Embed Size (px)
A NATIONALSECURITYSTRATEGYFOR ANEW CENTURY
THE WHITE HOUSEDECEMBER 1999
Nearly 55 years ago, in his final inauguraladdress, President Franklin Delano Rooseveltreflected on the lessons of the first half of the20th Century. "We have learned,” he said, “thatwe cannot live alone at peace. We have learnedthat our own well being is dependent on the wellbeing of other nations far away. We havelearned to be citizens of the world, members ofthe human community."
Those words have more resonance than ever aswe enter the 21st century. America is at theheight of its influence and prosperity. But, at atime of rapid globalization, when events halfwayaround the earth can profoundly affect our safetyand prosperity, America must lead in the worldto protect our people at home and our way oflife. Americans benefit when nations cometogether to deter aggression and terrorism, toresolve conflicts, to prevent the spread ofdangerous weapons, to promote democracy andhuman rights, to open markets and createfinancial stability, to raise living standards, toprotect the environment – to face challengesthat no nation can meet alone. The UnitedStates remains the world’s most powerful forcefor peace, prosperity and the universal values ofdemocracy and freedom. Our nation’s centralchallenge – and our responsibility – is to sustainthat role by seizing the opportunities of this newglobal era for the benefit of our own people andpeople around the world.
To do that, we are pursuing a forward-lookingnational security strategy for the new century.This report, submitted in accordance withSection 603 of the Goldwater - Nichols DefenseDepartment Reorganization Act of 1986, setsforth that strategy. Its three core objectives are:
• To enhance America’s security.
• To bolster America’s economic prosperity.
• To promote democracy and human rightsabroad.
The United States must have the tools necessaryto carry out this strategy. We have worked topreserve and enhance the readiness of ourarmed forces while pursuing long-termmodernization and providing quality of lifeimprovements for our men and women inuniform. To better meet readiness challenges, Iproposed, and Congress passed, a fiscal year2000 defense budget that increased military payand retirement benefits, and significantlyincreased funding for readiness andmodernization. I have also proposed a $112billion increase across fiscal years 2000 to 2005for readiness, modernization, and other highpriority defense requirements. This is the firstlong-term sustained increase in defensespending in over a decade.
Over the last six months, our military leadersand I have seen encouraging signs that we haveturned the corner on readiness. Although ourArmed Forces still face readiness challenges,particularly in recruiting and retaining skilledindividuals, Administration initiatives are helpingus achieve our readiness goals. I am confidentthat our military is – and will continue to be –capable of carrying out our national strategy andmeeting America's defense commitmentsaround the world.
To be secure, we must not only have a strongmilitary; we must also continue to lead in limitingthe military threat to our country and the world.We continue to work vigilantly to curb the spreadof nuclear, chemical and biological weapons andmissiles to deliver them. We are continuing theSTART process to reduce Russian andAmerican nuclear arsenals, while discussingmodification of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty toallow for development of a national missiledefense against potential rogue state attacks.And we remain committed to obtaining Senateadvice and consent to ratification of theComprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty(CTBT), and to bringing this crucial agreementinto force.
We must also sustain our commitment toAmerica’s diplomacy. Every dollar we devote topreventing conflicts, promoting democracy,opening markets, and containing disease andhunger brings a sure return in security and long-term savings. Working with Congress, we wereable to provide enhanced funding to internationalaffairs accounts and UN arrears, but we need tosustain this commitment to foreign affairs in theyears ahead.
America must be willing to act alone when ourinterests demand it, but we should also supportthe institutions and arrangements through whichother countries help us bear the burdens ofleadership. That's why I am pleased that wereached agreement with Congress on a plan forpaying our dues and debts to the United Nations.It is why we must do our part when others takethe lead in building peace: whether Europeansin the Balkans, Asians in East Timor, or Africansin Sierra Leone. Otherwise we will be left with achoice in future crises between doing everythingourselves or doing nothing at all.
America has done much over the past sevenyears to build a better world: aiding theremarkable transitions to free-market democracyin Eastern Europe; adapting and enlargingNATO to strengthen Europe’s security; endingethnic war in Bosnia and Kosovo; working withRussia to deactivate thousands of nuclearweapons from the former Soviet Union; ratifyingSTART II and the Chemical WeaponsConvention; negotiating the CTBT, and theAdaptation Agreement on the ConventionalArmed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty; securinga freeze in North Korean fissile materialproduction; facilitating milestone agreements inthe Middle East peace process; standing up tothe threat posed by Saddam Hussein; reducingAfrica’s debt through the Cologne Initiative andthe Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative(HIPC); helping to broker peace accords fromNorthern Ireland to Sierra Leone to the Peru-Ecuador border; fostering unprecedented unity,democracy and progress in the WesternHemisphere; benefiting our economy byreaching over 270 free trade agreements,including the landmark accord to bring China
into the World Trade Organization; andexercising global leadership to help save Mexicofrom economic disaster and to reverse the Asianfinancial crisis.
But our work is far from done. Americanleadership will remain indispensable to furtherimportant national interests in the coming year:forging a lasting peace in the Middle East;securing the peace in the Balkans and NorthernIreland; helping Russia strengthen its economyand fight corruption as it heads toward its firstdemocratic transfer of power; furthering armscontrol through discussions with Russia on theAnti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and deeperreductions in strategic nuclear weapons;implementing China’s entry into the WTO andother global institutions while promoting freedomand human rights there; easing tensionsbetween India and Pakistan; building on hopefuldevelopments between Greece and Turkey tomake progress in the Aegean, particularly onCyprus; securing new energy routes from theCaspian Sea that will allow newly independentstates in the Caucasus to prosper; supportingdemocratic transitions from Nigeria to Indonesia;helping Colombia defeat the drug traffickers whothreaten its democracy; fighting weaponsproliferation, terrorism and the nexus betweenthem; restraining North Korea's and Iran'smissile programs; maintaining vigilance againstIraq and working to bring about a change inregime; consolidating reforms to the world’sfinancial architecture as the basis for sustainedeconomic growth; launching a new global traderound; enacting legislation to promote trade withAfrica and the Caribbean; pressing ahead withdebt relief for countries fighting poverty andembracing good government; reversing globalclimate change; and protecting our oceans.
At this moment in history, the United States iscalled upon to lead – to marshal the forces offreedom and progress; to channel the energiesof the global economy into lasting prosperity; toreinforce our democratic ideals and values; toenhance American security and global peace.We owe it to our children and grandchildren tomeet these challenges and build a better andsafer world.
Our national security strategy is designed to meet thefundamental purposes set out in the preamble to theConstitution:
...provide for the common defence, promote thegeneral Welfare, and secure the Blessings ofLiberty to ourselves and our Posterity,...
Since the founding of the nation, certain requirementshave remained constant. We must protect the livesand personal safety of Americans, both at home andabroad. We must maintain the sovereignty, politicalfreedom and independence of the United States, withits values, institutions and territory intact. And, wemust promote the well-being and prosperity of thenation and its people.
Opportunities and Challenges
The twenty-first Century will be an era of greatpromise. Globalization – the process of acceleratingeconomic, technological, cultural and politicalintegration – is bringing citizens from all continentscloser together, allowing them to share ideas, goodsand information in an instant. A growing number ofnations around the world have embraced America’score values of democratic governance, free-marketeconomics and respect for fundamental human rightsand the rule of law, creating new opportunities topromote peace, prosperity and cooperation amongnations. Many former adversaries now work with usfor common goals. The dynamism of the globaleconomy is transforming commerce, culture,communications and global relations, creating newjobs and opportunities for Americans.
Globalization, however, also brings risks. Outlawstates and ethnic conflicts threaten regional stabilityand progress in many important areas of the world.Weapons of mass destruction (WMD), terrorism, drugtrafficking and other international crime are globalconcerns that transcend national borders. Otherproblems originating overseas – such as resource
depletion, rapid population growth, environmentaldamage, new infectious diseases, pervasivecorruption, and uncontrolled refugee migration – haveincreasingly important implications for Americansecurity. Our workers and businesses will suffer ifthe global economy is unstable or foreign marketscollapse or lock us out, and the highest domesticenvironmental standards will not protect usadequately if we cannot get others to achieve similarstandards. In short, our citizens have a direct andincreasing stake in the prosperity and stability ofother nations, in their support for international normsand human rights, in their ability to combatinternational crime, in their open markets, and in theirefforts to protect the environment.
Since there are always many demands for U.S.action, our national interests must be clear. Theseinterests fall into three categories. The first includesvital interests—those of broad, overridingimportance to the survival, safety and vitality of ournation. Among these are the physical security of ourterritory and that of our allies, the safety of ourcitizens, the economic well-being of our society, andthe protection of our critical infrastructures – includingenergy, banking and finance, telecommunications,transportation, water systems and emergencyservices – from paralyzing attack. We will do whatwe must to defend these interests, including, whennecessary and appropriate, using our military mightunilaterally and decisively.
The second category is important nationalinterests. These interests do not affect our nationalsurvival, but they do affect our national well-beingand the character of the world in which we live.Important national interests include, for example,regions in which we have a sizable economic stakeor commitments to allies, protecting the globalenvironment from severe harm, and crises with apotential to generate substantial and highly
destabilizing refugee flows. Our efforts to halt theflow of refugees from Haiti and restore democracy inthat country, our participation in NATO operations toend the brutal conflicts and restore peace in Bosniaand Kosovo, and our assistance to Asian allies andfriends supporting the transition in East Timor areexamples.
The third category is humanitarian and otherinterests. In some circumstances our nation may actbecause our values demand it. Examples includeresponding to natural and manmade disasters;promoting human rights and seeking to halt grossviolations of those rights; supporting democratization,adherence to the rule of law and civilian control of themilitary; assisting humanitarian demining; andpromoting sustainable development andenvironmental protection. The spread of democracyand respect for the rule of law helps to create a worldcommunity that is more hospitable to U.S. values andinterests. Whenever possible, we seek to averthumanitarian disasters and conflict throughdiplomacy and cooperation with a wide range ofpartners, including other governments, internationalinstitutions and non-governmental organizations.This may not only save lives, but also prevent crisesfrom getting worse and becoming a greater drain onresources.
Threats to U.S. Interests
The security environment in which we live is dynamicand uncertain, replete with a host of threats andchallenges that have the potential to grow moredeadly.
Regional or State-Centered Threats: A number ofstates have the capabilities and the desire to threatenour national interests through coercion or aggression.They continue to threaten the sovereignty of theirneighbors, economic stability, and internationalaccess to resources. In many cases, these statesare also actively improving their offensivecapabilities, including efforts to obtain or retainnuclear, biological or chemical weapons and thecapabilities to deliver these weapons over longdistances.
Transnational threats: These are threats that do notrespect national borders and which often arise fromnon-state actors, such as terrorists and criminalorganizations. They threaten U.S. interests, values
and citizens – in the United States and abroad.Examples include terrorism, drug trafficking and otherinternational crime, illicit arms trafficking, uncontrolledrefugee migration, and trafficking in human beings,particularly women and children. We also facethreats to critical national infrastructures, whichincreasingly could take the form of a cyber-attack inaddition to physical attack or sabotage, and couldoriginate from terrorist or criminal groups as well ashostile states.
Spread of dangerous technologies: Weapons ofmass destruction pose the greatest potential threat toglobal stability and security. Proliferation ofadvanced weapons and technologies threatens toprovide rogue states, terrorists and internationalcrime organizations with the means to inflict terribledamage on the United States, our allies and U.S.citizens and troops abroad.
Failed states: At times in the new century, we canexpect that, despite international prevention efforts,some states will be unable to provide basicgovernance, safety and security, and opportunitiesfor their populations, potentially generating internalconflict, mass migration, famine, epidemic diseases,environmental disasters, mass killings andaggression against neighboring states or ethnicgroups – events which can threaten regional securityand U.S. interests.
Other states – though possessing the capacity togovern – may succumb to the inflammatory rhetoricof demagogues who blame their nation’s ills on andpersecute specific religious, cultural, racial or tribalgroups. States that fail to respect the rights of theirown citizens and tolerate or actively engage inhuman rights abuses, ethnic cleansing or acts ofgenocide not only harm their own people, but canspark civil wars and refugee crises and spill acrossnational boundaries to destabilize a region.
Foreign intelligence collection: The threat fromforeign intelligence services is more diverse, complexand difficult to counter than ever before. This threatis a mix of traditional and non-traditional intelligenceadversaries that have targeted American military,diplomatic, technological, economic and commercialsecrets. Some foreign intelligence services arerapidly adopting new technologies and innovativemethods to obtain such secrets, including attempts touse the global information infrastructure to gainaccess to sensitive information via penetration of
computer systems and networks. We must beconcerned about efforts by non-state actors,including legitimate organizations, both quasi-governmental and private, and illicit internationalcriminal organizations, to penetrate and subvertgovernment institutions or critical sectors of oureconomy.
Environmental and health threats: Environmentaland health problems can undermine the welfare ofU.S. citizens, and compromise our national security,economic and humanitarian interests abroad forgenerations. These threats respect no nationalboundary. History has shown that internationalepidemics, such as polio, tuberculosis and AIDS, candestroy human life on a scale as great as any war orterrorist act we have seen, and the resulting burdenon health systems can undermine hard-wonadvances in economic and social development andcontribute to the failure of fledgling democracies. Inthe future, we face potentially even more devastatingthreats if we fail to avert irreparable damage toregional ecosystems and the global environment.Other environmental issues, such as competitionover scarce fresh water resources, are a potentialthreat to stability in several regions.
A Strategy of Engagement
Our strategy is founded on continued U.S.engagement and leadership abroad. The UnitedStates must lead abroad if we are to be secure athome. We cannot lead abroad unless we devote thenecessary resources to military, diplomatic,intelligence and other efforts. We must be preparedand willing to use all appropriate instruments ofnational power to influence the actions of other statesand non-state actors, to provide global leadership,and to remain a reliable security partner for thecommunity of nations that share our interests. Theinternational community is at times reluctant to actwithout American leadership. In some instances, theUnited States is the only nation capable of providingthe necessary leadership and capabilities for aninternational response to shared challenges. Byexerting our leadership abroad we have deterredaggression, fostered the resolution of conflicts,enhanced regional cooperation, strengtheneddemocracies, stopped human rights abuses, openedforeign markets and tackled global problems such aspreventing the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, protected the environment, andcombated international corruption.
Our strategy has three core objectives: enhancingAmerican security; bolstering our economicprosperity; and promoting democracy and humanrights abroad, which we strongly believe will, in turn,advance the first two goals. Achieving theseobjectives requires sustained, long-term effort. Manyof the threats to our national interests are persistentor recurring – they cannot be resolved or eliminatedonce and for all. American engagement must betempered by recognition that there are limits toAmerica’s involvement in the world, and thatdecisions to commit resources must be weighedagainst the need to sustain our engagement over thelong term. Our engagement therefore must beselective, focusing on the threats and opportunitiesmost relevant to our interests and applying ourresources where we can make the greatestdifference. Additionally, sustaining our engagementabroad over the long term will require the support ofthe American people and the Congress to bear thecosts of defending U.S. interests – in dollars, effortand, when necessary, with military force.
Implementing the Strategy
International cooperation will be vital for buildingsecurity in the next century because many of thechallenges we face cannot be addressed by a singlenation. Many of our security objectives are bestachieved – or can only be achieved – by leveragingour influence and capabilities through internationalorganizations, our alliances, or as a leader of an adhoc coalition formed around a specific objective.Leadership in the United Nations and otherinternational organizations, and durable relationshipswith allies and friendly nations, are critical to oursecurity. A central thrust of our strategy is tostrengthen and adapt the formal relationships wehave with key nations around the world, create newrelationships and structures when necessary, andenhance the capability of friendly nations to exerciseregional leadership in support of shared goals. Atother times, we seek to shape a favorableinternational environment outside of formal structuresby building coalitions of like-minded nations. But wemust always be prepared to act alone when that isour most advantageous course, or when we have noalternative.
Success requires an integrated approach that bringsto bear all the capabilities needed to achieve oursecurity objectives – particularly in this era whendomestic and foreign policies increasingly overlap.To effectively shape the international environmentand respond to the full spectrum of potential threats,our diplomacy, military force, other foreign policytools, and domestic preparedness efforts must beclosely coordinated. We will continue to strengthenand integrate all of these capabilities.
At home, we must have effective capabilities forthwarting and responding to terrorist acts, counteringinternational crime and foreign intelligence collection,and protecting critical national infrastructures. Ourefforts to counter these threats require closecooperation among Federal agencies, state and localgovernments, the industries that own and operatecritical national infrastructures, non-governmentalorganizations, and others in the private sector.
The Power of Our Values
Underpinning our international leadership is thepower of our democratic ideals and values. Incrafting our strategy, we recognize that the spread ofdemocracy, human rights and respect for the rule oflaw not only reflects American values, it alsoadvances both our security and prosperity.Democratic governments are more likely to cooperatewith each other against common threats, encouragefree trade, promote sustainable economicdevelopment, uphold the rule of law, and protect therights of their people. Hence, the trend towarddemocracy and free markets throughout the worldadvances American interests. The United States willsupport this trend by remaining actively engaged inthe world, bolstering democratic institutions andbuilding the community of like-minded states. Thisstrategy will take us into the next century.
II. Advancing U.S. National Interests
In our vision of the world, the United States has closecooperative relations with the world’s most influentialcountries, and has the ability to shape the policiesand actions of those who can affect our national well-being. We seek to create a stable, peacefulinternational security environment – one in which ournation, citizens and interests are not threatened; thehealth and well-being of our citizens are enhanced bya cleaner global environment and effective strategiesto combat infectious disease; America continues toprosper through increasingly open internationalmarkets and sustainable growth in the globaleconomy; and democratic values and respect forhuman rights and the rule of law are increasinglyaccepted.
Enhancing Security atHome and Abroad
Our strategy for enhancing U.S. security has threecomponents: shaping the international securityenvironment, responding to threats and crises, andpreparing for an uncertain future.
Shaping the InternationalEnvironment
The United States seeks to shape the internationalenvironment through a variety of means, includingdiplomacy, economic cooperation, internationalassistance, arms control and nonproliferation, andhealth initiatives. These activities enhance U.S.security by promoting regional security; enhancingeconomic progress; supporting military activities,international law enforcement cooperation, andenvironmental efforts; and preventing, reducing ordeterring the diverse threats we face today. Thesemeasures adapt and strengthen alliances andfriendships, maintain U.S. influence in key regions,and encourage adherence to international norms.
The U.S. intelligence community provides criticalsupport to the full range of our involvement abroad.Comprehensive collection and analytic capabilitiesare needed to provide warning of threats to U.S.national security, give analytical support to the policyand military communities, provide near-real timeintelligence while retaining global perspective, identifyopportunities for advancing our national interests,and maintain our information advantage in theinternational arena. We place the highest priority onmonitoring the most serious threats to U.S. security:states hostile to the United States; countries or otherentities that possess strategic nuclear forces orcontrol nuclear weapons, other WMD or nuclearfissile materials; transnational threats, includingterrorism, drug trafficking and other internationalcrime; potential regional conflicts that might affectU.S. national security interests; and threats to U.S.forces and citizens abroad.
Diplomacy is a vital tool for countering threats to ournational security. The daily business of diplomacyconducted through our missions and representativesaround the world is an irreplaceable shaping activity.These efforts are essential to sustaining ouralliances, forcefully articulating U.S. interests,resolving regional disputes peacefully, avertinghumanitarian catastrophe, deterring aggressionagainst the United States and our friends and allies,promoting international economic cooperation andstability, fostering trade and investment opportunities,and projecting U.S. influence worldwide.
When signs of potential conflict emerge or potentialthreats appear, we take action to prevent or reducethese threats. One of the lessons that repeatedly hasbeen driven home is the importance of preventivediplomacy in dealing with conflict and complexemergencies. Helping prevent nations from failing isfar more effective than rebuilding them after aninternal crisis. Helping people stay in their homes is
far more beneficial than feeding and housing them inrefugee camps. Helping relief agencies andinternational organizations strengthen the institutionsof conflict resolution is much better than healingethnic and social divisions that have alreadyexploded into bloodshed. In short, while crisismanagement and crisis resolution are necessarytasks for our foreign policy, preventive diplomacy isfar preferable.
We must renew our commitment to America’sdiplomacy to ensure we have the diplomaticrepresentation and voice in internationalorganizations that are required to support our globalinterests. This is central to our ability to retain ourinfluence on international issues that affect our well-being. Our national security requires that we ensureinternational organizations such as the UnitedNations are as effective and relevant as possible.We must, therefore, continue to work to ensure thatour financial obligations to international organizationsare met.
