US strategy aimed at hearts and minds

• Source: Global Times
• [22:21 June 02 2010]
• Comments

Editor's Note:

US National Security Strategy 2010, a quadrennial report on US security policies, was published on May 28. The new security strategy emphasises "diplomatic contacts" and "international alliances," while avoiding the use of the term "war on terror." What's new in this strategy? How will it affect China? The Global Times (GT) interviewed Shen Dingli (Shen), director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, Ni Feng (Ni), director of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Han Xudong(Han), a professor from the Strategy Department of the National Defense University and Ding Gang (Ding), a senior editor at the People's Daily, on the changes in US strategy.

Han Xudong

Ding Gang

GT: What major changes are there in the latest US National Security Strategy?

Han: US National Security Strategy is published every four years. Although the report is not legally binding, it is a guidance paper that directs military, diplomatic, and economic efforts as well as some other related areas.

The latest report is the first one to be unveiled by the Obama administration, so has received considerable publicity. But it is still aimed at maintaining worldwide US hegemony. The essence of the strategy adjustment is only a change in tactics, not in goals.

Ni: The innovations of this report will be measured in the ways and means it proposes.

The Bush administration utilized unilateralism, while Obama is laying stress on contact and consultation. A preference for military force is now replaced by the measures of listening to and convincing others.

The previous mistaken policies damaged the US national strength, and its power could not meet its ambitions. The US would like other countries to share responsibility for maintaining worldwide hegemony due to the tremendous costs, which it cannot pay any longer.

Shen: The new strategy does not have many fresh points. Obama does not believe in international cooperation any more than Bush did. He is only veering in another direction because of the deadends of the previous route.

For both Obama and Bush, international cooperation is only a means, not an end. The extent to giving priority to cooperation defines their difference. Bush was still in need of allies. He expanded the range of US alliances to Pakistan. Obama's new strategy is updating the package, but the essence is still the same. If international cooperation does not accomplish US goals, the US will switch back to unilateralism for sure.