startribune.com
Published 10/27/2003

In June 1997, a group of self-proclaimed foreign-policy experts drafted a statement of principles aimed at making a case that the United States should use its position as the world's only superpower to shape the events of the 21st century, to ensure they are favorable to America's principles and interests. The statement maintained that the United States has a vital role to play in advancing the cause of peace and security throughout the world and that the use of military power and bold global leadership will be essential elements of this plan. The goal was to make America as great a nation in the 21st century as it had been in the 20th century.

These principles, and the group of men who espoused them, became known as the Project for the New American Century. The 25 original signatories of the statement included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber.

On the surface, these principles seem a reasonable definition for the role that a superpower should take to provide the global leadership expected by our friends and allies. But as the group became more active in their pronouncements, their motives became highly questionable.

In 1998, members of the Project for the New American Century used their position papers to urge the Clinton administration to take unilateral action against Iraq to enforce inspections and compliance with the terms of the cease-fire of the 1991 Gulf War. The group continued to send open letters to the Clinton administration and congressional leaders calling for the use of military power to remove Saddam Hussein's regime.

In a report issued in 2000, the group conceded that implementation would have to come slowly. But the election of George W. Bush and the events of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the timetable and the level of intensity for implementing the program.

What started out as a think-tank theory espousing a shift in America's global role is now being implemented.

The principles of "military preemptive strikes" and "regime change" have become foundations of the U.S. foreign policy being implemented by three of the group's founding members -- Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz.

Fueled by the events of 9/11, the neo-conservatives inside and outside the Bush administration have drawn up a "hit list" of countries that includes Iran, North Korea, probably Syria and of course the first candidate for a preemptive strike, Iraq.

Critics of the group's agenda argue that if the concept of preemptive strikes is carried out to the level advocated by the neo-cons, the United States could find itself in a perpetual state of war-like activities that not only would cause worldwide upheaval and anxiety but also would escalate massive defense spending in the United States, causing an even-larger deficit than currently exists. Not only would spending have to be increased to boost our military capability but, as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, colossal spending would be necessary to support regime change and rebuild the war-torn countries.

This huge spending increase on top of the current government deficit should cause any economist nightmares.

But why should American business be concerned about the Project for the New American Century and its influence on U.S. foreign policy? After all, this area of government seldom has been of interest to the business community.

Here's why: Today, the United States is subject to economic competition that for the first time since the end of the Cold War threatens to challenge our position as the world's preeminent economy. The European Union has announced its intention to become America's main competition when, next year, the number of E.U. countries grows from 15 to 25 with a total population exceeding 450 million. China and India fast are closing the gap and promise to be major competitors within the decade.

Two stories in the Oct. 13 edition of the Financial Times underscore America's growing competition. One story reported on China's new economic alliance with Europe, citing the major expansion of the E.U. as a competitor to the United States. The other announced that Germany has replaced the United States as the world's biggest exporting country.

The New York Times this month reported on the role China is assuming in East Asia as the economic leader of the region -- replacing the United States and its surrogate, Japan.

Last week, President Bush met with Asian nations at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Bangkok, where major disagreement was voiced on the role of North Korea, which has been designated as a target for regime change. China, the ASEAN nations and South Korea argue that negotiations should be held with North Korea to bring it into the East Asian family. North Korea has indicated it might sign a nonaggression treaty with the United States and, in return, give up its nuclear program. Up to now, Bush has refused, saying some more general agreement would do.

In the meantime, the U.S. economy, in order to grow, will have to continue to expand into the global markets while dealing with this ever-increasing competition. The idea that America can go it alone as it implements a foreign policy based on the principle that "you are either with us or against us" makes it difficult for those countries that are genuinely our friends and allies to stick with us.

The U.S. business community should be concerned that U.S. foreign policy based on the principles of the Project for the New American Century may create an economic blockade in the global marketplace by those countries looking to displace the United States as the preeminent influence in the world.

If this new U.S. foreign policy leads to decades of upheaval, how will U.S. businesses convince their future global partners that they should look to them for stable business opportunities -- as opposed to all those new competitors waiting in the wings?