BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

US law requires every president of the country to make annual an strategic declaration on national security, but presidents do not always obey. Former President George Bush presented his doctrine of national security twice - in 2002 and 2006.

The current US President Barack Obama submitted his first document 16 months after his accession to the presidency. According to most analysts and the media, the new 52-page doctrine of US national security, published on 27 May this year, marks a break with the era of George W. Bush. "A scalpel instead of a jack-hammer": this is how the Western press characterizes the difference in approach. While Bush talked of a "war on terror", Obama has stated specifically: a war against al-Qaeda. Enemies of America will no longer be called "jihadists" or "Islamists", to avoid giving the impression that the US is at war with Islam. The threats identified are radicalism within the country, economic shocks, climate change and, of course, nuclear proliferation. A special line in the report warns about the threat from North Korea and Iran.

According to some observers, the Obama administration proceeds, for the first time in its strategy, not only from external factors, but also from the country's internal situation, in particular its economic competitiveness. This is confirmed by Obama's words that America should "revive its economic, moral and innovative power" if it wants to "lead the world".

But the most interesting point, in our view, is that Obama seems to have heeded the calls of the leadership of such countries as France, Germany, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Russia about the unacceptability of sole world domination and brazen interference in the internal affairs of other nations.

"Barack Obama's first official National Security Strategy describes the near future as an era in which the United States must learn to live within its own limits," comments The New York Times.

In March, French President Nicolas Sarkozy drew attention to the fact that Washington was trying to rule the world alone. "No nation, however strong it may be, can impose its views on the world in the 21st century," said the French president during an address to American students at Columbia University in New York.

Now Obama recognizes that America must not act alone: he plans to strengthen old alliances, create new ones and develop partnerships with players such as China, India and Russia.

And judging by the new doctrine of national security, Obama intends to give up the idea of being a hyperpower, recognizing that the US can no longer fight on all fronts simultaneously. By the way, some elements of this approach are already being implemented in the process of "resetting" with Russia.

However, according to several commentators, this strategic U-turn cannot be called complete. The US is not yet ready to abandon the idea of military supremacy and it retains the option of preventive military strikes, but, in contrast to Bush's strategy, only after all other options have been tried.

Barack Obama does not seem to have given up the idea of exporting democracy. At the same time, the new strategy warns against differences in understanding the foundations of human rights hampering cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

In the new doctrine, the US president also touched on the question of "sovereignty and territorial integrity", but for some reason, only in respect of "Russia's neighbours". This drew a mixed response from the Russian Foreign Ministry.

In a statement on 29 May, the Russian Foreign Ministry noted the constructive spirit of the updated US national security strategy but, at the same time, expressed concern about some ambiguous language vis-a-vis Russia. As a result, the Foreign Ministry advised the USA "not to look to the past and to move forward towards a qualitative transformation of our relations".

"A clear conflict arises from bygone implicit calls for Russia to be 'peaceful', 'to respect international norms', 'to behave as a responsible partner in Europe and Asia', which are also formulated in the context of a declared US commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia's neighbours," the statement says.

The Russian Foreign Ministry's dissatisfaction is not difficult to understand. Are we seeing once again the application of double standards? Problems with sovereignty and territorial integrity are not only experienced by Russia's neighbours. Incidentally, one such "neighbour" is Azerbaijan, whose territorial integrity has been violated by Armenia, and the US is a mediator in resolving this conflict. But the context in which the wording "Russia's neighbours" was used in the new US national security strategy implies states that have problems directly with Russia. Georgia, for example.

Another question is whether the Obama administration will follow US Vice-President Joseph Biden's call, which we mentioned in the previous edition of R+: "We must reaffirm that security in Europe is indivisible; we must stress the importance of territorial integrity for all of Europe, as well as the right of states to choose their security alliances."