Preserving our leadership, influence and credibility inthe world demands that we maintain highly trainedand experienced personnel, a broad range ofcapabilities for diplomacy and public diplomacy, anda secure diplomatic infrastructure abroad.Modernization of embassies, consulates and ourdiplomatic telecommunications and informationinfrastructure is essential to advancing and protectingvital national interests overseas. Our embassies andconsulates host critical elements of peacetime power:diplomatic personnel, commercial, defense and legalattaches, and consular and security officersdedicated to protecting Americans at home andabroad. The cost of doing these things is a tinyfraction of the costs of employing our military forcesto cope with crises that might have been avertedthrough collective international action.
We have an obligation and opportunity to harness thetools of public diplomacy to advance U.S. leadershiparound the world by engaging international publics onU.S. principles and policies. The global advance offreedom and information technologies like theInternet has increased the ability of citizens andorganizations to influence the policies ofgovernments to an unprecedented degree. Thismakes our public diplomacy – efforts to transmit
information and messages to peoples around theworld – an increasingly vital component of ournational security strategy. Our programs enhanceour ability to inform and influence foreign publics insupport of U.S. national interests, and broaden thedialogue between American citizens and U.S.institutions and their counterparts abroad.
Effective use of our nation’s information capabilitiesto counter misinformation and incitement, mitigateinter-ethnic conflict, promote independent mediaorganizations and the free flow of information, andsupport democratic participation helps advance U.S.interests abroad. International Public Informationactivities, as defined by the newly promulgatedPresidential Decision Directive 68 (PDD-68), aredesigned to improve our capability to coordinateindependent public diplomacy, public affairs andother national security information-related efforts toensure they are more successfully integrated intoforeign and national security policy making andexecution.
From the U.S.-led mobilization to rebuild post-warEurope to more recent economic success storiesacross Asia, Latin America and Africa, U.S. foreignassistance has helped emerging democracies,promoted respect for human rights and the rule oflaw, expanded free markets, slowed the growth ofinternational crime, contained major health threats,improved protection of the environment and naturalresources, slowed population growth, and defusedhumanitarian crises. Crises are averted – and U.S.preventive diplomacy actively reinforced – throughU.S. sustainable development programs that promotethe rights of workers, voluntary family planning, basiceducation, environmental protection, democraticgovernance, the rule of law, religious freedom, andthe economic empowerment of citizens.
Debt relief is an important element of our overalleffort to alleviate poverty, promote economicdevelopment, and create stronger partners aroundthe world for trade and investment, security anddemocracy. The Cologne Debt Initiative announcedat the 1999 G-8 summit, together with earlier debtrelief commitments, provides for reduction of up to 70percent of the total debts for heavily indebted poorcountries. This will be a reduction from the currentlevel of about $127 billion to as low as $37 billion with
the cancellation of official development assistancedebt by G-8 and other bilateral creditors.
The Cologne Debt Initiative also calls on internationalfinancial institutions to develop a new framework forlinking debt relief with poverty reduction. Thesemeasures center around better targeting of budgetaryresources for priority social expenditures, for health,child survival, AIDS prevention, education, greatertransparency in government budgeting, and muchwider consultation with civil society in thedevelopment and implementation of economicprograms. In September, President Clinton took ourdebt relief efforts a step further. He directed theAdministration to make it possible to forgive 100percent of the debt these countries owe to the UnitedStates when the money is needed and will be used tohelp them finance basic human needs.
When combined with other efforts, such as ourcooperative scientific and technological programs,U.S. aid initiatives can help reduce the need forcostly military and humanitarian measures. Whenassistance programs succeed in promotingdemocracy and free markets, substantial growth ofAmerican exports has usually followed. Where criseshave occurred, our assistance programs have helpedalleviate mass human suffering through targetedrelief. Other assistance programs have created apath out of conflict and dislocation, helped to restoreelementary security and civic institutions, andpromoted political stability and economic recovery.
Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Arms control and nonproliferation initiatives are anessential element of our national security strategyand a critical complement to our efforts to defend ournation through our own military strength. We pursueverifiable arms control and nonproliferationagreements that support our efforts to prevent thespread and use of WMD, prevent the spread ofmaterials and expertise for producing WMD and themeans of delivering them, halt the use ofconventional weapons that cause unnecessarysuffering, and contribute to regional stability at lowerlevels of armaments. In addition, by increasingtransparency in the size, structure and operations ofmilitary forces and building confidence in theintentions of other countries, arms controlagreements and confidence-building measures
constrain inventories of dangerous weapons, reduceincentives and opportunities to initiate an attack,reduce the mutual suspicions that arise from andspur on armaments competition, and help provide theassurance of security necessary to strengthencooperative relationships and direct resources tosafer, more productive endeavors.
Verifiable reductions in strategic offensive arms andthe steady shift toward less destabilizing systemsremain essential to our strategy. Entry into force ofthe START I Treaty in December 1994 charted thecourse for reductions in the deployed strategicnuclear forces of the United States and Russia. Theother countries of the former Soviet Union that hadnuclear weapons on their soil – Belarus, Kazakhstanand Ukraine – have become non-nuclear weaponsstates. Once the START II Treaty enters into force,the United States and Russia will each be limited tobetween 3,000-3,500 accountable strategic nuclearwarheads. START II also will eliminate destabilizingland-based multiple warhead and heavy missiles. OnSeptember 26, 1997, the United States and Russiasigned a START II Protocol extending the end datefor reductions to 2007, and exchanged letters onearly deactivation by 2003 of those strategic nucleardelivery systems to be eliminated by 2007.
At the Helsinki Summit in March 1997, PresidentsClinton and Yeltsin agreed to START III guidelinesthat, if adopted, will cap the number of strategicnuclear warheads deployed in each country at 2,000-2,500 by the end of 2007 – reducing both ourarsenals by 80 percent from Cold War heights. Theyalso agreed that, in order to promote the irreversibilityof deep reductions, a START III agreement willinclude measures relating to the transparency ofstrategic nuclear warhead inventories and thedestruction of strategic nuclear warheads. Thestatement also committed the two nations to explorepossible measures relating to non-strategic nuclearweapons, to include appropriate confidence buildingand transparency measures.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty remains acornerstone of strategic stability, and the UnitedStates is committed to continued efforts to enhancethe Treaty’s viability and effectiveness. At theHelsinki Summit, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsinreaffirmed their commitment to the ABM Treaty andrecognized the need for effective theater missiledefenses in an agreement in principle on
demarcation between systems to counter strategicballistic missiles and those to counter theater ballisticmissiles.
On September 26, 1997, representatives of theUnited States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan andUkraine signed or initialed five agreements relating tothe ABM Treaty. At the Cologne G-8 Summit in June1999, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin reiterated theirdetermination to achieve earliest possible ratificationand entry into force of those agreements. Theagreements on demarcation and succession will beprovided to the Senate for its advice and consentfollowing Russian ratification of START II.
The two presidents also reaffirmed at Cologne theirexisting obligations under Article XIII of the ABMTreaty to consider possible changes in the strategicsituation that have a bearing on the ABM Treaty and,as appropriate, possible proposals for furtherincreasing the viability of the Treaty. They alsoagreed to begin discussions on the ABM Treaty,which are now underway in parallel with discussionson START III. The United States is proposing thatthe ABM Treaty be modified to accommodatepossible deployment of a limited National MissileDefense (NMD) system which would counter newrogue state threats while preserving strategicstability.
At the Moscow Summit in September 1998,Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed on a newinitiative for the exchange of early warninginformation on missile launches. The agreement willsignificantly reduce the danger that ballistic missilescould be launched inadvertently on false warning ofattack. It will also promote increased mutualconfidence in the capabilities of the ballistic missileearly warning systems of both sides. The UnitedStates and Russia will develop arrangements forproviding each other with continuous information fromtheir respective early warning systems on launches ofballistic missiles and space launch vehicles. As partof this initiative, the United States and Russia areestablishing a Joint Warning Center in Russia tocontinuously monitor early warning data. The UnitedStates and Russia are also working towardsestablishing a ballistic missile and space launchvehicle pre-launch notification regime in which otherstates would be invited to participate.
To be secure, we must not only have a strongmilitary; we must also take the lead in building a
safer, more responsible world. We have afundamental responsibility to limit the spread ofnuclear weapons and reduce the danger of nuclearwar. To this end, the United States remainscommitted to bringing the Comprehensive NuclearTest Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force.
More than 150 countries have signed the Treaty sofar, agreeing to refrain from all nuclear explosivetesting. The CTBT will constrain nuclear weaponsdevelopment and will also help prevent nuclearweapons technologies from spreading to othercountries. The United States ended nuclear testingseven years ago; the CTBT requires other countriesto refrain from testing, too. We have developedmeans of making sure our nuclear weapons workthrough non-nuclear tests and computer simulations,rather than by tests with nuclear explosions, and wespend $4.5 billion a year to ensure that our nuclearweapons remain safe and reliable.
The CTBT will put in place a worldwide network fordetecting nuclear explosions. With over 300 stationsaround the globe – including 31 in Russia, 11 inChina, and 17 in the Middle East – this internationalmonitoring system will improve our ability to monitorsuspicious activity and catch cheaters. The UnitedStates already has dozens of monitoring stations ofits own; the CTBT will allow us to take advantage ofother countries’ stations and create new ones, too.The Treaty also will give us the right to request on-site inspections of suspected nuclear testing sites inother countries.
The United States will maintain its moratorium onnuclear testing, and is encouraging all other states todo the same. We are encouraging all states thathave not done so to sign and ratify the CTBT. Weremain committed to obtaining Senate advice andconsent toward ratification of the CTBT. U.S.ratification will encourage other states to ratify,enable the United States to lead the internationaleffort to gain CTBT entry into force, and strengtheninternational norms against nuclear testing.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is thecornerstone of international nuclear nonproliferationefforts and reinforces regional and global security bycreating confidence in the non-nuclear commitmentsof its parties. It was an indispensable preconditionfor the denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan,Belarus and South Africa. We seek to ensure thatthe NPT remains a strong and vital element of global
security by achieving universal adherence and fullcompliance by its parties with their Treaty obligations.Achieving a successful Review Conference in 2000will be important to the future of this critical Treaty.We will vigorously promote the value of the NPT inpreventing the spread of nuclear weapons whilecontinuing policies designed to reduce U.S. relianceon nuclear weapons and to work for their ultimateelimination.
To reinforce the international nuclear nonproliferationregime, we seek to strengthen the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards systemand achieve a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty in theGeneva Conference on Disarmament. Haltingproduction of fissile materials for nuclear explosionswould cap the supply of nuclear materials availableworldwide for weapons, a key step in halting thespread of nuclear weapons. A coordinated effort bythe intelligence community and law enforcementagencies to detect, prevent and deter illegaltrafficking in fissile materials, and the MaterialProtection, Control and Accounting program, whichenhances security for nuclear materials havingpotential terrorist applications, are also essential toour counter-proliferation efforts.
Through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative ThreatReduction (CTR) Program and other initiatives, weaim to strengthen controls over weapons-usablefissile material and prevent the theft or diversion ofWMD and related material and technology from theformer Soviet Union. The CTR Program haseffectively supported enhanced safety, security,accounting and centralized control measures fornuclear weapons and fissile materials in the formerSoviet Union. It has assisted Ukraine, Kazakhstanand Belarus in becoming non-nuclear weaponsstates and will continue to assist Russia in meetingits START obligations. The CTR Program is alsosupporting measures to eliminate and prevent theproliferation of chemical weapons and biologicalweapon-related capabilities, and has supported manyongoing military reductions and reform measures inthe former Soviet Union. We are working tostrengthen the Convention on the Physical Protectionof Nuclear Material to increase accountability andprotection, which complements our effort to enhanceIAEA safeguards.
In 1999, the President launched the Expanded ThreatReduction Initiative (ETRI). This effort is designed toaddress the new security challenges in Russia and
the other Newly Independent States (NIS) caused bythe financial crisis, including preventing WMDproliferation, reducing the threat posed by residualWMD, and stabilizing the military. This initiativebuilds on the success of existing programs, such asthe CTR program, the Material Protection, Controland Accounting program and the Science Centers, tomake additional progress in the more challengingenvironment now facing Russia and the NIS. ETRIinitiatives will substantially expand our cooperativeefforts to eliminate WMD in the NIS and prevent theirproliferation abroad. A new component of ournuclear security program will greatly increase thesecurity of fissile material by concentrating it at fewer,well-protected sites, and new programs will increasethe security of facilities and experts formerlyassociated with the Soviet Union’s biologicalweapons effort.
At the Cologne summit in June 1999, the leaders ofthe G-8 nations affirmed their intention to establisharrangements to protect and safely manageweapons-grade fissile material no longer required fordefense purposes, especially plutonium. Theyexpressed strong support for initiatives beingundertaken by G-8 countries and others for scientificand technical cooperation necessary to supportfuture large-scale disposition programs, invited allinterested countries to support projects for earlyimplementation of such programs, and urgedestablishment of a joint strategy for cooperation inlarge-scale disposition projects. They alsorecognized that an international approach tofinancing will be required – involving both public andprivate funds – and agreed to review potentialincreases in their resource commitments prior to thenext G-8 Summit in July 2000.
We are purchasing tons of highly enriched uraniumfrom dismantled Russian nuclear weapons forconversion into commercial reactor fuel, and workingwith Russia to remove 34 metric tons of plutoniumfrom each country’s nuclear weapons programs andconverting it so that it can never be used in nuclearweapons. We are redirecting dozens of formerSoviet WMD facilities and tens of thousands offormer Soviet WMD scientists in Eastern Europe andEurasia from military activities to beneficial civilianresearch. These efforts include implementing a newbiotechnical initiative aimed at increasingtransparency in former Soviet biological weaponsfacilities and redirecting their scientists to civiliancommercial, agricultural, and public health activities.
In support of U.S. efforts to prevent proliferation ofWMD by organized crime groups and individuals inthe NIS and Eastern Europe, the Departments ofDefense, Energy, Commerce, the U.S. CustomsService, and the FBI are engaging in programs thatassist governments in developing effective exportcontrol systems and capabilities to prevent, deter, ordetect proliferation of WMD and weapons materialsacross borders. These programs provide training,equipment, advice, and services to law enforcementand border security agencies in these countries.
We seek to strengthen the Biological WeaponsConvention (BWC) with a new international regime toensure compliance. We are negotiating with otherBWC member states in an effort to reach consensuson a protocol to the BWC that would implement aninspection system to enhance compliance andpromote transparency. We are also working hard toimplement and enforce the Chemical WeaponsConvention (CWC). The United States Congressunderscored the importance of these efforts inOctober 1998 by passing implementing legislationthat makes it possible for the United States to complywith the requirements in the CWC for commercialdeclarations and inspections.
The Administration also seeks to preventdestabilizing buildups of conventional arms and limitaccess to sensitive technical information, equipmentand technologies by strengthening internationalregimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement onExport Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-UseGoods and Technologies, the Australia Group (forchemical and biological weapons), the MissileTechnology Control Regime, the Nuclear SuppliersGroup, and the Zangger Committee (which ensuresthat IAEA safeguards are applied to nuclear exports).At the NATO 50th Anniversary Summit, Allied leadersagreed to enhance NATO’s ability to deal bothpolitically and militarily with the proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction and the means of theirdelivery.
Regional nonproliferation efforts are particularlyimportant in three critical proliferation zones. On theKorean Peninsula, we are implementing the 1994Agreed Framework, which requires full compliance byNorth Korea with its nonproliferation obligations. Wealso seek to convince North Korea to halt itsindigenous missile program and exports of missilesystems and technologies. In the Middle East andSouthwest Asia, we encourage regional confidence
building measures and arms control agreements thataddress the legitimate security concerns of allparties, and continue efforts to thwart and roll backIran’s development of WMD and long-range missiles,and Iraq’s efforts to reconstitute its WMD programs.In South Asia, we seek to persuade India andPakistan to refrain from weaponization or deploymentof nuclear weapons, testing or deploying missilescapable of delivering nuclear weapons, and furtherproduction of fissile material for nuclear weapons, aswell as to adhere fully to international nonproliferationstandards and to sign and ratify the CTBT.
Over the past three years, the United States hasworked to ensure that the landmark 1990Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treatyremains a cornerstone of European peace, securityand stability into the twenty-first century. OnNovember 19, 1999, we joined the other 29 CFEStates Parties in signing an Adaptation Agreementthat eliminates obsolete bloc-to-bloc limits andreplaces them with nationally based ceilings. It willalso enhance transparency through more informationand inspections, strengthen requirements for hostnation consent to the presence of foreign forces, andopen the treaty to accession by other Europeannations. The accompanying CFE Final Act reflects anumber of important political commitments, includingagreements on the complete withdrawal of Russianarmed forces from Moldova and partial withdrawal ofRussian forces from Georgia. President Clinton hasstated that he will only submit the CFE AdaptationAgreement to the Senate for advice and consent toratification when Russian forces have been reducedto the flank levels set forth in the adapted Treaty.
President Clinton is committed to ending the threat toinnocent civilians from anti-personnel landmines(APLs). The United States has already taken majorsteps toward this goal while ensuring our ability tomeet international obligations and provide for thesafety and security of our men and women inuniform. President Clinton has directed the DefenseDepartment to end the use of all APLs, including self-destructing APLs, outside Korea by 2003 and topursue aggressively the objective of having APLalternatives ready for Korea by 2006. We will alsoaggressively pursue alternatives to our mixed anti-tank systems that contain anti-personnelsubmunitions. We have made clear that the UnitedStates will sign the Ottawa Convention by 2006 if bythen we have succeeded in identifying and fielding
suitable alternatives to our self-destructing APLs andmixed anti-tank systems.
In May 1999, we gained Senate advice and consentto ratification of the Amended Mines Protocol to theConvention on Conventional Weapons. Thisagreement addresses the worldwide humanitarianproblem caused by APLs by banning the use of non-detectable APLs and severely limiting the use oflong-duration APLs to clearly marked and monitoredfields that effectively keep out civilians. We haveestablished a permanent ban on APL exports and areseeking to universalize an export ban through theConference on Disarmament in Geneva. We aresupporting humanitarian demining programsworldwide through engagement with mine-afflictednations and the international community, and throughour "Demining 2010" initiative have challenged theworld to increase the effectiveness and efficiency ofremoving landmines that threaten civilians.
The U.S. military plays a crucial role in shaping theinternational security environment in ways thatprotect and promote U.S. interests, but is not asubstitute for other forms of engagement, such asdiplomatic, economic, scientific, technological,cultural and educational activities. Throughoverseas presence and peacetime engagementactivities such as defense cooperation, securityassistance, and training and exercises with allies andfriends, our Armed Forces help to deter aggressionand coercion, build coalitions, promote regionalstability and serve as role models for militaries inemerging democracies. With countries that areneither staunch friends nor known foes, militarycooperation can serve as a positive means ofbuilding security relationships today that willcontribute to improved relations tomorrow. At thesame time, we remain firmly committed to humanrights and we will continue to ensure that we do nottrain or assist known human rights abusers.
Maintaining our overseas presence promotesregional stability, giving substance to our securitycommitments, helping to prevent the development ofpower vacuums and instability, and contributing todeterrence by demonstrating our determination todefend U.S., allied, and friendly interests in criticalregions. Having credible combat forces forwarddeployed in peacetime also better positions the
United States to respond rapidly to crises. Equallyessential is effective global power projection, which iskey to the flexibility demanded of our forces andprovides options for responding to potential crisesand conflicts even when we have no permanentpresence or a limited infrastructure in a region.
Strategic mobility is a key element of our strategy. Itis critical for allowing the United States to be first onthe scene with assistance in many domestic orinternational crises, and is a key to successfulAmerican leadership and engagement. Deploymentand sustainment of U.S. and multinational forcesrequires maintaining and ensuring access tosufficient fleets of aircraft, ships, vehicles and trains,as well as bases, ports, pre-positioned equipmentand other infrastructure.
Although military activities are an important pillar ofour effort to shape the global security environment,we must always be mindful that the primary missionof our Armed Forces is to deter and, if necessary, tofight and win conflicts in which our vital interests arethreatened.
Just as American engagement overall must beselective—focusing on the threats and opportunitiesmost relevant to our interests and applying ourresources where we can make the greatestdifference—so must our use of the Armed Forces forengagement be selective. Engagement activitiesmust be carefully managed to prevent erosion of ourmilitary’s current and long-term readiness. TheDefense Department's theater engagement planningprocess, which was approved by the President in1997, helps ensure that military engagementactivities are prioritized within and across theaters,and balanced against available resources. In short,we must prioritize military engagement activities toensure the readiness of our Armed Forces to carryout crisis response and warfighting missions, as wellas to ensure that we can sustain an appropriate levelof engagement activities over the long term.
