Using an Access to Information request, I recently received a briefing note submitted to Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor last year in which department officials review the 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States, a document that each U.S. administration is supposed to produce every year but which the current Bush administration has produced in 2002 and then not again until last year.
Here’s some excerpts from the conclusion, written by Corey Michael Dvorkin, who was, when this document was prepared in March 2006, working in the office of the director of strategic analysis at the Department of National Defence.
What is perhaps unique about this document is the extent to which a strategy statement devoted to long-term security issues repeatedly articulates the belief that the US has a calling to spread democracy and freedom. For many Americans, this 21st century version of 19th century American Manifest Destiny is not simply a tool to enable victory in the war on terror; rather it is seen by many as a moral obligation which the United States is expected to assume. The document notes that in the fight against tyranny, history teaches that other states may not act unless the US does its part. Some of this can perhaps be dismissed as hyperbole used to justify the policies of an increasingly unpopular President. To do so, however, would ignore a long and historic trend in which such concepts lie at the core of American selfdefinition and, at times, US foreign policy.
While the 2006 Strategy reveals that the US will be unrelenting in its resolve, it is also is quite direct in stating that it will remain flexible on its choice of means in pursuing national security objectives. In other words, the document reveals a subtle but important shift away from the previous emphasis on force, which is repeatedly described as a last resort. It is also signalling that America's allies have an opportunity to influence U.S. behaviour by acting proactively, bilaterally and multilaterally, rather than waiting until the US concludes it has no other choice but to act unilaterally.
From a Canadian perspective, the new US National Security Strategy shows many positive signs. Foremost among these is the repeated emphasis it places on working with old friends and allies in areas of common cause. Indeed, the 2006 Strategy states that “there is little of lasting consequence that we can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of ow allies and partners.” This stands in marked contrast to the 2002 Strategy, under which the US would engage multilateral institutions only to the extent that they could contribute to the war against terrorism, and only if such cooperation did not restrict America's freedom of action.