RENDERING. Богатова С.М - 31 стр.

and foreign goods be treated under the same standard (non-                          In line with the new policy, the Bush administration in 2002
discrimination) to actually seeking to set a global standard to which all    withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, known as the ABM
countries must adapt, a much more complicated, subjective decision.          Treaty, and called for the creation of a missile defense shield for the
       The combination of the WTO's powerful new enforcement ca-             United States by 2004. The policy also provides the Bush administra-
pacities and the Uruguay Round's expansive new rules encroaching             tion with its rationale for waging preemptive war against Iraq.
into areas traditionally considered the realm of domestic policy effec-             The new policy, however, has met with criticism from some
tively shift many decisions regarding public health and safety and envi-     arms control and national security experts. Critics of the Bush doctrine
ronmental and social concerns from democratically-elected domestic           note that a preemptive policy sets a dangerous precedent. Other coun-
bodies to WTO tribunals.                                                     tries with nuclear weapons might decide that they also have the right to
       http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/ (1849 символов)                     launch a preemptive attack. For example, both India and Pakistan have
                                                                             nuclear weapons, and relations between the two countries are tense. If
           THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND THE U.S. MILITARY                           one or both of these countries adopted their own version of the Bush
                                                                             doctrine, the resulting destabilization might lead to a nuclear holocaust.
       Responding to new threats of international terrorism, the admini-
                                                                             Alternatively, these critics also argue, a nonnuclear state fearing a pre-
stration of President George W. Bush has developed a new national
                                                                             emptive attack from the United States or another powerful country
security policy to guide the U.S. military. Known as the Bush doctrine,
                                                                             might decide that its only recourse was to seek weapons of mass de-
the policy was outlined in a September 2002 document known as «The
                                                                             struction for self-protection. A spiraling arms race might ensue that
National Security Strategy of the United States». In it, the United
                                                                             would wreck the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
States for the first time reserves the option to wage preemptive war and
                                                                                    Many political observers also fear that a preemptive war policy
opens the possibility for American use of nuclear weapons against
                                                                             might threaten American democracy since a preemptive war launched
nonnuclear states.
                                                                             by surprise attack would bypass Congress’s constitutional right to de-
       President Bush argued that the new policy was necessary to pre-
                                                                             clare war.
vent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, comprising nu-
                                                                                    Finally, critics of the Bush doctrine argue that the U.S. decision
clear, biological, and chemical weapons. He cited the breakdown of the
                                                                             to build a missile defense shield signals to other countries that the
strategy of deterrence that served the U.S. military during the Cold War
                                                                             United States might be pursuing a first-strike strategy. A first-strike
when the policy of «mutual assured destruction» was thought to be suf-
                                                                             strategy seeks to win a nuclear war with another nuclear power by
ficient to prevent any nation with nuclear weapons from launching a
                                                                             striking first and then seeking protection from nuclear retaliation with a
nuclear war. This breakdown, Bush argued, was due to the increasing
                                                                             missile defense shield. Other nations might then seek their own defense
possibility that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of
                                                                             shields and further destabilize the world.
stateless terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, who would not be deterred from
                                                                                    Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has emerged as
using them.
                                                                             the world’s sole superpower. The technological edge enjoyed by U.S.
       «Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States
                                                                             air, land, and naval power is likely to maintain that sole-superpower
can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past ...
                                                                             status for at least the next decade. For many people, however, the ques-
Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist en-
                                                                             tion is how wisely the world’s only superpower will play its role.
emy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of
                                                                                    http://www.encarta.com (3207 символов)
innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and
whose most potent protection is statelessness.» – From The National
Security Strategy of the United States

                                   61                                                                           62