Our ability to deter potential adversaries in peacetimerests on several factors, particularly on ourdemonstrated will and ability to uphold our securitycommitments when they are challenged. We haveearned this reputation through both our declaratorypolicy, which clearly communicates costs to potentialadversaries, and our credible warfighting capability.This capability is embodied in ready forces andequipment strategically stationed or deployed
forward, in forces in the United States at theappropriate level of readiness to deploy whenneeded, in our ability to gain timely access to criticalregions and infrastructure overseas, and in ourdemonstrated ability to form and lead effectivemilitary coalitions. Because terrorist organizationsmay not be deterred by traditional means, we mustensure a robust capability to accurately attribute thesource of attacks against the United States or itscitizens, and to respond effectively and decisively toprotect our national interests.
Our nuclear deterrent posture is one example of howU.S. military capabilities are used effectively to deteraggression and coercion against U.S. interests.Nuclear weapons serve as a guarantee of oursecurity commitments to allies and a disincentive tothose who would contemplate developing orotherwise acquiring their own nuclear weapons. Ourmilitary planning for the possible employment of U.S.strategic nuclear weapons is focused on deterring anuclear war and emphasizes the survivability of ournuclear systems and infrastructure necessary toendure a preemptive attack and still respond atoverwhelming levels. The United States will continueto maintain a robust triad of strategic nuclear forcessufficient to deter any potential adversaries who mayhave or seek access to nuclear forces – to convincethem that seeking a nuclear advantage or resorting tonuclear weapons would be futile. In addition, someU.S. non-strategic nuclear forces are maintained in aforward-deployed status in NATO as a visiblereminder of our security commitment.
We must also ensure the continued viability of theinfrastructure that supports U.S. nuclear forces andweapons. The Stockpile Stewardship Program willprovide high confidence in the safety and reliability ofour nuclear weapons under the ComprehensiveNuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The United States is committed to preservinginternationally recognized freedom of navigation onand overflight of the world's oceans, which are criticalto the future strength of our nation and to maintainingglobal stability. Freedom of navigation and overflightare essential to our economic security and for theworldwide movement and sustainment of U.S.military forces. These freedoms are codified in theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,which the President submitted to the Senate in 1994
for advice and consent to ratification. In addition tolending the certainty of the rule of law to an areacritical to our national security, the Conventionpreserves our leadership in global ocean policy.Thus, the Law of the Sea Convention buttresses thestrategic advantages that the United States gainsfrom being a global power, and ratification of theConvention remains a high priority.
We are committed to maintaining U.S. leadership inspace. Unimpeded access to and use of space is avital national interest – essential for protecting U.S.national security, promoting our prosperity andensuring our well-being. Consistent with ourinternational obligations, we will deter threats to ourinterests in space, counter hostile efforts against U.S.access to and use of space, and maintain the abilityto counter space systems and services that could beused for hostile purposes against our military forces,command and control systems, or other criticalcapabilities. We will maintain our technologicalsuperiority in space systems, and sustain a robustU.S. space industry and a strong, forward-lookingresearch base. We also will continue efforts toprevent the spread of weapons of mass destructionto space, and will continue to pursue globalpartnerships addressing space-related scientific,economic, environmental and security issues.
We also are committed to maintaining informationsuperiority – the capability to collect, process, anddisseminate an uninterrupted flow of informationwhile exploiting and/or denying an adversary’s abilityto do the same. Operational readiness, as well asthe command and control of forces, reliesincreasingly on information systems and technology.We must keep pace with rapidly evolving informationtechnology so that we can cultivate and harvest thepromise of information superiority among U.S. forcesand coalition partners while exploiting the shortfalls inour adversaries’ information capabilities.
Quality people – civilian and military – are our mostcritical asset in implementing our defense activities.The quality of our men and women in uniform will bethe deciding factor in future military operations. Wemust ensure that we remain the most fully preparedand best trained military force in the world.Accordingly, we will continue to place the highestpriority on programs that support recruiting, retention,quality of life, training and education.
International Law EnforcementCooperation
As threats to our national security from terrorism,drug trafficking and other international crimeincrease, U.S. and foreign law enforcement andjudicial agencies must continue to find innovativeways to implement a concerted, global plan tocombat international crime. As highlighted in thePresident’s International Crime Control Strategy, oneway to accomplish this is through cooperativeactivities, such as overseas law enforcementpresence, that leverage our resources and foster theestablishment of effective working relationships withforeign law enforcement agencies. U.S. investigatorsand prosecutors work to enlist the cooperation offoreign law enforcement officials, keeping crime awayfrom American shores, enabling the arrest of manyU.S. fugitives and solving serious U.S. crimes. Thispresence creates networks of law enforcementprofessionals dedicated to preventing crime andbringing international criminals to justice.
The Department of State and U.S. federal lawenforcement agencies are engaged in a cooperativeeffort to provide assistance to law enforcementagencies in Central and Eastern Europe and EastAsia through the International Law EnforcementAcademies that have been established in Hungaryand Thailand. The ILEA initiative is a multinationaleffort organized by the United States, the hostnations, and other international training partners toprovide mutual assistance and law enforcementtraining.
Environmental and HealthInitiatives
Decisions today regarding the environment andnatural resources can affect our security forgenerations. Environmental threats do not heednational borders; environmental peril overseas canpose long-term dangers to Americans’ security andwell-being. Natural resource scarcities can triggerand exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats suchas climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion,introduction of nuisance plant and animal species,overharvesting of fish, forests and other living naturalresources, and the transnational movement of
hazardous chemicals and waste directly threaten thehealth and economic well-being of U.S. citizens.
We have a full diplomatic agenda to respondaggressively to environmental threats. For example,at Kyoto in December 1997, the industrialized nationsof the world agreed for the first time to binding limitson greenhouse gases. This was a vital turning point,but we must press for participation by key developingnations and will not submit the Kyoto protocol forratification until they have agreed to participatemeaningfully in efforts to address global warming.
Diseases and health risks can no longer be viewedsolely as a domestic concern. Like the globaleconomy, the health and well-being of all peoples arebecoming increasingly interdependent. With themovement of millions of people per day acrossinternational borders and the expansion ofinternational trade, health issues as diverse asimportation of dangerous infectious diseases andbioterrorism preparedness profoundly affect ournational security. Besides reducing the direct threatto Americans from disease, healthy populationsinternationally provide an essential underpinning foreconomic development, democratization and politicalstability. We are, therefore, taking a leadership roleto promote international cooperation on healthissues.
Beyond these general concerns, a number of specificinternational health issues are critical for our nationalsecurity. Because a growing proportion of ournational food supply is coming from internationalsources, assuring the safety of the food we consumemust be a priority. The Administration hasannounced new and stronger programs to ensure thesafety of imported as well as domestic foods, to beoverseen by the President’s Council on Food Safety.New and emerging infections such as drug-resistanttuberculosis and the Ebola virus can move with thespeed of jet travel. We are actively engaged with theinternational health community as well as the WorldHealth Organization to stop the spread of thesedangerous diseases.
The worldwide epidemic HIV/AIDS is destroyingpeoples and economies on an unprecedented scaleand is now the number one cause of death in Africa,killing over 5,500 per day. The Administration hastaken bold new steps to combat this devastatingepidemic, including reaching agreement in 1999 with
the G-8 in Cologne to link debt relief with socialprograms such as HIV/AIDS prevention. And at theUnited Nations in September 1999, the Presidentcommitted the United States to a concerted effort toaccelerate the development and delivery of vaccinesfor AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseasesdisproportionately affecting the developing world. Heannounced plans for a special White House meetingto strengthen incentives to work with the privatesector on common goals for fighting these diseases.
Responding to Threats andCrises
Because our shaping efforts alone cannot guaranteethe international security environment we seek, theUnited States must be able to respond at home andabroad to the full spectrum of threats and crises thatmay arise. Our resources are finite, so we must beselective in our responses, focusing on challengesthat most directly affect our interests and engagingwhere we can make the most difference. We mustuse the most appropriate tool or combination of tools– diplomacy, public diplomacy, economic measures,law enforcement, military operations, and others. Weact in alliance or partnership when others share ourinterests, but unilaterally when compelling nationalinterests so demand.
Efforts to deter an adversary – be it an aggressornation, terrorist group or criminal organization – canbecome the leading edge of crisis response. In thissense, deterrence straddles the line between shapingthe international environment and responding tocrises. Deterrence in crisis generally involvessignaling the United States’ commitment to aparticular country or interest by enhancing ourwarfighting capability in the theater. We may alsochoose to make additional statements tocommunicate the costs of aggression or coercion toan adversary, and in some cases may choose toemploy U.S. forces to underline the message anddeter further adventurism.
Transnational threats include terrorism, drugtrafficking and other international crime, and illegaltrade in fissile materials and other dangeroussubstances.
The United States has made concerted efforts todeter and punish terrorists, and remains determinedto apprehend and bring to justice those who terrorizeAmerican citizens. We make no concessions toterrorists. We fully exploit all available legalmechanisms to punish international terrorists,eliminate foreign terrorists and their support networksin our country, and extend the reach of financialsanctions to international terrorist support networks.And we seek to eliminate terrorist sanctuariesoverseas, counter state support for terrorism, andhelp other governments improve their capabilities tocombat terrorism.
To respond to terrorism incidents overseas, the StateDepartment leads an interagency team, the ForeignEmergency Support Team (FEST), which is preparedto deploy on short notice to the scene of an incident.FEST teams are tailored to the nature of the eventand include personnel from the State Department,Defense Department, FBI, and other agencies asappropriate. Additionally, the FBI has five RapidDeployment Teams ready to respond quickly toterrorist events anywhere in the world. The StateDepartment is also working on agreements with othernations on response to WMD incidents overseas.
Whenever possible, we use law enforcement anddiplomatic tools to wage the fight against terrorism.But there have been, and will be, times when thosetools are not enough. As long as terrorists continueto target American citizens, we reserve the right toact in self-defense by striking at their bases andthose who sponsor, assist or actively support them.
On August 20, 1998, acting on convincing informationfrom a variety of reliable sources that the network ofradical groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden hadplanned, financed and carried out the bombings ofour embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, andplanned future attacks against Americans, the U.S.Armed Forces carried out strikes on one of the mostactive terrorist bases in the world. Located inAfghanistan, it contained key elements of the binLaden network's infrastructure and has served as atraining camp for literally thousands of terrorists fromaround the globe. We also struck a plant inKhartoum, Sudan, that was linked by intelligenceinformation to chemical weapons and to the binLaden terror network. The strikes were a necessary
and proportionate response to the imminent threat offurther terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel andfacilities, and demonstrated that no country can be asafe haven for terrorists.
Drug Trafficking and Other InternationalCrime
A broad range of criminal activities emanating fromoverseas threatens the safety and well-being of theAmerican people.
Drug Trafficking. We have shown that withdetermined and relentless efforts, we can makesignificant progress against the scourge of drugabuse and drug trafficking. For much of this century,organized crime leaders inside the United Statescontrolled America’s drug trade. Aggressive lawenforcement efforts have dramatically weakened U.S.crime syndicates. But international trade in drugspersists; now led by criminals based in foreigncountries. International drug syndicates, especiallythose based in Mexico and Colombia, continue todiversify and seek new markets in the United States– moving beyond large cities into smallercommunities and rural towns.
The aim of our drug control strategy is to cut illegaldrug use and availability in the United States by 50percent by 2007 – and reduce the health and socialconsequences of drug use and trafficking by 25percent over the same period, through expandedprevention efforts, improved treatment programs,strengthened law enforcement and tougherinterdiction. Our strategy recognizes that, at homeand abroad, prevention, treatment and economicalternatives must be integrated with intelligencecollection, law enforcement and interdiction efforts.
Domestically, we seek to educate and enableAmerica’s youth to reject illegal drugs, increase thesafety of America’s citizens by substantially reducingdrug-related crime and violence, reduce health andsocial costs to the public of illegal drug use, reducedomestic cultivation of cannabis and production ofmethamphetamines and other synthetic drugs, andshield America’s air, land and sea frontiers from thedrug threat. Concerted efforts by the public, all levelsof government and the private sector together withother governments, private groups and internationalorganizations will be required for our strategy tosucceed.
Internationally, our strategy recognizes that the mosteffective counterdrug operations are mounted at thesource where illegal drugs are grown and produced.We seek to stop drug trafficking by bolstering thecapabilities of source nations to reduce cultivationthrough eradication and development of alternativecrops, and attack production through destruction oflaboratories and control of chemicals used to produceillegal drugs. In the transit zone between sourceregions and the U.S. border, we support interdictionprograms to halt the shipment of illicit drugs. Inconcert with allies abroad, we pursue prosecution ofmajor drug traffickers, destruction of drug traffickingorganizations, prevention of money laundering, andelimination of criminal financial support networks.
Our strategy also includes efforts to build cooperativelinks with foreign law enforcement agencies,strengthen democratic institutions, assist sourcenations to root out corruption, and safeguard humanrights and respect for the rule of law in both sourceand transit nations. Additionally, we are engaginginternational organizations, financial institutions andnon-governmental organizations in counterdrugcooperation.
Other International Crime. A free and efficientmarket economy requires transparency and effectivelaw enforcement to combat unlawful activities suchas extortion and corruption that impede rationalbusiness decisions and fair competition. The benefitsof open markets are enhanced by fostering the safeand secure international movement of passengersand goods by all modes of transportation.Additionally, the integrity and reliability of theinternational financial system will be improved bystandardizing laws and regulations governingfinancial institutions and improving international lawenforcement cooperation in the financial sector.Corruption and extortion activities by organized crimegroups can also undermine the integrity ofgovernment and imperil fragile democracies. And thefailure of governments to effectively controlinternational crime rings within their borders – or theirwillingness to harbor international criminals –endangers global stability. There must be no safehaven where criminals can roam free, beyond thereach of our extradition and legal assistance treaties.
We are negotiating and implementing new andupdated extradition and mutual legal assistancetreaties, and increasing our enforcement optionsthrough agreements on asset seizure, forfeiture, and
money laundering. The new National MoneyLaundering Strategy being implemented by theDepartments of Treasury and Justice is increasingthe effectiveness of America’s efforts bothdomestically and internationally to deprive organizedcrime groups the benefit of their illegal profits.Initiatives also are under way to accelerate thecriminal identification process and facilitate globalparticipation in the investigation and prosecution ofcriminal activities through the linking of worldwide lawenforcement databases. This will be done in amanner that protects the privacy of U.S. citizens.
Because of the global nature of information networks,no area of criminal activity has greater internationalimplications than high technology crime. Computerhackers and other cyber-criminals are not hamperedby international boundaries, since information andtransactions involving funds or property can betransmitted quickly and covertly via telephone andinformation systems. Many of the challenges that lawenforcement faces in this area are extremely difficultto address without international consensus andcooperation. We seek to develop and implementnew agreements and encourage cooperativeresearch and development with other nations toaddress high technology crime, particularly cyber-crime.
Defending the Homeland
Our potential enemies, whether nations or terrorists,may be more likely in the future to resort to attacksagainst vulnerable civilian targets in the UnitedStates. At the same time, easier access tosophisticated technology means that the destructivepower available to rogue nations and terrorists isgreater than ever. Adversaries may be tempted touse long-range ballistic missiles or unconventionaltools, such as WMD, financial destabilization, orinformation attacks, to threaten our citizens andcritical national infrastructures at home.
The United States will act to deter or prevent suchattacks and, if attacks occur despite those efforts, willbe prepared to defend against them, limit the damagethey cause, and respond effectively against theperpetrators. At home, we will forge an effectivepartnership of Federal, state and local governmentagencies, industry and other private sectororganizations.
National Missile Defense
We are committed to meeting the growing dangerposed by nations developing and deploying long-range missiles that could deliver weapons of massdestruction against the United States. Informed bythe Intelligence Community’s analysis of the August1998 North Korean flight test of its Taepo Dong Imissile, as well as the report of the RumsfeldCommission and other information, theAdministration has concluded that the threat posedby a rogue state developing an ICBM capable ofstriking the United States is growing. TheIntelligence Community estimates that during thenext fifteen years the United States will most likelyface an ICBM threat from North Korea, probably fromIran, and possibly from Iraq.
We intend to determine in 2000 whether to deploy alimited national missile defense against ballisticmissile threats to the United States from roguestates. The Administration's decision will be basedon an assessment of the four factors that must betaken into account in deciding whether to field thissystem: (1) whether the threat is materializing; (2) thestatus of the technology based on an initial series ofrigorous flight tests, and the proposed system’soperational effectiveness; (3) whether the system isaffordable; and (4) the implications that going forwardwith NMD deployment would hold for the overallstrategic environment and our arms controlobjectives, including efforts to achieve furtherreductions in strategic nuclear arms under START IIand START III.
In making our decision, we will review progress inachieving our arms control objectives, includingnegotiating changes to the ABM Treaty that wouldpermit the deployment of a limited NMD system. Atthe Cologne G-8 Summit in June 1999, PresidentsClinton and Yeltsin agreed to begin discussions onSTART III and the ABM Treaty. Their reaffirmationthat under the ABM Treaty the two sides areobligated to consider possible changes in thestrategic situation that have a bearing on the Treatyand possible proposals for further increasing theviability of the Treaty opened the door for discussionof proposals for modifying the Treaty toaccommodate a limited NMD deployment. TheUnited States will attempt to negotiate changes to theABM Treaty that would be necessary if we decide todeploy a limited NMD system. At the same time, the
Administration has made clear that it will not give anystate a veto over any missile defense deploymentdecision that is vital to our national security interests.
Countering Foreign IntelligenceCollection
The United States is a primary target of foreignintelligence services due to our military, scientific,technological and economic preeminence. Foreignintelligence services aggressively seek informationabout U.S. political and military intentions andcapabilities, and are stepping up their efforts tocollect classified or sensitive information on U.S.weapons systems, emerging technologies withmilitary applications, and related technical methods.Such information enables potential adversaries tocounter U.S. political and military objectives, developsophisticated weapons more quickly and efficiently,and develop countermeasures against U.S. weapons.Intelligence collection against U.S. economic,commercial and proprietary information enablesforeign states and corporations to obtain shortcuts toindustrial development and improve theircompetitiveness against U.S. corporations in globalmarkets. Although difficult to quantify, economic andindustrial espionage result in the loss of millions ofdollars and thousands of jobs annually.
To protect sensitive national security information, wemust be able to effectively counter the collectionefforts of foreign intelligence services throughvigorous counterintelligence efforts and securityprograms. Over the last five years, we have creatednew counterintelligence mechanisms to addresseconomic and industrial espionage and implementedprocedures to improve coordination amongintelligence, counterintelligence and law enforcementagencies. These measures have considerablystrengthened our ability to counter the foreignintelligence collection threat. We will continue torefine and enhance our counterintelligencecapabilities as we enter the twenty-first century.
Domestic Preparedness AgainstWeapons of Mass Destruction
The Federal Government will respond rapidly anddecisively to any terrorist incident in the United Statesinvolving WMD, working with state and localgovernments to restore order and deliver emergency
assistance. The Domestic Terrorism Program isintegrating the capabilities and assets of a number ofFederal agencies to support the FBI, FEMA, theDepartment of Health and Human Services, and stateand local governments in crisis response andmanaging the consequences of a WMD incident. Wecontinue to develop and refine a comprehensivestrategy to protect our civilian population fromnuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We areupgrading our public health and medical surveillancesystems to enhance our preparedness for a biologicalor chemical weapons attack, and helping to ensurethat federal, state and local emergency responsepersonnel have the resources they need to deal withsuch a crisis.
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Our national security and our economic prosperityrest on a foundation of critical infrastructures,including telecommunications, energy, banking andfinance, transportation, water systems andemergency services. These infrastructures arevulnerable to computer-generated and physicalattacks. More than any nation, America is dependenton cyberspace. We know that other governmentsand terrorist groups are creating sophisticated, well-organized capabilities to launch cyber-attacks againstcritical American information networks and theinfrastructures that depend on them.
The President has directed that a plan for defendingour critical infrastructures be in effect by May 2001,and fully operational by December 2003. Throughthis plan we will achieve and maintain the ability toprotect our critical infrastructures from intentional actsthat would significantly diminish the ability of theFederal Government to perform essential nationalsecurity missions. This plan will also help ensure thegeneral public health and safety; protect the ability ofstate and local governments to maintain order and todeliver minimum essential public services; and workwith the private sector to ensure the orderlyfunctioning of the economy and the delivery ofessential telecommunications, energy, financial andtransportation services.
