Pre-emption, Deterrence, and Self-Defense

Article Critique Name Institution Article Critique The purpose of the article critique is to examine an article titled “Pre-emption, Deterrence, and Self-Defense: A Legal and Historical Assessment” by Bart Szewczyk (2005). The paper specifically examines the claim by the author that the policy held by the United States that it has a right under international law to take part in pre-emptive use of force to prevent an errant state from the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is unnecessary and therefore illegal under traditional international law of self-defense. An examination of this topic is important in order to ensure that other nations do engage in unlawful acts that might be punishable under international law. In order to arrive at their conclusions, the authors examine the existing UN Security Council Resolutions on whether they support the mechanisms used by the United States to deal with terrorism. The author states that the National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS) uses the logic that normal states, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel, could be allowed to develop nuclear weapons since the possibility of using them against other nations that have nuclear capability is minimal. On the other hand, rogue states such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea, which the Bush Administration refers to the ‘Axis of Evil’ cannot be deterred. Due to this, the United States indicates that pre-emptive force should be used to bar such rogue nations from developing WMD that might be harmful to the United States. The author gives a systematic analysis of the happenings in the United States that led to the NSS resolution to use pre-emptive strikes (Szewczyk, 2005). The approach used by the author to get to his conclusions is commendable. Instead of merely relying on hearsay, the author relies on solid research to poke holes into the NSS resolutions. The article examines the NSS reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis is ironical. The author mentions the Cuban crisis made the two nations to realize that the possibility of preventing the use of nuclear weapons through deterrence is possible. Even though Cuba and the United States mused over the possibility of using pre-emptive strikes instead of deterrence against the United States, they concluded that this was not necessary and hence settled on deterrence. At that time, China was a rogue state that used the Mao Zedong rhetoric to deal with its perceived enemies. This was highly dangerous for the United States and its allies but the nation did not result to the use of pre-emptive strikes to deal with China since rhetoric was a highly effective measure. Even though the United States was justified to use any means to achieve its objective, it did not take this measure since there was enough evidence to prove that deterrence alone was enough to prevent rogue nations from engaging in terrorism (Taft & Buchwald, 2003). The author relies on how the United States responded to China’s development of nuclear weapons to assess the legality of the proposed American doctrine of pre-emptive use of force to bar rogue states from developing WMD. To arrive at his conclusion, the author gives a brief history of Communist China to create a parallel between the Communist nation and the present rogue states. The history succeeds in creating a clear parallel between the Mao rhetoric and the current inclination of the rogue states where they employ similar tactics to intimidate their citizens and the international community. The aut...