Analysts See Possible Shift in U.S. “Regime Change” Policy
Some U.S. foreign policy analysts believe that the Bush administration’s consideration of toppling governments as a primary response to WMD proliferation is on the decline, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, May 19).
“The days of ‘regime change’ and the days of being tough with regard to Iran and North Korea are waning, and they are waning because the influence of the people who championed those positions — [Vice President Dick] Cheney, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, and [U.N. Ambassador John] Bolton — is not as great as it once was,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.
The term “regime change” has come to mean not only the United States removing dangerous leaders from power, but also supporting internal dissident movements intent on overthrowing their own governments, according to the Monitor.
The U.S. announcement last week that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya (see GSN, May 16), in conjunction with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s framing of the decision as a message to Iran and North Korea, led to speculation about a policy shift.
World powers are scheduled to meet tomorrow in London to discuss a new package of incentives and negative consequences to be presented to Iran in an effort to persuade it to give up its uranium enrichment program. European officials have said that while they understand U.S. concerns about providing security guarantees to Tehran or conducting bilateral talks with the regime, Washington did both to press Tripoli into abandoning its nonconventional weapons programs.
“[Libyan leader Col. Muammar] Qadhafi wanted to be certain that [the U.S.] goal was not to kill him or to end his regime,” said one European diplomat. “Until the day [the U.S.] says that [to Iran], we may be in a stalemate.”
Nonproliferation experts, however, have said the restoration of relations with Libya and renewed debate on North Korea could indicate a move by the Bush administration toward separating ideology from the national security goal of curbing WMD proliferation.
“If the U.S. is signaling it is no longer mixing regime change and its nuclear nonproliferation objectives, that would be very useful,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
He added that the U.S. plan on dealing with North Korea is “not working,” and the lack of options on Iran could be leading to consideration of new alternatives.
“[Bush administration officials] may have learned their own lesson from Libya — that the most effective way to persuade a rogue state to dismantle its WMD program is to assure that state that its government won’t be overthrown,” Kimball said.
Sokolski, however, said he believes Qadhafi eliminated his WMD efforts because he believed he was “next on the list” for removal from power after deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
“If you don’t have something to hold over these regimes, it can be seen as weakness,” he said.
Other experts remain doubtful that the Bush administration is turning its back on regime change at all.
“I don’t see the administration buying into that perspective any more than I see them giving the nuclear problem parity with their other concerns about these regimes,” said Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Still others believe there is an ongoing tension and debate on the issue within the administration.
“We’re seeing the ascendancy of the pragmatists over the ideologues, but we don’t know yet if that rise is anything definitive,” said Joseph Cirincione, senior vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress.
Cirincione said he believes that debate within the White House over potential overtures to North Korea “may be the first step in a reorientation of U.S. proliferation policy.”
However, he added that the administration would have to admit that regime change is not an option to make such a move convincing to Pyongyang.
“The day Vice President Cheney gives a speech about negotiating with the North Koreans, then it will be a done deal,” he said (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, May 23).
“The days of ‘regime change’ and the days of being tough with regard to Iran and North Korea are waning, and they are waning because the influence of the people who championed those positions — [Vice President Dick] Cheney, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, and [U.N. Ambassador John] Bolton — is not as great as it once was,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.
The term “regime change” has come to mean not only the United States removing dangerous leaders from power, but also supporting internal dissident movements intent on overthrowing their own governments, according to the Monitor.
The U.S. announcement last week that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya (see GSN, May 16), in conjunction with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s framing of the decision as a message to Iran and North Korea, led to speculation about a policy shift.
World powers are scheduled to meet tomorrow in London to discuss a new package of incentives and negative consequences to be presented to Iran in an effort to persuade it to give up its uranium enrichment program. European officials have said that while they understand U.S. concerns about providing security guarantees to Tehran or conducting bilateral talks with the regime, Washington did both to press Tripoli into abandoning its nonconventional weapons programs.
“[Libyan leader Col. Muammar] Qadhafi wanted to be certain that [the U.S.] goal was not to kill him or to end his regime,” said one European diplomat. “Until the day [the U.S.] says that [to Iran], we may be in a stalemate.”
Nonproliferation experts, however, have said the restoration of relations with Libya and renewed debate on North Korea could indicate a move by the Bush administration toward separating ideology from the national security goal of curbing WMD proliferation.
“If the U.S. is signaling it is no longer mixing regime change and its nuclear nonproliferation objectives, that would be very useful,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
He added that the U.S. plan on dealing with North Korea is “not working,” and the lack of options on Iran could be leading to consideration of new alternatives.
“[Bush administration officials] may have learned their own lesson from Libya — that the most effective way to persuade a rogue state to dismantle its WMD program is to assure that state that its government won’t be overthrown,” Kimball said.
Sokolski, however, said he believes Qadhafi eliminated his WMD efforts because he believed he was “next on the list” for removal from power after deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
“If you don’t have something to hold over these regimes, it can be seen as weakness,” he said.
Other experts remain doubtful that the Bush administration is turning its back on regime change at all.
“I don’t see the administration buying into that perspective any more than I see them giving the nuclear problem parity with their other concerns about these regimes,” said Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Still others believe there is an ongoing tension and debate on the issue within the administration.
“We’re seeing the ascendancy of the pragmatists over the ideologues, but we don’t know yet if that rise is anything definitive,” said Joseph Cirincione, senior vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress.
Cirincione said he believes that debate within the White House over potential overtures to North Korea “may be the first step in a reorientation of U.S. proliferation policy.”
However, he added that the administration would have to admit that regime change is not an option to make such a move convincing to Pyongyang.
“The day Vice President Cheney gives a speech about negotiating with the North Koreans, then it will be a done deal,” he said (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, May 23).
posted by Marko at 5/23/2006 01:17:00 PM
<< Home