The Federal government is committed to building thiscapability to defend our critical infrastructures, but itcannot do it alone. The private sector, as much asthe Federal government, is a target for infrastructureattacks, whether by cyber or other means. A new
partnership between the Federal government and theprivate sector is required. Acting jointly, we will workto identify and eliminate significant vulnerabilities inour critical infrastructures and the informationsystems that support them.
We are creating the systems necessary to detect andrespond to attacks before they can cause seriousdamage. For the first time, law enforcement,intelligence agencies and the private sector willshare, in a manner consistent with U.S. law,information about cyber-threats, vulnerabilities andattacks. The Government is developing anddeploying new intrusion detection networktechnologies to protect Defense Department andother critical Federal systems, and we areencouraging the private sector to develop and deployappropriate protective technology as well. Anationwide system for quickly reconstituting in theface of a serious cyber-attack is being developed.Every Federal Department is also developing a planto protect its own critical infrastructures, whichinclude both cyber and physical dimensions.
Finally, we will be building a strong foundation forcontinued protection of our critical infrastructures:increased Federal R&D in information security,increased investment in training and educating cyber-security practitioners, and evaluating whetherlegislation is necessary to protect both our civilliberties and our critical infrastructures.
National Security EmergencyPreparedness
We will do all we can to deter and prevent destructiveand threatening forces such as terrorism, WMD use,disruption of our critical infrastructures, and regionalor state-centered threats from endangering ourcitizens. But if an emergency occurs, we must beprepared to respond effectively at home and abroadto protect lives and property, mobilize the personnel,resources and capabilities necessary to effectivelyhandle the emergency, and ensure the survival of ourinstitutions and infrastructures. To this end, we willsustain our efforts to maintain comprehensive, all-hazard emergency planning by federal departments,agencies and the military, as well as a strong andresponsive industrial and technology base, as crucialnational security emergency preparednessrequirements.
In addition to defending the U.S. homeland, theUnited States must be prepared to respond to the fullrange of threats to our interests abroad. Smaller-scale contingency operations encompass the fullrange of military operations short of major theaterwarfare, including humanitarian assistance, peaceoperations, enforcing embargoes and no-fly zones,evacuating U.S. citizens, and reinforcing key allies.These operations will likely pose frequent challengesfor U.S. military forces and cumulatively requiresignificant commitments over time. These operationswill also put a premium on the ability of the U.S.military to work closely and effectively with other U.S.Government agencies, non-governmentalorganizations, regional and international securityorganizations and coalition partners.
It often will be in our national interest to proceed inpartnership with other nations to preserve, maintainand restore peace. American participation in peaceoperations takes many forms, such as the NATO-ledcoalitions in Bosnia and Kosovo, the American-ledUN force in Haiti, the recently concluded MilitaryObserver Mission Ecuador and Peru (MOMEP), ourparticipation in the coalition operation in the Sinai,military observers in UN missions in Western Sahara,Georgia and the Middle East, and the UN mission inEast Timor.
The question of command and control in multinationalcontingency operations is particularly critical. Underno circumstances will the President ever relinquishhis constitutional command authority over U.S.forces, but there may be times in the future, just as inthe past, when it is in our interest to place U.S. forcesunder the temporary operational control of acompetent allied or United Nations commander.
Not only must the U.S. military be prepared tosuccessfully conduct multiple smaller-scalecontingencies worldwide, it must be prepared to doso in the face of challenges such as terrorism,information operations and the threat or use of WMD.U.S. forces must also remain prepared to withdrawfrom contingency operations if needed to deploy to amajor theater war. Accordingly, appropriate U.S.forces will be kept at a high level of readiness and willbe trained, equipped and organized to be capable ofperforming multiple missions at one time.
Major Theater Warfare
Fighting and winning major theater wars is theultimate test of our Armed Forces – a test at whichthey must always succeed. For the foreseeablefuture, the United States, preferably in concert withallies, must have the capability to deter and, ifdeterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-borderaggression in two distant theaters in overlapping timeframes. Maintaining a two major theater warcapability reassures our friends and allies and makescoalition relationships with the United States moreattractive. It deters opportunism elsewhere when weare heavily involved in deterring or defeatingaggression in one theater, or while conductingmultiple smaller-scale contingencies andengagement activities in other theaters. It alsoprovides a hedge against the possibility that we mightencounter threats larger or more difficult thanexpected. A strategy for deterring and defeatingaggression in two theaters ensures we maintain thecapability and flexibility to meet unknown futurethreats, while continued global engagement helpspreclude such threats from developing.
Fighting and winning major theater wars entails threechallenging requirements. First, we must maintainthe ability to rapidly defeat initial enemy advancesshort of the enemy’s objectives in two theaters, inclose succession. We must maintain this ability toensure that we can seize the initiative, minimizeterritory lost before an invasion is halted and ensurethe integrity of our warfighting coalitions. Failure todefeat initial enemy advances rapidly would make thesubsequent campaign to evict enemy forces fromcaptured territory more difficult, lengthy and costly,and could undermine U.S. credibility and increase therisk of conflict elsewhere.
Second, the United States must be prepared to fightand win under conditions where an adversary mayuse asymmetric means against us – unconventionalapproaches that avoid or undermine our strengthswhile exploiting our vulnerabilities. Because of ourconventional military dominance, adversaries arelikely to use asymmetric means, such as WMD,information operations or terrorism. Suchasymmetric attacks could be used to disrupt thecritical logistics pipeline – from its origins in theUnited States, along sea and air routes, at in-transitrefueling and staging bases, to its termination at
airfields, seaports and supply depots in theater – aswell as our forces deployed in the field.
We are enhancing the preparedness of our ArmedForces to effectively conduct sustained operationsdespite the presence, threat or use of WMD. Theseefforts include development, procurement anddeployment of theater missile defense systems toprotect forward-deployed military personnel, as wellas improved intelligence collection capabilities,heightened security awareness and force protectionmeasures worldwide. We are also enhancing ourability to defend against hostile informationoperations, which could in the future take the form ofa full-scale, strategic information attack against ourcritical national infrastructures, government andeconomy – as well as attacks directed against ourmilitary forces.
Third, our military must also be able to transition tofighting major theater wars from a posture of globalengagement – from substantial levels of peacetimeengagement overseas as well as multiple concurrentsmaller-scale contingency operations. Withdrawingfrom such operations would pose significant politicaland operational challenges. Ultimately, however, theUnited States must accept a degree of riskassociated with withdrawing from contingencyoperations and engagement activities in order toreduce the greater risk incurred if we failed torespond adequately to major theater wars.
The Decision to Employ MilitaryForces
The decision whether to use force is dictated first andforemost by our national interests. In those specificareas where our vital interests are at stake, our useof force will be decisive and, if necessary, unilateral.
In situations posing a threat to important nationalinterests, military forces should only be used if theyadvance U.S. interests, they are likely to accomplishtheir objectives, the costs and risks of theiremployment are commensurate with the interests atstake, and other non-military means are incapable ofachieving our objectives. Such uses of military forcesshould be selective and limited, reflecting theimportance of the interests at stake. We act inconcert with the international community whenever
possible, but do not hesitate to act unilaterally whennecessary.
The decision to employ military forces to support ourhumanitarian and other interests focuses on theunique capabilities and resources the military canbring to bear, rather than on its combat power.Generally, the military is not the best tool forhumanitarian concerns, but under certain conditionsuse of our Armed Forces may be appropriate. Thoseconditions are when the scale of a humanitariancatastrophe dwarfs the ability of civilian reliefagencies to respond, when the need for relief isurgent and only the military has the ability to providean immediate response, when the military is neededto establish the preconditions necessary for effectiveapplication of other instruments of national power,when a humanitarian crisis could affect U.S. combatoperations, or when a response otherwise requiresunique military resources. Such efforts by the UnitedStates, preferably in conjunction with other membersof the international community, will be limited induration, have a clearly defined mission and endstate, entail minimal risk to American lives, and bedesigned to give the affected country the opportunityto restore its own basic services.
In all cases, the costs and risks of U.S. militaryinvolvement must be commensurate with theinterests at stake. We will be more inclined to actwhere there is reason to believe that our action willbring lasting improvement. Our involvement will bemore circumscribed when regional states ororganizations are better positioned to act than weare. Even in these cases, however, the UnitedStates will be actively engaged with appropriatediplomatic, economic and military tools.
In every case, we will consider several criticalquestions before committing military force: Have weexplored or exhausted non-military means that offer areasonable chance of achieving our goals? Is there aclearly defined, achievable mission? What is thethreat environment and what risks will our forcesface? What level of effort will be needed to achieveour goals? What are the potential costs—human andfinancial—of the operation? What are the opportunitycosts in terms of maintaining our capability torespond to higher-priority contingencies? Do wehave milestones and a desired end state to guide adecision on terminating the mission?Having decided that use of military forces isappropriate, the decision on how they will be
employed is based on two guidelines. First, ourforces will have a clear mission and the means toachieve their objectives decisively. Second, as muchas possible, we will seek the support andparticipation of our allies, friends and relevantinternational institutions. When our vital interests areat stake, we are prepared to act alone. But in mostsituations, working with other nations increases theeffectiveness of each nation's actions and lessenseveryone's burden.
Sustaining our engagement abroad over the longterm will require the support of the American peopleand the Congress to bear the costs of defending U.S.interests – including the risk of losing American lives.Some decisions to engage abroad with our militaryforces could well face popular opposition, but mustultimately be judged by whether they advance theinterests of the American people in the long run.When it is judged to be in America’s interest tointervene, we must remain clear in our purposes andresolute in our actions.
Preparing for an UncertainFuture
We must prepare for an uncertain future even as weaddress today's security problems. We need to lookclosely at our national security apparatus to ensureits effectiveness by adapting its institutions to meetnew challenges. This means we must transform ourcapabilities and organizations – diplomatic, defense,intelligence, law enforcement, and economic – to actswiftly and to anticipate new opportunities and threatsin today’s continually evolving, highly complexinternational security environment. Preparing for anuncertain future also means that we must have astrong, competitive, technologically superior,innovative and responsive industrial and researchand development base.
Within the military, transformation requires that westrike a balance among funding three criticalpriorities: maintaining the ability of our forces toshape and respond today, modernizing to protect thelong-term readiness of the force, and transformingour unparalleled capabilities to ensure we caneffectively shape and respond in the future.Transformation also means taking prudent steps toposition ourselves to effectively counter unlikely butsignificant future threats, particularly asymmetric
threats. We also must work with Allies and coalitionpartners to help improve their defense capabilitiesand interoperability with our forces, in order to bolsterthe effectiveness of multinational operations acrossthe full spectrum of potential military missions.
Transformation of our military forces is critical tomeeting the military challenges of the next century.Exploiting the revolution in military affairs isfundamental if U.S. forces are to retain theirdominance in an uncertain world. Investment inresearch and development while closely monitoringtrends in likely future threats are important elementsof our transformation effort. A carefully planned andfocused modernization program will maintain ourtechnological superiority and replace Cold War-eraequipment with new systems and platforms capableof supporting the full spectrum of military operations.
Transformation extends well beyond the acquisitionof new military systems – we seek to leveragetechnological, doctrinal, operational andorganizational innovations to give U.S. forces greatercapabilities and flexibility. Joint Forces Commandand the Armed Services are pursuing an aggressive,wide-ranging innovation and experimentationprogram to achieve that transformation. The on-going integration of the Active and Reservecomponents into a Total Force is another importantelement of the transformation. Despite the rapidpace of technological innovation, the humandimension of warfare remains timeless. In this era ofmultinational operations and complex threatsinvolving ethnic, religious, and cultural strife, regionalexpertise, language proficiency, and cross-culturalcommunications skills have never been moreimportant to the U.S. military. We will continue totransform and modernize our forces, ensure thequality of our personnel, and explore new ways ofoptimizing the Total Force for future missions.
To support the readiness, modernization andtransformation of our military forces, we will work withthe Congress to enact legislation to implement theDefense Reform Initiative, which will free upresources through a revolution in business affairs.This effort includes competitive sourcing, acquisitionreform, transformation of logistics, and elimination ofexcess infrastructure through two additional baserealignment and closure rounds. The Administration,in partnership with the Congress, will continue toassure we maintain the best-trained, best-equipped
and best-led military force in the world for the twenty-first century.
In the area of law enforcement, the United States isalready facing criminal threats that are much broaderin scope and much more sophisticated than those wehave confronted in the past. Ongoing technologicaland economic revolutions such as the Internet andglobalization of markets offer extraordinary benefits,but will also continue to present new dangers. Wemust prepare for the law enforcement challengesarising from emerging technology, globalization oftrade and finance, and other international dynamics.Our strategy for the future calls for the developmentof new investigative tools and approaches as well asincreased integration of effort among lawenforcement agencies at all levels of government,both in America and abroad.
We will continue efforts to construct appropriatetwenty-first century national security programs andstructures government-wide. We will continue tofoster innovative approaches and organizationalstructures to better protect American lives, propertyand interests at home and abroad.
The second core objective of our national securitystrategy is to promote America’s prosperity throughefforts at home and abroad. Our economic andsecurity interests are inextricably linked. Prosperity athome depends on stability in key regions with which wetrade or from which we import critical commodities,such as oil and natural gas. Prosperity also demandsour leadership in international development, financialand trade institutions. In turn, the strength of ourdiplomacy, our ability to maintain an unrivaled militaryand the attractiveness of our values abroad depend inlarge part on the strength of our economy.
As national economies become more integratedinternationally, U.S. prosperity depends more thanever on economic developments abroad.Cooperation with other states and international
organizations is vital to protecting the health of theglobal economic system and responding to financialcrises.
Global financial markets dominated by private capitalflows provide both opportunities and risks, ashighlighted by the international financial crisis of thepast two years. Our goal is to build a stable, resilientglobal financial system that promotes strong globaleconomic growth while providing broad benefits in allcountries. We have worked with our G-7 partnersand the rest of the international community to pursuereforms in six broad areas: strengthening andreforming international institutions and arrangements;enhancing transparency and promoting bestpractices; strengthening financial regulation inindustrial countries; strengthening macroeconomicpolicies and financial systems in emerging markets;improving crisis prevention and management, andinvolving the private sector; and promoting socialpolicies to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
The United States has played an important role ininitiating a process of broader participation infinancial architecture discussions, especially toinclude a substantial number of emerging marketeconomies. In furtherance of this goal, we agreed tocreate the G-20 to provide a new mechanism forinformal dialogue in the framework of the BrettonWoods institutional system to broaden thediscussions on key economic and financial policyissues and promote cooperation to achieve stableand sustainable world economic growth.International financial institutions, particularly theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF), have an importantrole to play in building a stronger global financialsystem. To ensure that it is better positioned to meetthe challenges of the changed world, we are pursuinga number of IMF reforms, including: requiring greateropenness and transparency; building strong nationalfinancial systems; promoting an appropriate role forthe private sector in preventing and resolvingfinancial crises; and giving greater attention in IMFcountry programs to governance, poverty reduction,social, labor, and environmental concerns.
Promoting an Open TradingSystem
In a world where over 96 percent of the world’sconsumers live outside the United States, we must
continue to expand our international trade to sustaineconomic growth at home. The rapidly expandingglobal economy presents enormous opportunities forAmerican companies and workers, particularly inemerging markets. Our prosperity as a nation in thetwenty-first century will depend upon our ability tocompete effectively in international markets.
The Administration remains committed to carryingforward the success of the Uruguay Round under theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),and to the success of the World Trade Organization(WTO) as a forum for openly resolving disputes. Wecompleted the Information Technology Agreement,which goes far toward eliminating tariffs on hightechnology products, and concluded a landmarkWTO agreement that will dramatically liberalize tradein telecommunications services. The WTO agendaincludes further negotiations to reform agriculturaltrade, liberalize service sector markets, encourageunfettered development of electronic commerce, andstrengthen protection for intellectual property rights.
We also have a full agenda of accession negotiationswith economies seeking to join the WTO. The UnitedStates is setting high standards for accession interms of adherence to the rules and market access.Accessions offer an opportunity to help ground neweconomies in the rules-based trading system andreinforce their own reform programs.
An OECD Convention on criminalizing the bribery offoreign officials entered into force in 1999. TheUnited States and 16 other countries are currentlyparties. It provides for a monitoring process, basedon peer review, to evaluate parties' implementation ofthe Convention. As parties enact anti-bribery laws,the tax deductibility of bribes to foreign officials will beeliminated. We are seeking an agreement in theWTO on transparency in government procurement.
We have also made important strides on labor issues.WTO members have affirmed their commitment toobserving core labor standards: the right to organizeand bargain collectively, and prohibitions againstemployment discrimination, child labor and forcedlabor. We will continue pressing for better integrationof the international core labor standards into the WTO'swork, including through closer WTO interaction with theInternational Labor Organization (ILO).
We will continue to ensure that liberalization of tradedoes not come at the expense of national security or
environmental protection. For example, the nationalsecurity, law enforcement and trade policy communitiesworked together to make sure that the WTO agreementliberalizing global investment in telecommunicationswas consistent with U.S. national security interests.Moreover, our leadership in the Uruguay Roundnegotiations led to the incorporation of environmentalprovisions into the WTO agreements and creation ofthe Committee on Trade and Environment, whichcontinues to pursue the goal of ensuring that trade andenvironment policies are mutually supportive.
Although significant differences remain, we madeprogress on this broad agenda at the recent WTOMinisterial meeting in Seattle. We will work to ensurethat a new round of global trade talks includesbringing down barriers in agriculture, manufacturingand services, keeping electronic commerce tariff-free,and ensuring that trade will lift living conditions forworking people everywhere while protecting theenvironment. We remain determined to moveforward on the path of free trade and economicgrowth while ensuring that a human face is put on theglobal economy.
In addition to working in the WTO, the Administrationwill continue to press for more open markets throughregional economic organizations – such as the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC), theTransatlantic Economic Partnership, the President’seconomic partnership with sub-Saharan Africa, andthe Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
Trade agreement implementing authority is essentialfor advancing our nation’s economic interests.Congress has consistently recognized that thePresident must have the authority to break downforeign trade barriers and create good jobs.Accordingly, the Administration will continue to workwith Congress to fashion an appropriate grant of fasttrack authority.
Gaining full benefit of more open markets requires anintegrated strategy that maintains our technologicaladvantages, promotes American exports abroad, andensures that export controls intended to protect ournational security do not unnecessarily make U.S. hightechnology companies less competitive globally.
Technological advantage. We will continue tosupport a vigorous science and technology base thatpromotes economic growth, creates high-wage jobs,sustains a healthy, educated citizenry, and provides thebasis for our future military systems. We will invest ineducation and training to develop a workforce capableof participating in our rapidly changing economy. Andwe will invest in world-class transportation, informationand space infrastructures for the twenty-first century.
Export Advocacy. The Administration createdAmerica’s first national export strategy, reforming theway government works with the private sector toexpand exports. The Trade Promotion CoordinationCommittee has been instrumental in improving exportpromotion efforts, coordinating our export financing,implementing a government-wide advocacy initiative,and updating market information systems and productstandards education.
The export strategy is working, with the United Statesregaining its position as the world’s largest exporter.While our strong export performance has supportedmillions of new, export-related jobs, we must exportmore in the years ahead if we are to further strengthenour trade balance position and raise living standardswith high-wage jobs.
Enhanced Export Control. The United States is aworld leader in high technology exports, includingsatellites, cellular phones, computers, informationsecurity, and commercial aircraft. Some of thistechnology has direct or indirect military applications,or may otherwise be used by states or transnationalorganizations to threaten our national security. Forthat reason, the United States government carefullycontrols high technology exports by placingappropriate restrictions on the sale of goods andtechnologies that could be used for military purposesor otherwise impair our security. These controlsrecognize that in an increasingly competitive globaleconomy where there are many non-U.S. suppliers,excessive restrictions will not limit the availability ofhigh technology goods. Rather, they would serveonly to make U.S. high technology companies lesscompetitive globally, thus losing market share andbecoming less able to produce cutting-edge productsfor the U.S. military and our allies.
Our current policy recognizes that we must balance avariety of factors. While acting to promote hightechnology exports by making license decisions moretransparent, predictable and timely through a rigorous
licensing process administered by the Department ofCommerce, we also expanded review of dual-useapplications by the Departments of Defense, Stateand Energy. If any of these agencies disagree with aproposed export, it can put the issue into a disputeresolution process that can ultimately rise to thePresident. As a result, reviews of dual-use licensesare today more thorough than ever before. In thecase of munitions exports, we are committed to apolicy of responsible restraint in the transfer ofconventional arms and technologies that couldcontribute to WMD. A key goal in the years ahead isto strengthen worldwide controls in those areas.
