strikes" in States that support terrorist organizations or developing weapons of mass destruction.

A new national security Strategy of the United States, essentially rejected the concept of deterrence, which was determined by the defence policy during the cold war, in favor of a "visionary Pro-active policies" against hostile States and terrorist groups.

The core of the National strategy for protection of cyberspace, which was approved by the President of the United States in February 2003, is also the thesis that the United States reserves the right to pre-emptive actions in cyberspace against hostile States, if their policy is threatening or in the foreseeable future can threaten national interests of the United States. The United States also reserves the right to an adequate response in case of attacks on state information systems from cyberspace, but not limited to legal issues and proceedings before the court for violation of the protection of information resources.

Great importance for the strengthening of military power of the United States also has nuclear strategy, officially adopted in early 2002. In accordance with the number of deployed nuclear warheads will be up to 3800 units in 2007 and 1700-2200 units - in 2012, the United States reserves the right to stop the reduction and to build up nuclear forces to respond to unforeseen threats.

At the same time, nuclear weapons continue to be considered not only as a tool of political deterrence of adversaries, but also as a means of their decisive defeat.

Washington's intention to extend nuclear deterrence not only on Russia, but also for countries seeking to acquire WMD may lead to torpedoing the negotiating process on the nuclear proliferation. However, we cannot completely exclude the possibility of using nuclear weapons in this or in any other region, where, according to the United States, there are threats to their interests.

On the basis of the adopted Strategy of national security, the new US military strategy aims to conserve the groups forward deployed in Europe, in Asia Pacific and in other regions of the world where it is demanded by interests of Washington. The main theater of military operations is considered to be rich in natural and energy resources Asia, that regardless of the assurances of the American leadership, can be seen as a desire to ensure its military presence in the areas immediately adjacent to the borders of the Russian Federation, to promptly use its armed forces in combination with non-military means to achieve foreign policy goals.

Geostrategic location of the U.S. forces becomes increasingly significant, which indicates the increasing role and importance of military force in Washington politics. The Pentagon maintains a 100-thousand troops in Europe and the far East, and also created a 50-strong group in parts of the Middle East and Central Asia. Many thousands of military contingents of the armed forces of the United States and its allies are conducting military operations in Afghanistan and occupied Iraq. These troops are supported by mobile forces, air force and Navy. Furthermore, located in the U.S., the main forces of the American army can be used for buildup and maintenance of large-scale war anywhere in the world. In fact, USA today is the only country in the world, capable of global military intervention.

It is natural to assume that the above mentioned changes in the external and military policy of the United States, which formally resulted in the adoption of the new edition of some of the most important documents of the state and military construction, but in fact - into the strongest since the end of the cold war, the worsening of the international situation, influence on the development of military-political and military-strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The White house administration considers the Asia-Pacific region as a crucial area of ensuring its national interests and the most promising region in the world. On this basis the main goals of US policy in the region, having comprehensive and linking together political, economic and military aspects,include:

the formation under control of the system of collective security;

preventing the deterioration of the situation to the level of endangering the security of the United States and its allies;

maintaining an advanced military presence, development of infrastructure and creation of favorable conditions for the transfer of powers to strengthen the armed forces of the United States as in Asia Pacific and the middle East;

to ensure freedom of navigation in the waters adjacent to the Asia-Pacific and Indian ocean;

countering the development of relations of their competition with other States in the region.

To achieve their goals in the absence of functioning structures of regional security in the Asia-Pacific region, Washington has actively participated in the ASEAN regional forum (ARF), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), while strengthening bilateral relations with leading countries of the region.

Overall, the main trends of development of the situation in the world and in the Asia-Pacific region in the coming years, see the following.

First. Prospects of development of the political situation will be determined, on the one hand, seeking approval for a unipolar world based on the domination of one superpower, on the other hand, to the formation of a multipolar world with existing and prospective centers of power.

Second. The increasing geopolitical weight of the regions, as well as uneven economic development and natural resource endowments of various countries fostering the creation of economic-political groups. In Europe these processes will be determined by the development of the institutions of the European Union and the OSCE region in the development of the ASEAN regional forum (ARF), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

Third. Military and military-political alliances (NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of Rio, and others) will be maintained and extended. In accordance with the terms of multilateral and bilateral treaties and agreements a number of countries, including Russia and the United States will retain its military presence in other States. Will remain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, the US, Russia, France, Britain and China. To the "club of nuclear powers" will join India, Pakistan, Israel. Obviously, by 2020, nuclear and missile weapons will have more than 10 countries in the world, chemical and biological - 20-30 countries.

Fourth. In the beginning of the XXI century, the threat of a General nuclear or large scale conventional war will remain minimal. However, the danger of different nature and scale of local military conflicts will increase many times. This will contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and modern conventional weapons in regions with unresolved territorial, ethnic, religious and other issues, the intensification of the struggle for markets, the increasing competition of countries for the use of natural resources.

Fifth. Potential conflicts in the Asia Pacific region will directly affect the interests of many regional States, to promote the internationalization of the crises. The most likely regional tensions will remain area of the South China sea and the Korean Peninsula.

Sixth. Stability in the Asia Pacific region will be structured around the relations between the main countries in the region - Japan, USA, China and Russia.

The presence of a large number of disputes in Southeast and northeast Asia, the possibility of local conflicts, suggests the need to create these countries a collective mechanism for security and stability in the region. Lack thereof may lead to a repetition of the sad experience of Europe in the late XX century.

Seventh. The main features of the environment in Asia Pacific and the Pacific, obviously, should be considered:

maintaining a high level of military capability, a wide range of contradictions for which the permit can be used by a military force, the extension of the terms of its use in peacekeeping activities;

the intersection of the national interests of the economically powerful States of the region and the aggravation of rivalry between them for leadership in it;

the increasing demographic tensions, lack of resources and living space, ethnic heterogeneity and religious differences, the negative effects of financial crises;

the spread of missile and space technologies, the transfer of the rivalry in the air and outer space, the growing number of States possessing nuclear weapons.

Against this background, adversely affecting regional military balance factor is the lack of notable progress in military cooperation between having many common interests with Russia and China, with the exception of cooperation in military-technical sphere.

In the West, clearly visible prospects of military cooperation of Russia with Italy, France, Germany and some other States up to the joint production of some samples of the aviation, aerospace, etc. types of equipment, the Russian-Chinese cooperation in this area is significantly behind.

Remain untapped reserves of cooperation between Russia and China within the Shanghai cooperation organization.

In General, the Russian-Chinese partnership in the military field there are opportunities not only to further deepening and development, but also to the acquisition of the new qualities associated with the General challenges posed by Russia and China, globalization, and due to a desire for pragmatism in the development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. This largely contributed to the establishment in the region more favorable for our two States in the balance of power, which certainly will play an important role in maintaining stability and security in the Asia Pacific region.

Tags: Russia , China , threat