A National Security Strategy

8/12/2019 A National Security Strategy

1/52

A NATIONALSECURITYSTRATEGYFOR A

NEW CENTURY

THE WHITE HOUSEDECEMBER 1999


2/52

iii

Preface

Nearly 55 years ago, in his final inauguraladdress, President Franklin Delano Rooseveltreflected on the lessons of the first half of the20

thCentury. "We have learned, he said, that

we 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 as

we 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 challenges

that no nation can meet alone. The UnitedStates remains the worlds most powerful forcefor peace, prosperity and the universal values ofdemocracy and freedom. Our nations 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 Americas security.

To bolster Americas 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 and

modernization. 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 helping

us 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.


3/52

iv

We must also sustain our commitment toAmericas 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 Europeans

in 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 Europes security; endingethnic war in Bosnia and Kosovo; working withRussia to deactivate thousands of nuclearweapons from the former Soviet Union; ratifying

START 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; reducingAfricas 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 Chinas entry into the WTO andother global institutions while promoting freedomand human rights there; easing tensionsbetween India and Pakistan; building on hopeful

developments 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 worlds

financial 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; to

enhance American security and global peace.We owe it to our children and grandchildren tomeet these challenges and build a better andsafer world.


4/52

1

I. Introduction

Our national security strategy is designed to meet thefundamental purposes set out in the preamble to theConstitution:

...provide for the common defence, promote the

general 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 accelerating

economic, 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 Americascore 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.

National Interests

Since there are always many demands for U.S.action, our national interests must be clear. Theseinterests fall into three categories. The first includesvi ta l in tereststhose 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 n at ional

in terests. 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


5/52

2

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 and

friends supporting the transition in East Timor areexamples.

The third category is hum ani tar ian and otherin terests. 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 democracy

and 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 face

threats 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 nations 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 threat

is 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


6/52

3

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 subvert

government 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-won

advances 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 economic

prosperity; 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 toAmericas 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 opportunities

most 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 the

challenges 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, and

enhance 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.


7/52

4

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 environment

and 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 operate

critical 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. In

crafting 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 and

building the community of like-minded states. Thisstrategy will take us into the next century.


8/52

5

II. Advancing U.S. National Interests

In our vision of the world, the United States has closecooperative relations with the worlds 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 three

components: shaping the international securityenvironment, responding to threats and crises, andpreparing for an uncertain future.

Shaping the International

Environment

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

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


9/52

6

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 already

exploded 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 Americasdiplomacy 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 United

Nations 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.

Public Diplomacy

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 the

dialogue between American citizens and U.S.institutions and their counterparts abroad.

Effective use of our nations 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 and

other national security information-related efforts toensure they are more successfully integrated intoforeign and national security policy making andexecution.

International Assistance

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 of

law, 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


10/52

7

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 for

linking 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 init iatives 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 strengthen

cooperative 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 strategic

nuclear 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 Treatys 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


11/52

8

demarcation between systems to counter strategicballistic missiles and those to counter theater ballisticmissiles.

On September 26, 1997, representatives of the

United 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 strategic

situation 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 to

continuously 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 Nuclear

Test 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 we

spend $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


12/52

9

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 in

preventing 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 the

spread 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 to

strengthen 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 as

the 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 Unions 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 countrys nuclear weapons programs andconverting it so that it can never be used in nuclearweapons. We are redirecting dozens of former

Soviet 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.


13/52

10

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 that

assist 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 and

promote 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 on

Export 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 50

thAnniversary Summit, Allied leaders

agreed to enhance NATOs ability to deal bothpolitically and militarily with the proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction and the means of theirdelivery.

Regional nonproliferation efforts are particularly

important 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 backIrans development of WMD and long-range missiles,and Iraqs 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. On

November 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 has

stated 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


14/52

11

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 the

Convention 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 the

world to increase the effectiveness and efficiency ofremoving landmines that threaten civilians.

Military Activities

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 engagement

activities 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 permanent

presence 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 beselectivefocusing on the threats and opportunitiesmost relevant to our interests and applying ourresources where we can make the greatestdifferenceso must our use of the Armed Forces forengagement be selective. Engagement activitiesmust be carefully managed to prevent erosion of ourmilitarys 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 peacetime

rests 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


15/52


16/52

13

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 thePresidents 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 away

from 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 multinational

effort 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 can

pose 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 across

international 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 Presidents 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


17/52

14

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 vaccines

for 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 and

Crises

Because our shaping efforts alone cannot guaranteethe international security environment we seek, the

United 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

Transnational threats include terrorism, drugtrafficking and other international crime, and illegaltrade in fissile materials and other dangeroussubstances.

Terrorism

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 Foreign

Emergency 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 most

active 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


18/52

15

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 International

Crime

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 States

controlled Americas 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 social

consequences 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 enableAmericas youth to reject illegal drugs, increase thesafety of Americas citizens by substantially reducingdrug-related crime and violence, reduce health andsocial costs to the public of illegal drug use, reduce

domestic cultivation of cannabis and production ofmethamphetamines and other synthetic drugs, andshield Americas 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 cultivation

through 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


19/52

16

money laundering. The new National MoneyLaundering Strategy being implemented by theDepartments of Treasury and Justice is increasingthe effectiveness of Americas efforts bothdomestically and internationally to deprive organized

crime 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 and

transactions 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 Communitys 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 systemsoperational effectiveness; (3) whether the system isaffordable; and (4) the implications that going forwardwith NMD deployment would hold for the overallstrategic environment and our arms control

objectives, 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 Treaty

and 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


20/52

17

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 to

counter 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, we

must 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 and

managing 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 of

essential 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


21/52

18

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. A

nationwide 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 Emergency

Preparedness

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.

Smaller-Scale Contingencies

In addition to defending the U.S. homeland, theUnited States must be prepared to respond to the full

range of threats to our interests abroad. Smaller-scale contingency operations encompass the fullrange of military operations short ofmajor 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.


22/52

19

Major Theater Warfare

Fighting and winning major theater wars is theultimate test of our Armed Forces a test at which

they 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 enemys objectives in two theaters, inclose succession. We must maintain this ability toensure that we can seize the initiative, minimize

territory 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 our

conventional 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 operations

despite 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 interestsare 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 accomplish

their 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


23/52

20

possible, but do not hesitate to act unilaterally whennecessary.

The decision to employ military forces to support ourhumanitarian and other interestsfocuses on the

unique 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. combat

operations, 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 co

Documents

A National Security Strategy