Encryption is an example of a specific technologywhere careful balance is required. Export controls onencryption must be considered as part of an overallpolicy that balances several important nationalinterests, including promoting secure electroniccommerce, protecting privacy rights, supportingpublic safety and national security interests, andmaintaining U.S. industry leadership. Over the pastyear, the Administration, in consultation with industryand privacy groups, conducted a review of itsencryption policy as well as foreign and domesticmarkets, and announced an updated policy inSeptember 1999. While continuing a balancedapproach, the new policy significantly streamlinesexport controls while protecting critical nationalsecurity interests. When the new encryption exportregulation is published in early 2000, U.S. companieswill be afforded new opportunities to sell theirencryption products without limits on key length toglobal businesses, commercial organizations andindividuals. Most U.S. mass-market softwareproducts, previously limited to 40 and 56 bit keys, willbe approved for export to any end user.
Similarly, computers are a technology where we mustapply export controls in a manner that addresses ournational security concerns and continues to helpstrengthen America’s competitiveness. In doing so,we face extraordinarily rapid technological changes.Maintaining outdated controls on commodity levelcomputers would hurt U.S. companies withoutbenefiting our national security. Recognizing this, theAdministration announced reforms to export controlson computers in July 1999 that permit higher levels ofcomputers to be sold to countries which are friendlyto the United States. For countries that present risksfrom a national security viewpoint, the Administrationwill continue its policy of maintaining a lowerthreshold for military end-users than civilian end-
users. Export control agencies will review advancesin computer technology on an ongoing basis and willprovide the President with recommendations toupdate computer export controls every six months.
U.S. efforts to stem proliferation cannot be effectivewithout the cooperation of other countries. We havestrengthened cooperation through the NuclearSuppliers Group, the Missile Technology ControlRegime, the Zangger Committee, the Australia Groupfor the control of chemical and biological weapons-related related items, and the WassenaarArrangement for greater transparency in conventionalarms transfers. These efforts enlist the worldcommunity in the battle against the proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction, advanced conventionalweapons and sensitive technologies, while at thesame time producing a level playing field for U.S.business by ensuring that our competitors facecorresponding export controls.
Providing for Energy Security
The United States depends on oil for about 40 percentof its primary energy needs, and roughly half of our oilneeds are met with imports. And although we importless than 15% of the oil exported from the Persian Gulf,our allies in Europe and Japan account for about 80%of those exports. The United States is undergoing afundamental shift away from reliance on Middle Eastoil. Venezuela is our number one foreign supplier, andAfrica supplies 15% of our imported oil. Canada,Mexico and Venezuela combined supply almost twiceas much oil to the United States as the Arab OPECcountries. The Caspian Basin, with potential oilreserves of 160 billion barrels, promises to play anincreasingly important role in meeting rising worldenergy demand in coming decades.
Conservation measures and research leading togreater energy efficiency and alternative fuels are acritical element of the U.S. strategy for energysecurity. Our research must continue to focus ondeveloping highly energy-efficient buildings,appliances, and transportation and industrialsystems, shifting them where possible to alternativeor renewable fuels, such as hydrogen, fuel celltechnology, ethanol, or methanol from biomass.
Conservation and energy research notwithstanding, theUnited States will continue to have a vital interest in
ensuring access to foreign oil sources. We mustcontinue to be mindful of the need for regional stabilityand security in key producing areas to ensure ouraccess to, and the free flow of, these resources.
Developing countries face an array of challenges intheir efforts to achieve broad-based economic andsocial progress and participate more fully in theopportunities presented by globalization. Poorenvironmental and natural resource management canimpede sustainable development efforts and promoteregional instability. Many nations are struggling toprovide jobs, education and other services to theircitizens. Three billion people, half the world’spopulation, subsist on less than two dollars a day. Theircontinued poverty leads to hunger, malnutrition,economic migration and political unrest. Malaria, AIDSand other epidemics, including some that can spreadthrough environmental damage, threaten to overwhelmthe health facilities of developing countries, disruptsocieties and economic growth, and spread disease toother parts of the world.
Sustainable development brings higher incomes andmore open markets that create steadily expandingopportunities for U.S. trade and investment. Itimproves the prospects for democracy and socialstability in developing countries and increases globaleconomic growth, on which the demand for U.S.exports depends. It alleviates pressure on the globalenvironment, reduces the attraction of the illegal drugtrade and other illicit commerce, and improves healthand economic productivity. U.S. foreign assistancefocuses on five key elements of sustainabledevelopment: broad-based economic growth, humancapacity development, environmental protection,population and health, and democracy. We willcontinue to advocate environmentally sound privateinvestment and responsible approaches byinternational lenders.
Promoting Democracy andHuman RightsThe third core objective of our national securitystrategy is to promote democracy, human rights, and
respect for the rule of law. In the past decade, themovement of nations away from repressivegovernance and toward democratic and publiclyaccountable institutions has been extraordinary. Sincethe success of many of those changes is by no meansassured, our strategy must focus on strengthening thecommitment and capacity of nations to implementdemocratic reforms, protect human rights, fightcorruption and increase transparency in government.
The United States works to strengthen democratic andfree market institutions and norms in all countries,particularly those making the transition from closed toopen societies. This commitment to see freedom andrespect for human rights take hold is not only just, butpragmatic. Our security depends upon the protectionand expansion of democracy worldwide, without whichrepression, corruption and instability could engulf anumber of countries and threaten the stability of entireregions.
The sometimes-difficult road for new democracies inthe 1990’s demonstrates that free elections are notenough. Genuine, lasting democracy also requiresrespect for human rights, including the right to politicaldissent; freedom of religion and belief; an independentmedia capable of engaging an informed citizenry; arobust civil society; the rule of law and an independentjudiciary; open and competitive economic structures;mechanisms to safeguard minorities from oppressiverule by the majority; full respect for women’s andworkers’ rights; and civilian control of the military.
The United States is helping consolidate democraticand market reforms in Central and Eastern Europeand the newly independent states of the former SovietUnion. Integrating new democracies in Europe intoEuropean political, economic and securityorganizations, such as NATO, OSCE, the EU and theCouncil of Europe, will help lock in and preserve theimpressive progress these nations have made ininstituting democratic and market-economic reforms.Consolidating advances in democracy and freemarkets in our own hemisphere remain a priority. Inthe Asia Pacific region, economic dynamism isincreasingly associated with political modernization,democratic evolution, and the widening of the rule oflaw. Indonesia’s October 1999 election was asignificant step toward democracy and we will do ourpart to help Indonesia continue on that path. In
Africa, we are particularly attentive to states, such asSouth Africa and Nigeria, whose entry into thecommunity of market democracies may influence thefuture direction of an entire region.
The methods for assisting emerging democracies areas varied as the nations involved. Our publicdiplomacy programs are designed to share ourdemocratic experience in both government and civilsociety with the publics in emerging democracies. Wemust continue leading efforts to mobilize internationaleconomic and political resources, as we have withRussia, Ukraine and other countries in Eastern Europeand Eurasia and with Southeast Europe. We must takefirm action to help counter attempts to reversedemocracy, as we have in Haiti and Paraguay.
We must help democratizing nations strengthen thepillars of civil society, supporting administration ofjustice and rule of law programs, promoting theprinciple of civilian control of the military, and trainingforeign police and security forces to solve crimes andmaintain order without violating the basic rights oftheir citizens. And we must seek to improve theirmarket institutions and fight corruption and politicaldiscontent by encouraging good governance practicesand a free and independent local media that promotesthese principles.
Adherence to Universal HumanRights and Democratic Principles
We must sustain our efforts to press for adherence todemocratic principles, and respect for basic humanrights and the rule of law worldwide, including incountries that continue to defy democratic advances.Working bilaterally and through internationalinstitutions, the United States promotes universaladherence to democratic principles and internationalstandards of human rights. Our efforts in the UnitedNations and other organizations are helping to makethese principles the governing standards foracceptable international behavior.
Ethnic conflict represents a great challenge to ourvalues and our security. When it erupts in ethniccleansing or genocide, ethnic conflict is a graveviolation of universal human rights. Innocent civiliansshould not be subject to forcible relocation orslaughter because of their religious, ethnic, racial, ortribal heritage. In addition to being a cause for
concern on humanitarian grounds, ethnic conflict canthreaten regional stability and may give rise topotentially serious national security concerns.
We will work to strengthen the capacity of theinternational community to prevent and, wheneverpossible, stop outbreaks of mass killing anddisplacement. The United States and other countriescannot respond to every humanitarian crisis in theworld. But when the world community has the powerto stop genocide and ethnic cleansing, we will workwith our allies and partners, and with the UnitedNations, to mobilize against such violence – as wedid in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Our response will not be the same in every case.Sometimes collective military action is bothappropriate and feasible. Sometimes concertedeconomic and political pressure, combined withdiplomacy, is a better answer. The way theinternational community responds will depend uponthe capacity of countries to act, and on theirperception of their national interests.
Events in the Bosnia conflict and preceding the 1994genocide in Rwanda demonstrate the unfortunatepower of inaccurate and malicious information inconflict-prone situations. We must enhance our abilityto make effective use of our communications andinformation capabilities to counter misinformation andincitement, mitigate ethnic conflict, promoteindependent media organizations and the free flow ofinformation, and support democratic participation.
We will also continue to work – bilaterally and withinternational institutions – to ensure that internationalhuman rights principles protect the most vulnerableor traditionally oppressed groups in the world –women, children, workers, refugees and otherpersecuted persons. To this end, we will seek tostrengthen international mechanisms that promotehuman rights and address violations of internationalhumanitarian law, such as the UN Human RightsCommission and the international war crimes tribunalsfor the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We stronglysupport wide ratification of the ILO Convention on theWorst Forms of Child Labor. We also aim toimplement fully those international human rightstreaties to which we are a party.
It is our aim to ensure temporary protection for personsfleeing situations of armed conflict or generalizedhuman rights abuses by encouraging governments to
not return refugees to countries where they facepersecution or torture. We also seek to focusadditional attention on the more vulnerable ortraditionally oppressed people by spearheading newinternational initiatives to combat the sexualexploitation of minors, child labor, homelessnessamong children, and the use of child soldiers.
Violence against and trafficking in women andchildren are international problems with nationalimplications. We have seen cases of trafficking in theUnited States for purposes of forced prostitution,sweatshop labor and domestic servitude. Our effortshave expanded to combat this problem, bothnationally and internationally, by increasingawareness, focusing on prevention, providing victimassistance and protection, and enhancing lawenforcement. The President continues to call uponthe Senate to give its advice and consent toratification to the Convention on the Elimination of allForms of Discrimination Against Women, which willenhance our efforts to combat violence againstwomen, reform unfair inheritance and property rights,and strengthen women's access to fair employmentand economic opportunity.
Promotion of religious freedom is one of the highestconcerns in our foreign policy. Freedom of thought,conscience and religion is a bedrock issue for theAmerican people. To that end, the President signedthe International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, whichprovides the flexibility needed to advance religiousfreedom and to counter religious persecution. InSeptember 1999, we completed the first phase outlinedin the Act with publication of the first annual report onthe status of religious freedom worldwide, and inOctober, we designated the most severe violators ofreligious freedom. The United States is activethroughout the world assisting those who arepersecuted because of their religion and promotingfreedom of religious belief and practice. We willcontinue to work with individual nations and withinternational institutions to combat religiouspersecution and promote religious freedom.
The United States will continue to speak out againsthuman rights abuses and carry on human rightsdialogues with countries willing to engage with usconstructively. Because police and internal securityservices can be a source of human rights violations,we use training and contacts between U.S. lawenforcement and their foreign counterparts to help
address these problems. We do not provide trainingto police or military units implicated in human rightsabuses. When appropriate, we are prepared to takestrong measures against human rights violators.These include economic sanctions, visa restrictionsand restricting sales of arms and police equipment thatmay be used to commit human rights abuses.
Our efforts to promote democracy and human rightsare complemented by our humanitarian programs,which are designed to alleviate human suffering,address resource and economic crises that couldhave global implications, pursue appropriatestrategies for economic development, and supportand promote democratic regimes that respect humanrights and the rule of law.
We also must seek to promote reconciliation in statesexperiencing civil conflict and to address migration andrefugee crises. To this end, the United States willprovide appropriate financial support and work withother nations and international bodies, such as theInternational Committee of the Red Cross and the UNHigh Commissioner for Refugees. We also will assistefforts to protect the rights of refugees and displacedpersons and to address the economic and social rootcauses of internal displacement and internationalflight.
Private firms and non-governmental organizations arenatural allies in activities and efforts intended toaddress humanitarian crises and bolster democracyand market economies. We have natural partners inlabor unions, human rights groups, environmentaladvocates, chambers of commerce and electionmonitors in promoting democracy and respect forhuman rights and in providing internationalhumanitarian assistance; thus, we should promotedemocratization efforts through private and non-governmental groups as well as foreign governments.
Supporting the global movement toward democracyrequires a pragmatic, long-term effort focused on bothvalues and institutions. Our goal is a broadening of thecommunity of free-market democracies, and strongerinstitutions and international non-governmentalmovements committed to human rights anddemocratization.
III. Integrated Regional Approaches
Our policies toward different regions reflect our overallstrategy tailored to their unique challenges andopportunities.
Europe and Eurasia
European stability is vital to our own security. TheUnited States has two strategic goals in Europe. Thefirst is to build a Europe that is truly integrated,democratic, prosperous and at peace -- a realizationof the vision the United States launched 50 years agowith the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization (NATO). Our second goal is to workwith our allies and partners across the Atlantic tomeet the global challenges no nation can meet alone.This means working together to consolidate thisregion’s historic transition in favor of democracy andfree markets; to support peace efforts in troubledregions; to tackle global threats such asenvironmental and health problems, terrorism, drugtrafficking, the spread of weapons of massdestruction and other potentially dangeroustechnologies; and to build a more open worldeconomy without barriers to transatlantic trade andinvestment.
NATO remains the anchor of American engagementin Europe and the linchpin of transatlantic security.As the leading guarantor of European security and aforce for European stability, NATO must play aleading role in promoting a more integrated and secureEurope, prepared to respond to new challenges. Wewill maintain approximately 100,000 military personnelin Europe to fulfill our commitments to NATO, providea visible deterrent against aggression and coercion,contribute to regional stability, respond to crises,sustain our vital transatlantic ties and preserve U.S.leadership in NATO.
NATO is pursuing several initiatives to enhance itsability to respond to the new challenges it will face inthe twenty-first century. At NATO's FiftiethAnniversary Summit in April 1999, Alliance leadersadopted an expansive agenda to adapt and prepareNATO for current and future challenges. Thisincluded an updated Strategic Concept, whichenvisions a larger, more capable and more flexibleAlliance, committed to collective defense and able toundertake new missions. The Defense CapabilitiesInitiative aims to improve defense capabilities andinteroperability among NATO military forces, thusbolstering the effectiveness of multinationaloperations across the full spectrum of Alliancemissions, to include Partner forces whereappropriate. The WMD Initiative will increase Allianceefforts against weapons of mass destruction and theirmeans of delivery.
NATO enlargement has been a crucial element of theU.S. and Allied strategy to build an undivided,peaceful Europe. At the April 1999 NATO Summit,the alliance welcomed the entry of Poland, Hungaryand the Czech Republic as new members. Thesethree nations will make the Alliance stronger whilehelping to enlarge Europe's zone of democraticstability.
Together with our Allies, we are pursuing efforts tohelp other countries that aspire to membershipbecome the best possible candidates. These effortsinclude the NATO Membership Action Plan and ourPartnership for Peace. We are also continuingbilateral programs to advance this agenda, such asthe President’s Warsaw Initiative, which is playing acritical role in promoting Western-style reform of thearmed forces of Central and Eastern Europe andEurasia and helping them become moreinteroperable with NATO. Some European nationsdo not desire NATO membership, but do desirestrengthened ties with the Alliance. The Partnershipfor Peace provides an ideal vehicle for suchrelationships. It formalizes relations, provides a
mechanism for mutual beneficial interaction andestablishes a sound basis for combined action shouldthat be desired. This can be seen in the majorcontributions some Partnership for Peace membershave made to NATO missions in the Balkans.
NATO is pursuing several other initiatives to enhanceits ability to respond to new challenges and deepenties between the Alliance and Partner countries.NATO has launched the Euro-Atlantic PartnershipCouncil to strengthen political dialogue and practicalcooperation with all Partners, and established adistinctive partnership with Ukraine, which provides aframework for enhanced relations and practicalcooperation. As a result of the 1997 NATO-RussiaFounding Act, NATO and Russia launched thePermanent Joint Council to enhance politicalconsultation and practical cooperation, while retainingNATO's decision-making authority. Our shared goalremains to deepen and expand constructive Russianparticipation in the European security system.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation inEurope (OSCE) has a key role to play in enhancingEurope’s stability. It provides the United States witha venue for developing Europe's security architecturein a manner that complements our NATO strategy. Inmany instances, cooperating through the OSCE tosecure peace, deter aggression, and prevent, defuseand manage crises offers a comparative advantagebecause it is more cost effective than unilateralaction. The November 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summitagreed on principles and modalities to further suchcooperation in the Charter on European Security.The Charter commits members to, among otherthings, the establishment of Rapid Expert Assistanceand Cooperation Teams to assist in conflictprevention and crisis management. The Charter alsorecognizes that European security in the twenty-firstcentury increasingly depends on building securitywithin societies as well as security between states.The United States will continue to give strong supportto the OSCE as our best choice to engage all thecountries of Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asiain an effort to advance democracy, human rights andthe rule of law, and to encourage them to support oneanother when instability, insecurity and human rightsviolations threaten peace in the region.
The Balkans and Southeastern Europe: TheUnited States has an abiding interest in peace in thisregion because continued instability there threatensEuropean security. We are working to advance the
integration of several new democracies inSoutheastern Europe (Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria,Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, and Slovenia) into theEuropean mainstream. More specifically, thePresident's Action Plan for Southeast Europe seeksto promote further democratic, economic and militaryreforms in these countries, to encourage greaterregional cooperation, advance common interests,such as closer contact with NATO, and increased lawenforcement training and exchanges to assist in thefight against organized crime. We are working topromote increased security cooperation amongNATO Allies and Partners in the region through theSoutheast Europe Defense Ministerial process andNATO’s Southeast Europe Initiative. We are alsoworking with the region, the EU and others tostrengthen overall democratization, economicdevelopment and security through the Stability Pactfor Southeastern Europe, initiated by the EU andlaunched by President Clinton and other leaders atSarajevo in July 1999. The Pact also seeks todeepen regional cooperation and draw thosecountries closer to the rest of Europe and the UnitedStates, thereby giving them an opportunity todemonstrate that they are ready for integration intoEuro-Atlantic institutions.
Kosovo and Serbia-Montenegro: After this year’ssuccessful NATO intervention in Kosovo, the stabilityof the Balkans is still threatened by the vestiges ofethnic hatred and political repression. As the UnitedStates and NATO remain engaged in helping thepeople of the region build a stable and secure futurefor the Balkans, we remain prepared to addressrenewed threats to the region’s stability.Constitutional challenges between Serbia and ademocratic and reform-minded Montenegro pose adanger for renewed conflict. And in Kosovo, the lastdecade of Serbia’s systemic repression of KosovarAlbanians leaves a volatile mixture ofdisenfranchisement, displacement and revenge-seekers.
NATO military operations against Serbia in the springof 1999 had three clear goals: the withdrawal of allSerb military, paramilitary, and police forces fromKosovo; the unconditional and safe return of allrefugees and displaced persons to Kosovo; anddeployment of an international security force, withNATO at its core, to protect all the people of Kosovo-- Serbs, Albanians and others. Those goals wereachieved. Now, NATO, the UN and the internationalcommunity face the challenge of establishing a stable
environment that provides for the security and dignityof all people in Kosovo. Much has been achieved tothis end. Mine fields are being cleared; homes arebeing rebuilt; nearly a million Kosovars who returnedto the province are receiving food, shelter andmedicine; investigations into the fate of the missingare ongoing; and the Kosovar Liberation Army hasbeen demilitarized.
Over 48,000 troops from 30 countries haveparticipated in the Kosovo Force (KFOR). OurEuropean allies have provided the vast majority ofthem; America will continue to contribute about7,000. Russian and other non-NATO participation inKFOR remains an important demonstration ofinternational commitment and provides reassuranceto all the people of Kosovo that they will live in peaceand security. KFOR continues to operate underNATO command and control and rules ofengagement set by NATO. It has the means and themandate to protect itself while doing its job. Underthe security environment established by KFOR, theUnited Nations has established an interim civilianadministration and a 4,700-person internationalpolice force that will assist the Kosovars in buildinginstitutions of self-government. As local institutionstake hold, and as international and indigenous policeforces establish law and order, NATO will be able toturn over increasing responsibility to them.
