The Foreign Service Journal, May 2006

0316_hadley_transcript.html ). The doctrine of pre-emption, the centerpiece of the 2002 strategy, is retained as an option, albeit relegated to usage in situations where diploma- cy has failed. In particular, stern warnings are issued on the topic of weapons of mass destruction. The document, however, reaffirms the role of nuclear deterrence that was all but abandoned in 2002, stating: “Safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.” Overall, the new national security strategy is closer to historical strate- gies than it is to the 2002 version. But the question remains: how much of a departure from the 2002 strategy is it? In some quarters, the 2006 strate- gy is seen as reflecting a shift in U.S. foreign policy that coincides with Condoleezza Rice’s appointment as Secretary of State. Alec Russell of the Telegraph writes that the “tone of yes- terday’s statement is more measured and even more multilateral than its predecessor. It is unmistakably the work of Ms. Rice” ( http://www.tele - graph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xm l=/news/2006/03/17/wstrat17. xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/17/ix newstop.html ). Supporters of the NSS emphasize its relative moderation. Dr. Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, defended the new strategy in a recent discussion held by the institution. “We don’t have a regime-change strategy any- more; we have a pro-democracy strat- egy, and that is very different. There is a recognition that it isn’t enough to get rid of tyrannies; that you, in fact, also have to build democracies,” Daalder states. He concludes that the strategy “is more in keeping with where I think we should have been in the first term, and we are now seeing it moving into the second term” (transcript available at http://www. brookings.edu/comm/events/ 20060321.pdf ). However, during the same panel, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk pointed to the conun- drum presented by the Hamas elec- toral victory in the Palestinian parlia- mentary election: “Democracy can- not be the antidote to terror if the ter- rorists use democracy to gain advan- tages against us.” Criticism came from several ana- lysts on account of the doctrine’s retention of pre-emption as an option, and its renewed emphasis on nuclear deterrence. In particular, the Federa- tion of American Scientists expressed its concern over the inclusion of nuclear deterrence as a strategy. Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the FAS, warns, “The National Security Strategy was the Bush administration’s last opportunity to demonstrate that it has reduced the role of nuclear weapons after the Cold War. Instead it has chosen to reaffirm their impor- tance, and in the most troubling way possible: pre-emption” ( http://www. fas.org ). Gordon Adams, director of securi- ty policy studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University, maintains that the new NSS is merely a rehash of the previous edition and questions the depth of the commitment to multilat- eral efforts. “Yes, there is a call for greater international cooperation, but the doctrinal basis of the document suggests that cooperation is largely still based on the notion that leader- ship consists of the U.S. setting the strategy and goals, and the others come along for the ride,” he writes ( http://www. democracyarsenal. org/2006/03/the_same_old_so. html ). Dr. Michael Weinstein of the Power and Interest News Report offers another viewpoint, arguing that the report perpetuates the lack of a coherent vision in the administration’s foreign and national security policy. “Rather than resolving the differences between the unipolarists and the mul- tipolarists, the new NSS incorporates both perspectives without synthesiz- ing them, so that the report confirms a continuing policy void at the highest levels of Washington’s power struc- ture,” he states ( http://www.pinr. com/report.php?ac=view_report &report_id=462&language_id= 1 ). Though it has received its share of criticism, pundits generally expect this document to have greater global acceptance due to its more moderate tone by comparison with the 2002 ver- sion. However, it remains to be seen whether the ideas it puts forth are actually implemented, or its words end up ringing hollow. — Shawn Guan, Editorial Intern n C Y B E R N O T E S u 14 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 6 W e support democracy, but that doesn’t mean we have to support governments that get elected as a result of democracy. — President George W. Bush, following a speech at Freedom House, March 29, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/releases/2006/03/ 20060329-6.html.