U.S. new strategy isn’t much different from previous administrations
Shireen Tahmaasb Hunter, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, tells the Tehran Times that that “The new U.S. strategy only sets out the broad outlines of American priorities, which in fact are not much different from those of previous administrations, or for that matter any other nation, namely security and economic prosperity.”
She adds that “Human rights issues have never been the guiding principle of American policies. Rather human rights have been used selectively in the case different countries at different times.”
Following is the text the interview:
Q: New U.S. security strategy announced by Trump is based on 4 principals: protecting the country, improving public wealth, displaying peace resorting to the U.S. power and influence. To what extent in this new strategy the soft security aspects have been considered?
A: The new U.S. strategy only sets out the broad outlines of American priorities, which in fact are not much different from those of previous administrations, or for that matter any other nation, namely security and economic prosperity. The question is how these goals will be achieved. The document does not go into details. Time will tell whether the American policy will use more diplomatic and economic tools, in other words, soft power, or it will resort to military instruments.
Q: Some criticize the new strategy and believe trump’s new strategy excludes some issues like human rights and climate changes. Considering this approach, will Trump’s new strategy result in security and stable peace?
A: Human rights issues have never been the guiding principle of American policies. Rather human rights have been used selectively in the case different countries at different times. The issue of climate is more serious as all indications are that climate change has reached dangerous point. Ignoring such threats, OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT HELP PEACE AND STABILITY.
Q: The new strategy allocates more money to the U.S. army. Does this mean that the U.S. foreign policy will become more militarized and the significance of the diplomacy will decline?
A: Increase in the military budget is directed at rectifying a perceived gap developing between American and Chinese and Russian militaries. Whether this perception is correct is debatable.
Q: Considering the significance of the U.S. army in the new strategy, is there possibility for more U.S. military interventions in different parts of the world?
A: The increase in the military budget does not necessarily indicate that the United States will resort to military instruments more than in the past. It could very well be intended to have a deterrent effect on states such as North Korea. The use of military power will be decided on the basis of actual requirements of different situations.
Interview by Javad Heirannia
Source: Tehran Times