A final challenge will be to encourage Serbia to joinits neighbors in this historic journey to a peaceful,democratic, united Europe. But as long as SlobodanMilosevic remains in power we will not providesupport for the reconstruction of Serbia. We areproviding humanitarian aid, and will be willing to helpbuild a better future for Serbia when its governmentrepresents tolerance and freedom, not repressionand terror. We are also providing support fordemocratic forces in Serbia to strengthenindependent political parties and a free media, and toaccelerate Serbia's transition to democracy.
Bosnia and Croatia: Full implementation of theDayton Accords is the best hope for creating a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia. NATO-led forces arecontributing to a secure environment in Bosnia andproviding essential support for broader progress inimplementing the Dayton Accords. However, furtherprogress is necessary to create conditions that willallow implementation to continue without a majorinternational military presence. We continue tosupport the efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia by assisting in the location,detention and transfer of suspected war criminals, andsupporting the international community’s efforts toeliminate corruption, expose outside influence, facilitatethe return of refugees, and promote justice andreconciliation in Bosnia. We are working to acceleratemarket economic reforms in Bosnia and Croatia andsupport a transition to democracy in Croatia.
Cyprus and the Aegean: Tensions on Cyprus,Greek-Turkish disagreements in the Aegean andTurkey’s relationship with the EU have seriousimplications for regional stability and the evolution ofEuropean political and security structures. Our goalsare to stabilize the region by reducing long-standingGreek-Turkish tensions and pursuing a comprehensivesettlement on Cyprus. A democratic, secular, stableand Western-oriented Turkey is critical to these effortsand has supported broader U.S. efforts to enhancestability in Bosnia, the nations of the former SovietUnion and the Middle East, as well as to contain Iranand Iraq. The President’s recent trip to Turkey andGreece highlighted encouraging signs of progress forreconciliation in the region, including talks on theCyprus dispute that are being held under the auspicesof the UN in New York. The EU's historic decision at itsHelsinki Summit to grant candidate status to Turkeyreinforced this positive trend.
The Baltic States: The special nature of ourrelationship with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania isrecognized in the 1998 Charter of Partnership, whichclarifies the principles upon which U.S. relations withthe Baltic states are based and provides a frameworkfor strengthening ties and pursuing common goals.These goals include integration of Latvia, Lithuaniaand Estonia into the transatlantic community anddevelopment of close, cooperative relationshipsamong all the states in Northeastern Europe.Through the Northern European Initiative we seek tostrengthen regional cooperation, enhance regionalsecurity and stability, and promote the growth ofWestern institutions, trade and investment bybringing together the governments and private sectorinterests in the Baltic and Nordic countries, Poland,Germany and Russia.
Northern Ireland: Historic progress was achieved inimplementing the Good Friday Accord when, onDecember 2, 1999, an inclusive power-sharinggovernment was formed in Northern Ireland, theprinciple of consent was accepted with respect to any
change in the territorial status of Northern Ireland,new institutions were launched for North-Southcooperation on the island of Ireland, and the IrishRepublican Army named a representative to theIndependent International Commission onDecommissioning of paramilitary weapons (loyalistparamilitaries named their representatives to thecommission soon thereafter). These developmentsfollowed continued progress in promoting humanrights and equality in Northern Ireland, including theimportant recommendations put forward for policereform in the Patten Report issued on September 9,1999.
The United States continues to work with the Britishand Irish governments and the political leaders inNorthern Ireland to achieve full implementation of theGood Friday Accord. Working through theInternational Fund for Ireland and the private sector,we will help the people seize the opportunities thatpeace will bring to attract new investment and bridgethe community divide, create new factories,workplaces and jobs, and establish new centers oflearning for the twenty-first Century.
Russia and the Newly Independent States (NIS):There is no historical precedent for the transitionunderway in Russia, Ukraine, and other NIS. TheUnited States has core national interests at stake inthose endeavors and has acted quickly to helppeople across the NIS to break the back of the Sovietregime. But the Soviet system’s collapse creatednew challenges. In Russia, for example, rigidity oftengave way to laxness and disorder – too many ruleswere replaced by too few. The United States’strategy of engagement with each of the NISrecognizes that their transformation will be a long-term endeavor, with far-reaching implications forregional and global stability, as well asdisappointments and setbacks along the way.
Russia, Ukraine, and most other NIS are nowelectoral democracies, although we will continue toengage with all these countries to improve theirelectoral processes and help strengthen civil societyby working with grassroots organization, independentmedia and emerging entrepreneurs. Though thetransition from communism to market democracy isfar from complete, the NIS have largely dismantledstate controls over their economies and liberalizedprices. It is in our national interest to help them buildthe laws, institutions and skills needed for a marketdemocracy, to fight crime and corruption and to
advance human rights and the rule of law. Theconflict in Chechnya represents a major problem inRussia’s post-Communist development andrelationship with the international community; themeans Russia is pursuing in Chechnya areundermining its legitimate objective of upholding itsterritorial integrity and protecting citizens fromterrorism and lawlessness.
The United States strategy in Russia and the NIS hasmade every American safer. Threat reductionprograms have helped deactivate former Sovietnuclear warheads and make it far less likely thatsensitive materials, technology, expertise, orequipment do not fall into the wrong hands. We areworking aggressively to strengthen export controls inRussia and the other NIS and to stem proliferation ofsensitive missile and nuclear technology to countriesof concern such as Iran. The Administration hassupported the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofthe NIS, including through agreement on an adaptedCFE Treaty, which provides schedules for thewithdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia andMoldova. The integration of Russia, Ukraine, andother NIS with the new Europe and the internationalcommunity remains a key priority. Despitedisagreements over NATO enlargement and theKosovo conflict, Russian troops serve shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. and NATO forces in Kosovo andBosnia. The United States remains committed tofurther development of the NATO-Russia relationshipand the NATO-Ukraine distinctive partnership.
Europe is a key element in America's globalcommercial engagement. Europe and the UnitedStates produce almost half of all global goods andservices; more than 60% of total U.S. investmentabroad is in Europe; and fourteen million workers onboth sides of the Atlantic earn their livelihoods fromtransatlantic commerce. As part of the NewTransatlantic Agenda launched in 1995, the UnitedStates and the EU agreed to take concrete steps toreduce barriers to trade and investment throughcreation of an open New Transatlantic Marketplace andthrough Mutual Recognition Agreements in goods thateliminate redundant testing and certificationrequirements. Our governments are also cooperatingclosely with the civil society dialogues establishedunder the New Transatlantic Agenda: the Transatlantic
Business Dialogue, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue,Transatlantic Environment Dialogue, and TransatlanticLabor Dialogue. These people-to-people dialoguescreate opportunities for increased communicationfocusing on best practices, and can help theirgovernments identify and reduce barriers to greatertransatlantic interaction. In return, our governmentsshould be committed to listen, learn, and facilitate.
Building on the New Transatlantic Agenda, the UnitedStates and the EU launched the TransatlanticEconomic Partnership in 1998 to deepen oureconomic relations, reinforce our political ties andreduce trade frictions. The first element of theinitiative is reducing barriers that affectmanufacturing, agriculture and services. In themanufacturing area we are focusing on standardsand technical barriers that American businesses haveidentified as the most significant obstacle toexpanding trade. In the agricultural area we arefocusing on regulatory barriers that have inhibited theexpansion of agriculture trade, particularly in thebiotechnology area. In the area of services we seekto facilitate trade in specific service sectors, therebycreating new opportunities for the service industriesthat are already so active in the European market.
The second element of the Transatlantic EconomicPartnership is a broader, cooperative approach toaddressing a wide range of trade issues. We willcontinue not imposing duties on electronictransmissions and develop a work program in theWTO for electronic commerce. We will seek to adoptcommon positions and effective strategies foraccelerating compliance with WTO commitments onintellectual property. We will seek to promotegovernment procurement opportunities, includingpromoting compatibility of electronic procurementinformation and government contracting systems. Topromote fair competition, we will seek to enhance thecompatibility of our procedures with potentiallysignificant reductions in cost for Americancompanies.
The United States strongly supports the process ofEuropean integration embodied in the EU. We supportEU enlargement, and we are also encouraging bilateraltrade and investment in non-EU countries. Werecognize that EU nations face significant economicchallenges and that periods of economic stagnationhave eroded public support for fundingoutward-looking foreign policies and greaterintegration. We are working closely with our
European partners to expand employment, promotelong-term growth and support the New TransatlanticAgenda.
By supporting historic market reforms in Central andEastern Europe and in the NIS, we help newdemocracies take root by avoiding conditions, suchas corruption and poverty, that can weakendemocratic governance and erode the appeal ofdemocratic values. The United States will continuehelping the NIS economies integrate into internationaleconomic and other institutions and develop healthybusiness climates. We will continue to promotepolitical and economic reform in Russia, working tocreate a thriving market economy while guardingagainst corruption.
We are working with many NIS countries to promotetheir accession to the WTO on commercially fair terms.Building on successful accession of Kyrgyzstan, Latviaand Estonia, we have made significant progress on theaccession of Georgia, Albania, Armenia, Croatia,Lithuania and Moldova. We also have held fruitfuldiscussions on WTO with Russia and Ukraine. Wewill continue to mobilize the international communityto provide assistance to support reform and to helpthe Central and Eastern European and NIS countriesstimulate foreign and domestic private investment.We are also encouraging investment in thesecountries, especially by U.S. companies.
We are focusing particular attention on investment inCaspian energy resources and their export from theCaucasus region to world markets, thereby expandingand diversifying world energy supplies and promotingprosperity in the region. A stable and prosperousCaucasus and Central Asia will facilitate rapiddevelopment and transport to international markets ofthe large Caspian oil and gas resources, withsubstantial U.S. commercial participation. Resolutionof regional conflicts such as Nagorno-Karabakh andAbkhazia is important for creating the stabilitynecessary for development and transport of Caspianresources.
On November 18, 1999, President Clinton waspresent in Istanbul, Turkey for the signing of theBaku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline agreement and theTrans-Caspian Gas Pipeline Declaration. Weactively supported the negotiations leading to theseagreements and will continue to be actively engagedin both pipeline projects. We believe that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the trans-Caspian gas
pipeline are commercially viable. The Export-ImportBank and OPIC stand ready to provide the necessaryfinancing and insurance on a commercial basis tohelp bring these projects to fruition. The trans-Caspian gas pipeline is planned to begin deliveringgas to Turkey in 2002 and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhanpipeline is planned to begin delivering oil by 2004.
We support these agreements because they willachieve several important goals. They will help fulfillour commitment to the prosperity and independenceof the Caspian states. The agreements will help thedevelopment of their societies into democratic, stablecommonwealths, and will bolster relationships amongthe states. Countries on both sides of the Caspian –Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, Kazakhstan andTurkmenistan – will be working together, united by asingle vision. Development of Caspian energyresources will improve our energy security, as well asthat of Turkey and other allies. It will createcommercial opportunities for U.S. companies andother companies around the world. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is also the most environmentallysound approach to transporting oil resources from theCaspian region to world markets.
Democratic reforms in Central and Eastern Europeand Eurasia are the best measures to avert conditionsthat could foster ethnic violence and regional conflict.Already, the prospect of joining or rejoining theWestern democratic family has strengthened the forcesof democracy and reform in many countries of theregion. Together with our West European partnerswe are helping these nations build civil societies. Forexample, the CIVITAS organization has carried out ajoint civic education program in Bosnia-Herzegovina,and a similar project is planned for Ukraine.Throughout the region, targeted exchange programshave familiarized key decision-makers and opinion-molders with the workings of American democracy.
The independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, anddemocratic and economic reform of the NIS areimportant to American interests. To advance thesegoals, we are utilizing our bilateral relationships and ourleadership of international institutions to mobilizegovernmental and private resources. But thecircumstances affecting the smaller countries dependin significant measure on the fate of reform in the
largest and most powerful—Russia. The United Stateswill continue to promote Russian reform andinternational integration, and to build on the progressthat already has been made. Our economic andpolitical support for the Russian government dependson its commitment to internal reform and a responsibleforeign policy.
East Asia and the Pacific
President Clinton’s vision of a new Pacific communitylinks security interests with economic growth and ourcommitment to democracy and human rights. Wecontinue to build on that vision, cementing America’srole as a stabilizing force in a more integrated AsiaPacific region.
Our military presence has been essential tomaintaining the peace and security that have enabledmost nations in the Asia-Pacific region to build thrivingeconomies for the benefit of all. To deter aggressionand secure our own interests, we maintain about100,000 military personnel in the region. The U.S.-Japan security alliance anchors the U.S. presence inthe Asia-Pacific region. Our continuing security role isfurther reinforced by our bilateral treaty alliances withthe Republic of Korea, Australia, Thailand and thePhilippines. We are maintaining healthy relations withthe Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)and supporting regional dialogue – such as in theASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) – on the full range ofcommon security challenges.
Japan: The United States and Japan reaffirmed ourbilateral security relationship in the April 1996 JointSecurity Declaration. The alliance remains thecornerstone for achieving common securityobjectives and for maintaining a peaceful andprosperous environment for the Asia Pacific region aswe enter the twenty-first century. The 1997 revisedGuidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperationcreate a solid basis for more effective and credibleU.S.-Japan cooperation in peacetime, in the event ofan armed attack on Japan, and in situations in areassurrounding Japan. They provide a generalframework and policy direction for the roles andmissions of the two countries, and ways ofcoordinating our efforts in peacetime and
contingencies. The revised Guidelines, like the U.S.-Japan security relationship itself, are not directedagainst any other country; rather, they enable theU.S.-Japan alliance to continue fostering peace andsecurity throughout the region. In April 1998, in orderto support the new Guidelines, both governmentsagreed to a revised Acquisition and Cross-ServicingAgreement (ACSA) which expands the provision ofsupplies and services to include reciprocal provisionof logistics support during situations surroundingJapan that have an important influence on Japan’speace and security. Japan approved implementinglegislation for the Guidelines in the spring of 1999.Japan’s generous host nation support for the U.S.overseas presence also serves as a critical strategiccontribution to the alliance and to regional security.
Our bilateral security cooperation has broadened asa result of recent agreements to undertake jointresearch and development on theater missiledefense and to cooperate on Japan’s indigenoussatellite program. Moreover, we work closely withJapan to promote regional peace and stability, seekuniversal adherence to the Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty, and address the dangers posed by transfersof destabilizing conventional arms and sensitive dual-use technologies. Japan is providing $1 billion to theKorean Peninsula Energy Development Organization(KEDO), and consults closely with the United Statesand ROK on issues relating to North Korea.
Korean Peninsula: Tensions on the KoreanPeninsula remain the leading threat to peace andstability in East Asia. The Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea (DPRK) has publicly stated apreference for peaceful reunification, but continues todedicate a large portion of its dwindling resources toits huge military forces. Renewed conflict has beenprevented since 1953 by a combination of theArmistice Agreement, which brought an end to openhostilities; the United Nations Command, which hasvisibly represented the will of the UN Security Councilto secure peace; and the physical presence of U.S.and ROK troops in the Combined Forces Command,which has demonstrated the alliance’s resolve.
President Kim Dae-jung continues to pursue a coursetoward peace and stability on the Korean peninsula,seeking new channels of dialogue with North Koreaand developing areas of cooperation between Southand North. During their July 1999 meeting inWashington, President Clinton and President Kimreaffirmed the need for direct dialogue between
South and North to build a more permanent peace,and the indispensability of the strong U.S.-ROKdefense alliance as a stabilizing pillar for the region.President Clinton strongly restated his support forPresident Kim’s vision of engagement and effortstoward reconciliation with the North. The UnitedStates is working to create conditions of stability bymaintaining solidarity with our South Korean ally,emphasizing America’s commitment to shaping apeaceful and prosperous Korean Peninsula, andensuring that an isolated and struggling North Koreadoes not opt for a military solution to its political andeconomic problems.
Peaceful resolution of the Korean conflict with ademocratic, non-nuclear, reunified peninsula willenhance peace and security in the East Asian regionand is clearly in our strategic interest. We are willing toimprove bilateral political and economic ties with NorthKorea – consistent with the objectives of our alliancewith the ROK – to draw the North into more normalrelations with the region and the rest of the world. Butour willingness to improve bilateral relations willcontinue to be commensurate with the North’scooperation in efforts to reduce tensions on thepeninsula.
South Korea has set an example for nonproliferationby forswearing nuclear weapons, accepting IAEAsafeguards, and developing a peaceful nuclearprogram that brings benefits to the region. We arefirm that North Korea must maintain the freeze onproduction and reprocessing of fissile material,dismantle its graphite-moderated reactors and relatedfacilities, and fully comply with its NPT obligationsunder the Agreed Framework. The United States, too,must fulfill its obligations under the Agreed Frameworkand the Administration will work with the Congress toensure the success of our efforts to address the NorthKorean nuclear threat.
Beyond fully implementing the Agreed Framework, weseek to eliminate North Korea’s development andexport of long-range missiles and weapons of massdestruction through a step-by-step process. Based onU.S.-North Korean discussions in September 1999, it isour understanding that North Korea will continue torefrain from testing long-range missiles of any kind aswe move toward more normal relations. Workingclosely with our ROK and Japanese allies, we willimprove relations with North Korea on the basis of theirmoving forward on the missile and WMD agendas, and
we will take necessary measures in the other directionif the North chooses to go down a different path.The North also needs to engage in a productivedialogue with South Korea; continue the United NationsCommand-Korean People's Army General OfficerDialogue at Panmunjom; participate constructively inthe Four Party Talks among the United States, China,and North and South Korea to reduce tensions andnegotiate a peace agreement; and support our effortsto recover the remains of American servicemenmissing since the Korean War.
China: A stable, open, prosperous People'sRepublic of China (PRC) that respects internationalnorms and assumes its responsibilities for building amore peaceful world is clearly and profoundly in ourinterests. The prospects for peace and prosperity inAsia depend heavily on China’s role as a responsiblemember of the international community. Our policytoward China is both principled and pragmatic,expanding our areas of cooperation while dealingforthrightly with our differences. Despite strains in therelationship resulting from the tragic accidentalbombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade, we havecontinued to engage China on these issues.
The United States and China have taken a number ofadditional steps to strengthen cooperation ininternational affairs: presidential visits to each other'scapitals; establishing the Vice President-PremierForum on environment and development; regularexchanges of visits by cabinet and sub-cabinetofficials to consult on political, military, security, armscontrol and human rights issues; establishing aconsultation mechanism to strengthen militarymaritime safety; holding discussions on humanitarianassistance and disaster relief, and environmentalsecurity; and establishing working groups on lawenforcement cooperation. China is also a majorpartner in science, technology and health research.
U.S. interests have been advanced in discussionswith China on arms control and nonproliferationissues. In 1998, the United States and Chinaannounced that they will not target their strategicnuclear weapons at each other and confirmed theircommon goal of halting the spread of WMD. Bothour nations have signed the Comprehensive TestBan Treaty. We have consulted on the MissileTechnology Control Regime and missilenonproliferation, and we continue to press China toavoid destabilizing missile technology sales to other
countries. Both our nations have signed theChemical Weapons Convention, and we have agreedto further strengthen controls on the export of dual-use chemicals and related production equipment andtechnology to assure they are not used for productionof chemical weapons. China also has expanded thelist of chemical precursors that it controls. Bothnations have called for strengthening of the BiologicalWeapons Convention and early conclusion of aprotocol establishing a practical and effectivemechanism to enhance compliance and improvetransparency. We also reached agreement withChina on practices for end-use visits on U.S. hightechnology exports to China and continue a dialogueon implementation of this agreement.
China is working with the United States on importantregional security issues. In South Asia, China hascondemned India and Pakistan for conductingnuclear tests and joined us in urging them to conductno more tests, to sign the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty, to avoid deploying or testing missiles, and towork to resolve their differences through dialogue.On the Korean Peninsula, the United States andChina share an interest in peace and stability. Wehave both worked to convince North Korea to freezeits dangerous nuclear program, and believe the four-party peace talks are an important tool in workingtoward establishment of peace and stability inNortheast Asia. To help maintain peace, security, andstability in the Western Pacific and to promote ourbroad foreign policy objectives we are implementingfully the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act bymaintaining robust unofficial relations between theAmerican people and the people of Taiwan.
