On May 23 Bush went on the offensive, declaring, "America must build effective missile defenses based on the best available options at the earliest possible date." U.S. missile systems "must be designed to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations or accidental launches," he said.

At the same time the Texas governor said that he favored a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads and that he would press the government of Russia to do the same. In making the major foreign policy statement, Bush was flanked by former top-level U.S. foreign policy and military officials, including Henry Kissinger, George Shulz, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld. He said he would ask the Pentagon to review nuclear stockpiles and cut back on unneeded "expensive relics of dead conflicts."

"The emerging security threats to the United States, its friends and allies and even to Russia now come from rogue states, terrorist groups and other adversaries seeking weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them," Bush claimed in his statement, echoing the justifications used by the Clinton administration for developing a more limited system than that proposed by Bush. "Rogue states" is how U.S. capitalist politicians refer to governments that don't do Washington's bidding, from Cuba to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to Iraq.

Washington has been trying to win acceptance from Moscow for its plans to deploy an antimissile system, a move that would require changes in the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty signed by the U.S. and Soviet governments. Bush scored the Clinton administration for moving too slowly in developing a missile system and said it is too limited in scope.

The U.S. rulers' long-term goal is to gain a nuclear first-strike capability, one whose first target would be China, which has as few as 24 nuclear-tipped missiles capable of reaching the United States. Both Moscow and Beijing have resisted these moves. The development of the hydrogen bomb by the Soviet Union deprived Washington of a first-strike capacity after World War II, and military doctrine has since been based on what has been termed a "nuclear balance of terror."  
 
China: 'We won't sit on our hands'
Several weeks earlier Chinese foreign ministry official Sha Zukang said in an interview with the New York Times that if the U.S. government moved ahead to deploy an antimissile system, "we will not sit on our hands." Dismissing the idea that Washington was developing the missile shield to protect itself from North Korea or Iraq as "ridiculous," Sha said, "How can we base our own national security on your assurances of good will?"

"To defeat your defenses we'll have to spend a lot of money, and we don't want to do this," he said. "But otherwise, the United States will feel it can attack anyone at any time, and that isn't tolerable."

Bush backed the Clinton administration in the debate on extending permanent normal trade privileges to China, helping to win overwhelming support by Republicans in Congress to assure passage of the legislation. But he attacked Clinton and vice president Albert Gore for placing "their confidence in the Chinese regime as a 'strategic partner' of the United States. I know they are a competitor."

Bush added that if elected president, "China will have no doubts about our power and purpose in the region, about our strong commitment to democratic allies throughout Asia. But this is accomplished by confident diplomacy, strong alliances, and the military might to back them up." Bush said later that by trading "with China we're encouraging a group of entrepreneurs and small-business owners to be able to get a taste of freedom, we're giving them an opportunity to grow."

Bush's statement reflects the minimal progress in re-establishing capitalism in China and the small number of capitalists that have emerged there. There remain enormous obstacles before U.S. imperialism in overturning the nationalized property relations won through the Chinese revolution in the 1940s and in creating a capitalist class there. By seeking to deepen capitalist penetration of China through increased trade, and preparing to hold a nuclear sword at the country's throat, the U.S. rulers hope to advance their ultimate goal of restoring capitalism to the country.

Bush also attacked Gore as unfit for president, claiming "entire Army divisions are not prepared for war. Military recruiting fell thousands short of its goal. And 6,000 United States soldiers are on food stamps." He said he would add $1 billion to salary increases, among other moves to spend more on the U.S. war machine.

"With recent statements on trade with China, arms-control policy, and the urgent need for an effective missile defense," wrote former Republican presidential candidate John McCain in an opinion column published in the Wall Street Journal, Bush has shown he "intends to be a forceful advocate for American interests and values abroad."

McCain raised concerns about the sharp divisions between wings in Congress and the U.S. president on key foreign policy questions. He praised those who, by voting for the China trade bill, "appreciate the important distinctions between the customary and constitutional roles assigned to legislators and to the commander-in-chief in the conduct of American foreign policy." He urged members of the Senate to "reject the attempted assault on the authority of the office he [Bush] intends to inhabit." A strong imperial presidency has been a cornerstone of U.S. imperialism since it began to gain world dominance in the 1930s.

McCain criticized Washington's "European allies" for not sharing "the burden of our military commitments on their continent," terming this a "distressing constant in our relationship with them." He attacked the European capitalist powers for "almost surreptitiously" withdrawing soldiers from Kosova. The senator said legislators had "every right to be angered by our allies' bad faith," but urged continued support for the U.S. occupation forces in Yugoslavia.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home