Our key security objectives for the future include:sustaining the strategic dialogue begun by the recentsummits and other high-level exchanges; enhancingstability in the Taiwan Strait through maintenance ofour “one China” policy, peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues and encouraging dialogue betweenBeijing and Taipei; strengthening China's adherenceto international nonproliferation norms, particularly inexport controls on ballistic missile and dual-usetechnologies; restarting our bilateral discussions onarms control ; achieving greater openness andtransparency in China's military; encouraging aconstructive PRC role in international affairs throughactive cooperation in multilateral fora such as theASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Asia PacificEconomic Cooperation Forum (APEC); and
improving law enforcement cooperation in such areasas counterterrorism and counternarcotics.
Southeast Asia: Our strategic interest in SoutheastAsia centers on developing regional and bilateralsecurity and economic relationships that assist inconflict prevention and resolution and expand U.S.participation in the region’s economies. U.S. securityobjectives in the region are: to maintain our securityalliances with Australia, Thailand and the Philippines;to sustain security access arrangements withSingapore and other ASEAN countries; and toencourage the emergence of a strong, cohesiveASEAN capable of enhancing regional security andprosperity. The Philippine Senate’s ratification of theVisiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in May 1999 is oneexample of how our continuing engagementenhances both bilateral defense cooperation as wellas regional security interests.
Our policy combines two approaches. First, we mustmaintain our increasingly productive relationship withASEAN and enhancing our security dialogue underthe ARF. Second, we must pursue bilateral initiativeswith individual Southeast Asian nations to promotedemocracy, human rights and political stability; fostermarket-oriented economic reforms; and reduce theeffects of organized crime, particularly the flow ofheroin from Burma and other countries in the region.
In 1999, the United States, in partnership with themember nations of ASEAN, opened the InternationalLaw Enforcement Academy in Bangkok, Thailand.Officials of the U.S. Drug EnforcementAdministration, U.S. Customs Service, FBI and otheragencies provide high-caliber training in areas suchas drug trafficking, alien smuggling, cyber crime, andother transnational threats. The International LawEnforcement Academy also promotes cooperationand information sharing, as well as significantlyimproving regional counterdrug capabilities.
A prosperous and open Asia Pacific is key to theeconomic health of the United States. On the eve ofthe recent financial problems in Asia, the 21members of APEC – which includes the UnitedStates, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile and Russia,along with East Asian nations – contributed aboutone-half of total global gross domestic product and
exports. Thirty percent of U.S. exports go to Asia,supporting millions of U.S. jobs, and we export moreto Asia than Europe. Our economic objectives inEast Asia include: continued recovery from the recentfinancial crisis; further progress within APEC towardliberalizing trade and investment; increased U.S.exports to Asian countries through market-openingmeasures and leveling the playing field for U.S.business; and WTO accession for the PRC andTaiwan on satisfactory commercial terms.Opportunities for economic growth abound in Asiaand underlie our strong commitment to economiccooperation, such as via the annual APEC leadersmeetings.
Our economic strategy in Asia has four key elements:support for economic reforms and market opening;working with international financial institutions toprovide well-targeted economic and technicalassistance in support of economic reforms; providingbilateral humanitarian aid and contingency bilateralfinancial assistance if needed; and urging strongpolicy actions by Japan and the other majoreconomic powers to promote global growth.
The United States will continue to work with the IMF,the World Bank, other international financialinstitutions, the governments in East Asia and theprivate sector to help stabilize financial markets,restore investor confidence and deepen on-goingreforms in the troubled East Asian economies. Indoing so, we will remain mindful of the need topromote protection of worker rights. We will continueto support South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia asthey implement economic reforms designed to fosterfinancial stability and investor confidence in order toattract the capital flows required to restore economicgrowth. U.S. initiatives in APEC will open newopportunities for economic cooperation and permit U.S.companies to expand their involvement in substantialinfrastructure planning and construction throughout theregion. We will continue our efforts to encourage allAsia Pacific nations to pursue open markets.
China: Bringing the PRC more fully into the globaltrading system is manifestly in our national interest.China is a major potential market for our goods andservices. As we look into the next century, ourexports to China will support hundreds of thousandsof jobs across our country. For this reason, we mustcontinue our normal trade relationship with China, asevery President has done since 1980, to strengthenour economic relationship.
An important part of integrating China into the market-based world economic system is opening China’shighly protected market through elimination of tradebarriers and removal of distorting restraints oneconomic activity. We have negotiated and vigorouslyenforced landmark agreements to combat piracy ofintellectual property and advance the interests of ourcreative industries. We have also negotiated – andvigorously enforced – agreements on textile trade. Wewill continue to press China to open its markets as itengages in sweeping economic reform and to respectand adhere to core labor standards as codified by theILO. Most recently, we reached agreement to bringChina into the World Trade Organization on faircommercial terms – a landmark accord that willcreate jobs and opportunities for Americans throughopening of Chinese markets, promote economicreform in China, and help spread the message andthe tools of freedom to the Chinese people.
Japan: The Administration continues to makeprogress on increasing market access in Asia’slargest economy. Since the beginning of the firstClinton Administration, the United States and Japanhave reached 38 trade agreements designed to openJapanese markets in key sectors, including autos andauto parts, telecommunications, civil aviation,insurance and glass. The Administration also hasintensified efforts to monitor and enforce tradeagreements with Japan to ensure that they are fullyimplemented. The United States also usesmultilateral venues, such as WTO dispute settlementand negotiation of new multilateral agreements, tofurther open markets and accomplish our tradeobjectives with Japan. The US-Japan CommonAgenda advances our bilateral cooperation with amajor donor ally on global and regionalenvironmental, scientific, and health issues.
Japan has a crucial role to play in Asia’s economicrecovery: generating substantial growth to helpmaintain a growing world economy and absorb agrowing share of imports from emerging markets.We have encouraged Japan to reform its financialsector, stimulate domestic demand, deregulate itseconomy, and further open its markets to foreigngoods and services.
Republic of Korea: The United States will continueits strong support for South Korean efforts to reformits economy, liberalize trade and investment,strengthen the banking system and implement the
IMF program. We have committed to providingbilateral finance under appropriate conditions and willcontinue to explore concrete steps to promote growthin both our countries, to more fully open our markets,and to further integrate the Republic of Korea into theglobal economy.
ASEAN: The United States strongly supports effortsto sustain and strengthen economic recovery in theten nations of ASEAN through maintaining our openmarket for Southeast Asian goods and services, aswell as our support for IMF-led recovery programs forseveral ASEAN nations. Thailand has completed itsIMF-mandated structural reform program and hasturned the corner towards renewed growth.Indonesia's economy has basically stabilized and thenewly elected democratic government is working onnew lending agreements with the IMF and WorldBank, linked to progress on economic and financialreform. We applaud ASEAN’s 1998 Hanoi ActionPlan, which calls for accelerated regional economicintegration. We are working toward completion of abroad commercial agreement with Vietnam that willopen markets and promote economic reform whileallowing us to endorse Normal Trade Relations forVietnam, which we also seek for Laos. Working withASEAN members to address environmentaldegradation in Southeast Asia is a major priority,from forest fires and haze, to fisheries depletion,deforestation, and sustainable growth during therecovery from the Asian financial crisis.
Australia and New Zealand: We are building on ouralready close working relationship with Australia andNew Zealand to strengthen our bilateral trade andeconomic relationships, build consensus for regionalliberalization, and cooperate in opening the newround of international trade negotiations at the WTO.
We will continue to support the democraticaspirations of Asians and to promote respect forhuman rights. Our strategy includes: a constructiveapproach toward achieving progress on humanrights, religious freedom and rule of law issues withChina; fostering meaningful political dialoguebetween the ruling authorities in Burma and thedemocratic opposition; promoting democracy andencouraging greater respect for human rights inCambodia; and, in Vietnam, achieving the fullest
possible accounting of missing U.S. service membersand promoting greater respect for human rights.
Indonesia: The October 1999 election in whichAbdurrahman Wahid was elected President andMegawati Sukarnoputri as Vice President was ahistoric moment for Indonesia, putting it on coursetoward becoming the world’s third largest democracy.The United States strongly supports a united,prosperous and democratic Indonesia that plays apositive role in regional security. We look forward toworking with Indonesia’s new leaders to meet thechallenges of national reconciliation, democraticreform and economic recovery that lie ahead.
The referendum in East Timor on August 30, 1999was conducted fairly by the United Nations with theagreement of the Indonesian Government. Itproduced a clear mandate for independence, butarmed groups opposed to independence attemptedto overturn the results through violence. To stop theviolence, restore order and resume the transitionprocess, the UN Security Council unanimouslyapproved creation of a Multi-National Force(INTERFET) led by Australia. INTERFETaccomplished its mission of establishing secureconditions throughout East Timor and an internationalpeacekeeping force under UN command (UNTAET)will take over in early 2000.
The U.S. contribution to INTERFET is relativelysmall, but performs highly important functions,including communications and logistical aid,intelligence, and airlift of personnel, equipment andhumanitarian materiel. Additionally, elements of theU.S. Pacific Fleet have been providing support for theoperation. This mission supports our interests byhelping to restore stability to a region of strategicimportance to the United States.
East Timor is now under a UN-administered transitionauthority (UNTAET) and in two to three years willgain full independence. A UNTAET peacekeepingforce will replace INTERFET to prevent furtherinstability and violence as East Timor becomes anindependent nation.
The Western Hemisphere
Our hemisphere enters the twenty-first century with anunprecedented opportunity to secure a future of
stability and prosperity – building on the fact that everynation in the hemisphere except Cuba is democraticand committed to free market economies. The end ofarmed conflict in Central America and otherimprovements in regional security have coincided withremarkable political and economic progress throughoutthe Americas. The people of the Americas are takingadvantage of the vast opportunities being created asemerging markets are connected through electroniccommerce and as robust democracies allow individualsto more fully express their preferences. Sub-regionalpolitical, economic and security cooperation in NorthAmerica, the Caribbean, Central America, the Andeanregion and the Southern Cone have contributedpositively to peace and prosperity throughout thehemisphere. Equally important, the people of theAmericas have reaffirmed their commitment to combattogether the difficult threats posed by drug traffickingand corruption. The United States seeks to secure thebenefits of this new climate in the hemisphere, whilesafeguarding our citizens against these threats.
The principal security concerns in the hemisphere aretransnational in nature, such as drug trafficking,organized crime, money laundering, illegalimmigration, firearms trafficking, and terrorism. Inaddition, our hemisphere is leading the way inrecognizing the dangers to national and regionalstability produced by corruption and ineffective legalsystems. All of these threats, especially drugtrafficking, produce adverse social effects thatundermine the sovereignty, democracy and nationalsecurity of nations in the hemisphere.
Working through the Organization of American States(OAS) and other organizations, we are seeking toeliminate the scourge of drug trafficking in ourhemisphere. The Multilateral Counterdrug Alliance isstriving to better organize and coordinate efforts toextradite and prosecute individuals charged with drugtrafficking and related crimes; combat moneylaundering; seize assets used in criminal activity; haltillicit traffic in chemical precursors; strike at thefinancial support networks; enhance national drugabuse awareness and treatment programs; andeliminate illicit crops through alternative developmentand eradication programs. We are also pursuing anumber of bilateral and regional counterdrug initiatives.In the Caribbean, and bilaterally with Mexico and
Colombia, we are working to increase counterdrug andlaw enforcement cooperation.
We are advancing regional security cooperationthrough: bilateral security dialogues; multilateral effortsin the OAS and Summit of the Americas ontransparency and regional confidence and securitybuilding measures, exercises and exchanges with keymilitaries (principally focused on peacekeeping); andregular Defense Ministerials. Last year, the guarantornations of the Peru-Ecuador peace process –Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United States –brought the parties to a permanent solution to thisdecades-old border dispute, the resolution of whichwas important to regional stability. The MilitaryObserver Mission, Ecuador-Peru (MOMEP),composed of the four guarantor nations, successfullyseparated the warring factions, creating the mutualconfidence and security necessary to resolve thedispute. Our efforts to encourage multilateralcooperation are enhancing confidence and securitywithin the region and will help expand ourcooperative efforts to combat the transnationalthreats to the Western Hemisphere.
Colombia is of particular importance because itsproblems extend beyond its borders and haveimplications for regional peace and security.Insurgency, drug trafficking and a growingparamilitary movement are testing democracy inColombia. To turn the tide, President Pastrananeeds U.S. assistance to wage a comprehensiveeffort to promote the mutually reinforcing goals ofpeace, combating drug trafficking, economicdevelopment, and respect for human rights.Working closely with us, the Government of Colombiahas developed an aggressive three-year strategy,Plan Colombia, to revive their economy, strengthenthe democratic pillars of society, promote the peaceprocess and eliminate sanctuaries for narcoticsproducers and traffickers. We will significantlyincrease assistance for Plan Colombia in a mannerthat will concurrently promote U.S. and Colombianinterests, and we will encourage our allies andinternational institutions to do the same.
Economic growth and integration in the Americas willprofoundly affect the prosperity of the United Statesin the twenty-first century. This begins with ourimmediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Canada is
our largest merchandise export market and tradepartner in the world, and our exports to Canada havegrown rapidly as the U.S.-Canada Free TradeAgreement phased in. U.S. merchandise exports toMexico have nearly doubled since the conclusion of theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),making Mexico our second largest goods exportmarket and trading partner. In the hemisphere as awhole, our trade initiatives offer a historic opportunity tocapitalize on and strengthen the unprecedented trendtoward democracy and free market economics.
We seek to advance the goal of an integratedhemisphere of free market democracies by buildingon NAFTA and obtaining Congressional Fast Tracktrade agreement approval procedures. Formalnegotiations are in progress to initiate the Free TradeArea of the Americas (FTAA) by 2005. Thenegotiations cover a broad range of important issues,including market access, investment, services,government procurement, dispute settlement,agriculture, intellectual property rights, competitionpolicy, subsidies, anti-dumping and countervailingduties. We will seek to ensure that the agreementalso supports workers rights, environmentalprotection and sustainable development. We are alsocommitted to delivering on the President’s promise topursue a comprehensive free trade agreement withChile because of its economic performance and itsactive role in promoting hemispheric economicintegration. To address the concerns of smallereconomies during the period of transition to theglobal economy of the twenty-first century, and inlight of the increased competition NAFTA presents toCaribbean trade, we are seeking Congressionalapproval to provide enhanced trade benefits underthe Caribbean Basin Initiative to help prepare thatregion for participation in the FTAA.
The United States will continue its effectivepartnership with the IMF, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the governments ofLatin America, and the private sector to help theregion’s countries in their transition to integrated,mature market economies. A key target of thispartnership is assisting the reform and recovery ofbanking sectors hurt by financial market turmoil overthe past several years. We will continue to supportfinancial and economic reform efforts in Brazil andArgentina to reduce their vulnerability to externalshocks, as well as helping Ecuador on its difficultroad to economic recovery and sustainable levels ofdebt service.
We also view it as essential that economic prosperityin our hemisphere be pursued in an environmentallysustainable manner. From our shared seas andfreshwater resources to migratory bird species andtransboundary air pollution, the environmentalpolicies of our neighbors can have a direct impact onquality of life at home. U.S. Government assistanceto the region recognizes the vital link betweensustainable use of natural resources and long-termprosperity, a key to developing prosperous tradingpartners in this hemisphere.
Many Latin American nations have made tremendousadvances in democracy and economic progress overthe last several years. But our ability to sustain thehemispheric agenda crafted at the Summit of theAmericas depends in part on meeting the challengesposed by weak democratic institutions, persistentlyhigh unemployment and crime rates, and seriousincome disparities. In some Latin Americancountries, citizens will not fully realize the benefits ofpolitical liberalization and economic growth withoutregulatory, judicial, law enforcement and educationalreforms, as well as increased efforts to integrate allmembers of society into the formal economy.The hemisphere's leaders are committed tostrengthening democracy, justice and human rights.They have pledged to intensify efforts to promotedemocratic reforms at the regional and local level,protect the rights of migrant workers and theirfamilies, improve the capabilities and competence ofcivil and criminal justice systems, and encourage astrong and active civil society. Specific initiativesinclude: ratification of the Inter-American ConventionAgainst Corruption to strengthen the integrity ofgovernmental institutions; creation of a SpecialRapporteur for Freedom of Expression as part of theInter-American Commission for Human Rights; andestablishment of an Inter-American Justice StudiesCenter to facilitate training of personnel and theexchange of information and other forms of technicalcooperation to improve judicial systems.
Education is at the centerpiece of reforms aimed atmaking democracy work for all the people of theAmericas. The Summit Action Plan adopted atSantiago in 1998 seeks to ensure by the year 2010primary education for 100% of children and access to
quality secondary education for at least 75% of youngpeople.
We are also seeking to strengthen norms for defenseestablishments that are supportive of democracy,transparency, respect for human rights and civiliancontrol in defense matters. Through continuedengagement with regional armed forces, facilitated byour own modest military activities and presence in theregion, we are helping to increase civilian expertise indefense affairs and reinforce the positive trend incivilian control.
In Haiti we continue to support the consolidation ofdemocratic institutions, respect for human rights andeconomic growth by a Haitian government capable ofmanaging its own security. In cooperation with theUnited Nations and Organization of American States,we are working with Haiti's Provisional ElectoralCouncil to pave the way for free, fair, and transparentlocal, legislative and presidential elections in 2000.We are committed to working with our partners in theregion and in the international community to meet thechallenges of institutionalizing Haiti’s economic andpolitical development, and building an effective and fairpolice force and judicial system.
The United States remains committed to promoting apeaceful transition to democracy in Cuba andforestalling a mass exodus that would endanger thelives of migrants and the security of our borders. Whilemaintaining pressure on the regime to make politicaland economic reforms, we continue to encourage theemergence of a civil society to assist the transition todemocracy when the change comes. As the Cubanpeople feel greater incentive to take charge of theirown future, they are more likely to stay at home andbuild the informal and formal structures that will maketransition easier. Meanwhile, we remain firmlycommitted to bilateral migration accords that ensuremigration in safe, legal and orderly channels.
The Middle East, NorthAfrica, Southwest andSouth Asia
Developments in these regions will profoundly affectAmerica’s future. They will determine whether a justand lasting peace can be established between Israel
and the Arab countries; whether nations of the regionwill fully join our fight against terrorism and drugtrafficking; whether they will agree to stop the spread ofweapons of mass destruction; whether the oil and gasfields of the Caucasus and Central Asia becomereliable energy sources; and whether respect for basichuman rights and democracy can be institutionalized.
The United States has enduring interests in pursuing ajust, lasting and comprehensive Middle East peace,ensuring the security and well-being of Israel, helpingour Arab friends provide for their security, andmaintaining the free flow of oil. Our strategy reflectsthose interests and the unique characteristics of theregion as we work to strengthen peace and stability.
The Middle East Peace Process
A historic transformation is taking place in the politicallandscape of the Middle East. Peace agreements aretaking hold, requiring concerted implementation efforts,and new agreements are being negotiated, which holdout the hope of ending the conflict between Israel andits Arab neighbors. The United States - a key architectand sponsor of the peace process - has a clearnational interest in seeing the process deepen andwiden. We will continue our steady, determinedleadership - standing with those who take risks forpeace, standing against those who would destroy it,lending our good offices where we can make adifference and helping bring the concrete benefits ofpeace to people’s daily lives.
A significant breakthrough in the Middle East PeaceProcess took place in December 1999 when PrimeMinister Barak and President Assad agreed toresume the Israel-Syrian peace negotiations wherethey left off. These negotiations will be high level,intensive, and conducted with the aim of reaching anagreement as soon as possible in order to bring ajust and lasting peace between Israel and Syria.With the resumption of Israeli-Syrian talks, we willcontinue working to begin negotiations betweenIsrael and Lebanon.
On the Palestinian front, Israelis and Palestinians areturning to the core issues that have defined theirconflict for the past fifty years, seeking to build a lasting
peace based on partnership and cooperation. Theyhave agreed to seek to reach a permanent statusagreement by September 2000 and the United Stateswill do everything within its power to help them achievethat goal. At the same time, both sides will continue toimplement the remaining issues in the InterimAgreement, the Wye River Memorandum, and theSharm el-Sheikh agreement. Our goal remains thenormalization of relations between Israel and all Arabstates. Through the multilateral working groups onsecurity, refugees, water and the environment, we areseeking to promote regional cooperation to addresstransboundary environmental issues that affect allparties.
The United States has an interest in the stability andprosperity of North Africa, a region that is undergoingimportant changes. In particular, we are seeking tostrengthen our relations with Morocco, Tunisia andAlgeria and to encourage political and economicreform. Libya continues to be a country of concernfor the national security and foreign policy interests ofthe United States. Although the government of Libyahas taken an important positive step away from itssupport of terrorism by surrendering the Lockerbiesuspects, our policy toward Libya is designed toencourage Libya to completely cease its support ofterrorism and block its efforts to obtain weapons ofmass destruction.
In Southwest Asia, the United States remainsfocused on deterring threats to regional stability andenergy security, countering threats posed by WMD,and protecting the security of our regional partners,particularly from the threats posed by Iraq and Iran.We will continue to encourage members of the GulfCooperation Council (GCC) to work closely oncollective defense and security arrangements, helpindividual GCC states meet their defense requirements,and maintain our bilateral defense relationships.
We will maintain an appropriate military presence inSouthwest Asia using a combination of ground, airand naval forces. We maintain a continuous militarypresence in the Gulf to enhance regional stability andsupport our on-going efforts to bring Iraq into
compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.Our forces in the Gulf are backed by our ability torapidly reinforce the region in time of crisis, which wehave demonstrated convincingly. We remaincommitted to enforcing the no-fly zones over northernand southern Iraq, which are essential forimplementing the UN Security Council resolutionsand preventing Saddam Hussein from taking large-scale military action against Kuwait or the Kurd andShia minorities in Iraq.
Our policy toward Iraq is comprised of three centralelements: containment and economic sanctions, toprevent Saddam from again threatening the stabilityof the vital Gulf region; relief for the Iraqi people fromhumanitarian suffering via the UN oil-for-foodprogram; and support to those Iraqis seeking toreplace Saddam’s regime with a government that canlive at peace with its neighbors and its people.Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 successfullydegraded the threat posed by Iraqi WMD in the wakeof Baghdad’s decision to cease cooperation with UNweapons inspectors.
In December 1999, the United Nations SecurityCouncil passed UNSCR 1284, a new omnibusresolution on Iraq. The United States supportsResolution 1284 because it buttresses thecontainment of Iraq. This resolution reflects theconsensus view of the Security Council that Iraq hasstill not met its obligations to the internationalcommunity and, in particular, has failed to disbandfully its proscribed WMD programs. The resolutionexpands the humanitarian aspects of the oil-for-foodprogram to ensure the well-being of the Iraqi people.It provides for a robust new disarmament programthat would finish the work begun by UNSCOM. Itwould allow for a suspension of the economicsanctions in return for Iraqi fulfillment of keydisarmament tasks, and would lock in the SecurityCouncil’s control over Iraqi finances to ensure thatSaddam Hussein is never again able to disburseIraq’s resources as he would like.
We have consistently maintained that the Iraqiregime can only have sanctions lifted when it has metits obligations to the international community.Saddam’s actions over the past decade make clearthat his regime will not comply with its obligationsunder the UN Security Council resolutions designedto rid Iraq of WMD and their delivery systems.Because of that and because the Iraqi people will
never be free under the brutal dictatorship of SaddamHussein, we actively support those who seek to bringa new democratic government to power in Baghdad.We recognize that this may be a slow and difficultprocess, but we believe it is the only solution to theproblem of Saddam’s regime.
Our policy toward Iran is aimed at changing thepractices of the Iranian government in several keyareas, including its efforts to obtain WMD and long-range missiles, its support for terrorism and groupsthat violently oppose the Middle East peace process,its attempts to undermine friendly governments in theregion, and its development of offensive militarycapabilities that threaten our GCC partners and theflow of oil. We view signs of change in Iranianpolicies with interest, both with regard to thepossibility of Iran assuming its rightful place in theworld community and the chance for better bilateralties. We welcome statements by President Khatemithat advocate a people-to-people dialogue with theUnited States.
These positive signs must be balanced against thereality that Iran's support for terrorism has not yetceased and serious violations of human rightspersist. Iran is continuing its efforts to acquire WMDand develop long range missiles (including the 1,300kilometer-range Shahab-3 it flight-tested in July1998). The United States will continue to opposeIranian efforts to sponsor terror and to opposetransfers from any country to Iran of materials andtechnologies that could be used to develop long-range missiles or WMD.
We are ready to explore further ways to build mutualconfidence and avoid misunderstandings with Iran.We will strengthen our cooperation with allies andfriends to encourage positive changes in Iranianpractices that threaten our shared interests. If agovernment-to-government dialogue can be initiatedand sustained in a way that addresses the concernsof both sides, then the United States would be willingto develop with the Islamic Republic a road mapleading to normal relations.
Our strategy for South Asia is designed to help thepeoples of that region enjoy the fruits of democracy byhelping resolve long-standing conflicts, implementing
confidence-building measures, and assisting economicdevelopment. Regional stability and improved bilateralties are also important for U.S. economic interests in aregion that contains a fifth of the world’s population andone of its most important emerging markets. Inaddition, we seek to work closely with regionalcountries to stem the flow of illegal drugs from SouthAsia, most notably from Afghanistan. We seek toestablish relationships with India and Pakistan that aredefined in terms of their own individual merits andreflect the full weight and range of U.S. strategic,political and economic interests in each country. TheOctober 1999 coup in Pakistan was a clear setback fordemocracy in that region, and we have urgedPakistan’s leaders to quickly restore civilian rule andthe democratic process.
We seek, as part of our dialogue with India andPakistan, to encourage both countries to take steps toprevent proliferation, reduce the risk of conflict, andexercise restraint in their nuclear and missile programs.The Indian and Pakistani nuclear and long-rangemissile tests were dangerously destabilizing andthreaten to spark a dangerous arms race in SouthAsia. Recent fighting along the Line of Control is areminder of the tensions in that part of the world andof the risk that relatively minor conventionalconfrontations could spin out of control, with the mostserious consequences.
In concert with the other permanent members of theUN Security Council, the G-8 nations, and manyothers in the international community, the UnitedStates has called on both nations to sign and ratifythe Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, to takesteps to prevent an arms race in nuclear weaponsand long-range missiles, to resume their directdialogue, and take decisive steps to reduce tensionsin South Asia. We also strongly urge these states torefrain from any actions that would further undermineregional and global stability, and urge them to join theclear international consensus in support ofnonproliferation and a cut off of fissile materialproduction.
The United States has two principal economicobjectives in the region: to promote regional economiccooperation and development and to ensure anunrestricted flow of oil from the region. We seek to
promote regional trade and cooperation oninfrastructure through the peace process, revitalizationof the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) economicsummits, and our Qualifying Industrial Zone program,which provides economic benefits for certain countriesthat enter into business arrangements with Israel. InSouth Asia, we will continue to work with the region’sdemocracies in their efforts to implement marketreforms, strengthen educational systems, and end theuse of child and sweatshop labor.
Although the United States imports less than 15% ofthe oil exported from the Persian Gulf, the region willremain of vital strategic importance to U.S. nationalsecurity due to the global nature of the international oilmarket. Previous oil shocks and the Gulf Warunderscore that any blockage of Gulf supplies or asubstantial increase in price would immediately affectthe international market, driving up energy costseverywhere -- ultimately harming the U.S. economy aswell as the economies of our key economic partners inEurope and Japan. Appropriate responses to eventssuch as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait can limit themagnitude of a crisis in the Gulf and its impact on worldoil markets. Over the longer term, U.S. dependenceon access to these and other foreign oil sources willremain important as our reserves are depleted. That isone of many important reasons why the United Statesmust continue to demonstrate commitment and resolvein the Persian Gulf.
We encourage the spread of democratic valuesthroughout the Middle East, North Africa andSouthwest and South Asia and will pursue thisobjective aided by constructive dialogue withcountries in the region. In Iran, for example, we hopethe nation's leaders will carry out the people'smandate for a government that respects and protectsthe rule of law, both in its internal and external affairs.We will promote responsible indigenous movestoward increasing political participation andenhancing the quality of governance, and we willcontinue to challenge governments in the region toimprove their human rights records. Respect forhuman rights also requires rejection of terrorism. Ifthe nations in the region are to safeguard their owncitizens from the threat of terror, they cannot tolerateacts of indiscriminate violence against civilians, norcan they offer refuge to those who commit such acts.
Our policies are guided by our profound respect forIslam. The Muslim religion is the fastest-growingfaith in the United States. We recognize and honorIslam’s role as a source of inspiration, instruction andmoral guidance for hundreds of millions of peoplearound the world. U.S. policy in the region is directedat the actions of governments and terrorist groups,not peoples or faiths.
In recent years, the United States has engaged in aconcerted effort to transform our relationship withAfrica. We have supported efforts by many Africannations to move toward multi-party democracy, holdfree and fair elections, promote human rights, allowfreedom of the press and association, and reformtheir economies. A new, post-colonial political orderis emerging in Africa, with emphasis on democraticand pragmatic approaches to solving political,economic and environmental problems, anddeveloping human and natural resources. U.S.-Africa ties are deepening, and U.S.-Africa trade isexpanding.
Sustaining these recent successes will require thatwe identify those issues that most directly affect ourinterests, and on which we can make a differencethrough efficient and effective targeting of ourresources. We will promote regional stability throughengagement with sub-regional organizations and keyAfrican states using carefully harmonized U.S.programs and initiatives. Our immediate objective isto increase the number of capable states in Africa;that is, nations that are able to define the challengesthey face, manage their resources to effectivelyaddress those challenges, and build stability andpeace within their borders and their sub-regions.
Serious transnational security threats emanate frompockets of Africa, including state-sponsoredterrorism, drug trafficking, international crime,environmental degradation and infectious diseases,especially HIV/AIDS. Since these threats transcendstate borders, they are best addressed througheffective, sustained sub-regional engagement inAfrica. We have already made significant progress in
countering some of these threats – such as byinvesting in efforts to combat environmentaldegradation and infectious disease, and leadinginternational efforts to remove mines planted inprevious conflict areas and halt the proliferation ofland mines. We continue efforts to reduce the flow ofillegal drugs through Africa and to curtail internationalorganized criminal activity based in Africa. We willimprove international intelligence sharing, and trainand assist African law enforcement, intelligence andborder control agencies to detect and preventplanned terrorist attacks against U.S. targets inAfrica.
We seek to keep Africa free of weapons of massdestruction by supporting South Africa's nucleardisarmament and accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, supporting the African NuclearWeapons Free Zone, and encouraging Africannations to join the BWC and CWC.
Nigeria’s rapid change from an autocratic, militaryregime to a civilian, democratically electedgovernment affords us an opportunity to buildproductive security, political and economic relationswith the most populous country in Africa. With nearlyone in six Africans living in Nigeria, the impact ofserious cooperative efforts to tackle mushroomingcrime, drug trafficking and corruption problems couldbe enormously beneficial to the United States and alarge proportion of Africans.
The Sierra Leone peace accord signed in July 1999illustrates that cooperative efforts can resolve long-standing African conflicts. Nigeria played aleadership role in this effort, working in concert withthe Economic Community of West African States andsupported by the international community. The July1999 Organization for African Unity (OAU) initiative,under Algeria’s energetic leadership, for peacebetween Eritrea and Ethiopia is another suchexample of cooperative peace efforts which we haveactively supported. We believe the Lusaka cease-fireagreement of July 1999 can bring an end to the warin the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and itsJoint Military Commission supports the evolution of aregional collective security arrangement in CentralAfrica. Additionally, we are working with the Angolangovernment through a Bilateral ConsultativeCommission (BCC) on key areas of mutual interestsuch as regional security, humanitarian and socialissues, and economic reform.
Sudan continues to pose a threat to regional stabilityand the national security interests of the UnitedStates. We have moved to counter Sudan’s supportfor international terrorism and regional destabilizationby imposing sanctions on the Khartoum regime,continuing to press for the regime’s isolation throughthe UN Security Council, and enhancing the ability ofSudan’s neighbors to resist Khartoum-backedinsurgencies in their countries through our FrontlineStates initiative. We support regional efforts for a justand fair peace and national reconciliation in Sudanbased on the Inter-Governmental Authority onDevelopment’s Declaration of Principles.
Persistent conflict and continuing political instability insome African countries remain obstacles to Africa’sdevelopment and to our national security, politicaland economic interests there, including unhamperedaccess to oil reserves and other important naturalresources. To foster regional stability and peace inAfrica, the United States in 1996 launched the AfricanCrisis Response Initiative (ACRI) to work withAfricans to enhance their capacity to conducteffective peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.We are coordinating with the French, British, otherdonor countries and African governments indeveloping a regional exercise program to promotecommon doctrines and command and controlcapability, and interoperability for peacekeepingmissions. We are consulting closely on ACRI activitywith the UN Department of PeacekeepingOperations, the OAU and its Crisis ManagementCenter, and African sub-regional organizationsalready pursuing similar capability enhancements.
The United States has established the African Centerfor Strategic Studies (ACSS) to promote theexchange of ideas and information tailoredspecifically for African security concerns. The goal isfor ACSS to be a source of academic, yet practical,instruction in promoting civil-military relations and theskills necessary to make effective national securitydecisions in democratic governments. Thecurriculum will engage African military and civiliandefense leaders in a substantive dialogue aboutdefense policy planning, civil-military relations, anddefense resource management in democracies. Ourlong-term goal is to support the development ofregional security arrangements and institutions toprevent and manage armed conflicts and curtailtransnational threats to our collective security.
A stable, democratic, economically growing Africa willbe a better economic partner, a better partner forsecurity and peace, and a better partner in the fightsagainst drug trafficking, crime, terrorism, infectiousdiseases and environmental degradation. Lastingprosperity for Africa will be possible only when Africais fully integrated into the global economy.
Further integrating Africa into the global economy willalso directly serve U.S. interests by continuing toexpand an already important new market for U.S.exports. The more than 700 million people of sub-Saharan Africa represent one of the world’s largestbasically untapped markets. Although the UnitedStates enjoys only a seven-percent market share inAfrica, already 100,000 American jobs depend on ourexports there. Increasing both the U.S. market shareand the size of the African market will bring tangiblebenefits to U.S. workers and increase prosperity andeconomic opportunity in Africa. Our aim, therefore, isto assist African nations to implement economicreforms, improve public governance and combatcorruption, create favorable climates for trade andinvestment, and achieve sustainable development.
To support the economic transformation underway inAfrica, the President in June 1997 launched thePartnership for Economic Growth and Opportunity inAfrica Initiative. The Administration has implementedmany of the Initiative’s objectives and continues towork closely with Congress to implement remainingkey elements of this initiative through passage of theAfrican Growth and Opportunity Act. By significantlybroadening market access, spurring growth andhelping the poorest nations eliminate or reduce theirbilateral debt, the Initiative and the legislation willbetter enable us to help African nations undertakedifficult economic reforms and build better lives fortheir people through sustainable development.We are working with African governments on sharedinterests in the world trading system, such asdeveloping electronic commerce, improving WTOcapacity-building functions, and eliminatingagricultural export subsidies. We also are pursuinginitiatives to encourage U.S. trade with andinvestment in Africa, including targeted technicalassistance, enhanced debt forgiveness, andincreased bilateral trade ties. We have led the
international community in efforts to address Africa’scrippling debt, through the Cologne Initiative whichsubstantially deepens relief available under theHeavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.We will continue to work with African countries tomanage and reduce the debt burden in order tounleash the continent’s economic potential.
To further our trade objectives in Africa, the RonBrown Commercial Center was established inJohannesburg, South Africa in 1998. The Centerprovides support for American companies looking toenter or expand into the sub-Saharan African market,promotes U.S. exports through a range of supportprograms, and facilitates business contacts andpartnerships between African and Americanbusinesses. The President’s historic March 1998 tripto Africa and the unprecedented March 1999 U.S.-Africa Ministerial further solidified our partnership withAfrican nations across a range of security, economicand political issues.
Helping Africans generate the food and incomenecessary to feed themselves is critical for promotingsustainable growth and development. Despite somerecent progress, the percentage of malnourishedpeople and lack of diversified sustainable agriculturalproduction in Africa is the highest of any region in theworld, and more help is greatly needed. In 1998 welaunched the Africa Food Security Initiative, a 10-yearU.S. Agency for International Development-led effortto help improve agricultural productivity, supportresearch, expand income-generating projects, andaddress nutritional needs for the rural poor.
African nations are also engaged in battle withdiseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, whichsap economic productivity and development. Worse,the epidemic of HIV/AIDS continues to attack thecontinent, threatening progress on development,reducing life expectancy, and decreasing GDPs inthe hardest-hit nations. The Administration has madethe battle against AIDS and other diseases a priorityfor international action and investment in Africa. Ourglobal AIDS Initiative has focused special attentionand earmarked resources for Africa.
In Africa as elsewhere, democracies have provedstronger partners for peace, stability and sustained
prosperity. We will continue to support the importantprogress African nations have achieved and tobroaden the growing circle of African democracies.The restoration of civilian democratic government inNigeria can help return that country to its place as aleader in Africa. Over the past year, the governmentand people of Nigeria have succeeded in restoringdemocratic civilian government, freed politicalprisoners, lifted onerous restrictions on labor unions,and worked to restore the authority of the judicialsystem. Nigeria’s new civilian government has takensweeping steps to ensure that the military remains inthe barracks and that fighting corruption will be a toppriority. The peaceful elections in February 1999 andinauguration of the new civilian government in May1999 were important steps in this transformation.
As in any democratic transition, Nigeria’s newgovernment is facing enormous challenges: creatingaccountable government, building support within themilitary for civilian rule, protecting human rights, andrebuilding the economy so it benefits all citizens.President Clinton met with President Obasanjo at theWhite House in October 1999 and reaffirmed ourcommitment to work with him on the challenges andsecurity, economic, political and social issues.
Through the Great Lakes Justice Initiative, the UnitedStates is working to help end the cycle of violenceand impunity in the Democratic Republic of Congo,Rwanda and Burundi, and to support judicial systemsthat are impartial, credible, effective and inclusive. Inaddition, we will work with our allies to find aneffective formula for promoting stability, democracyand respect for human rights in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo so that it and a democratic Nigeriacan become the regional centers for economicgrowth, and democratic empowerment that they canand should be. In order to help post-apartheid SouthAfrica achieve its economic, political, democratic andsecurity goals for all its citizens, we will continue toprovide substantial bilateral assistance, vigorouslypromote U.S. trade and investment, and pursue closecooperation and support for our mutual interests.
Ultimately, the prosperity and security of Africadepend on African leadership, strong nationalinstitutions, and extensive political and economicreform. The United States will continue to supportand promote such national reforms and the evolutionof regional arrangements that build cooperationamong African states.
Today, as we reach the twenty-first century, we arebuilding new frameworks, partnerships and institutions– and adapting existing ones – to strengthen America’ssecurity and prosperity. We are working to constructnew cooperative security arrangements and buildpeace, contain weapons of mass destruction, fightterrorism and international crime, rid the world of ethniccleansing and genocide, build a truly global economy,and promote democratic values and economic reform.This is a moment of historic opportunity to create asafer, more democratic, and more prosperoustomorrow -- a better future for our children andgrandchildren.
This promising state of affairs did not just happen, andthere is no guarantee that it will endure. Thecontemporary era was forged by steadfast Americanleadership over the last half century – through effortssuch as the Marshall Plan, NATO, our security ties inthe Pacific, the United Nations, the InternationalMonetary Fund and the World Bank. The cleardangers of the past made the need for national securitycommitments and expenditures obvious to theAmerican people. Today, the task of mobilizing publicsupport for national security priorities is morecomplicated. The complex array of unique dangers,opportunities and responsibilities outlined in thisstrategy are not always readily apparent as we goabout our daily lives focused on immediate concerns.Yet, in a more integrated and interdependent world, wemust remain actively engaged in world affairs tosuccessfully advance our national interests.
To be secure and prosperous, America must continueto lead. Our international leadership focuses on
President Clinton's strategic priorities: efforts topromote peace and security in key regions of theworld; to create more jobs and opportunities forAmericans through a more open and competitivetrading system that also benefits others around theworld; to increase cooperation in confronting securitythreats that threaten our critical infrastructures andour citizens at home and abroad, yet often defyborders and unilateral solutions; to strengtheninternational arms control and nonproliferationregimes; to protect the environment and the health ofour citizens; and to strengthen the intelligence,military, diplomatic and law enforcement toolsnecessary to meet these challenges.
Our international leadership is ultimately foundedupon the power of our democratic ideals and values.The spread of democracy supports American valuesand enhances our security and prosperity. TheUnited States will continue to support the trendtoward democracy and free markets, peace andsecurity by remaining actively engaged in the world.
Our engagement abroad requires the active, sustainedsupport of the American people and the bipartisansupport of the U.S. Congress. This Administrationremains committed to explaining our security interests,objectives and priorities to the nation and seeking thebroadest possible public and congressional support forour security programs and investments. We willcontinue to exercise global leadership in a manner thatreflects our national values, promotes prosperity andprotects the security of this great nation.