A NATIONAL

SECURITY
STRATEGY
FOR A
NEW CENTURY
THE WHITE HOUSE
OCTOBER 1998

Contents
Preface ... iii
I. Introduction... 1
Challenges and Opportunities... 1
The Imperative of Engagement... 1
Implementing the Strategy... 2
II. Advancing U.S. National Interests... 5
Enhancing Security at Home and Abroad... 6
Threats to U.S. Interests... 6
The Need for Integrated Approaches... 7
Shaping the International Environment... 8
Diplomacy... 8
International Assistance... 8
Arms Control... 9
Nonproliferation Initiatives... 11
Military Activities... 12
International Law Enforcement Cooperation... 13
Environmental Initiatives... 13
Responding to Threats and Crises... 14
Transnational Threats... 15
Terrorism... 15
International Crime... 16
Drug Trafficking... 17
Emerging Threats at Home ... 19
Managing the Consequences of WMD Incidents ... 19
Protecting Critical
Infrastructures... 21
Smaller-Scale Contingencies... 21
Major Theater Warfare... 22
Preparing Now for an Uncertain Future... 23
Overarching Capabilities... 24
Quality People... 24
Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance... 24
Space... 25
Missile Defense... 26
National Security Emergency Preparedness... 26
Overseas Presence and Power Projection... 26
i
Promoting Prosperity... 27
Strengthening Macroeconomic
Coordination... 27
Enhancing American Competitiveness... 29
Enhancing Access to Foreign Markets... 29
Promoting an Open Trading System... 29
Export Strategy and Advocacy Program... 31
Enhanced Export Control... 31 Providing for Energy Security... 32
Promoting Sustainable Development Abroad... 33
ii
Promoting Democracy... 33 Emerging Democracies... 33
Adherence to Universal Human Rights and
Democratic Principles... 34
Humanitarian Activities... 35
III. Integrated Regional Approaches... 36Europe and Eurasia... 36
East Asia and the Pacific... 41
The Western Hemisphere... 48
The Middle East, Southwest and
South Asia... 51
Africa... 54
IV. Conclusions... 59

Preface
As we approach the beginning of the 21st century, the United States remains the
world's most powerful force for peace, prosperity and the universal values of
democracy and freedom. Our nation's challenge- and our responsibility-is to
sustain that role by harnessing the forces of global integration for the benefit of
our own people and people around the world.
These forces of integration offer us an unprecedented opportunity to build new
bonds among individuals and nations, to tap the world's vast human potential in
support of shared aspirations, and to create a brighter future for our children.
But they also present new, complex challenges. The same forces that bring us
closer increase our interdependence, and make us more vulnerable to forces like
extreme nationalism, terrorism, crime, environmental damage and the complex flows
of trade and investment that know no borders.
To seize these opportunities, and move against the threats of this new global era,
we are pursuing a forward-looking national security strategy attuned to the
realities of our new era. This report, submitted in accordance with Section 603 of
the GoldwaterNichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, sets forth that
strategy. Its three core objectives are:
� To enhance our security.
� To bolster America's economic prosperity.

� To promote democracy abroad.

Over the past five years, we have been putting this strategy in place through a
network of institutions and arrangements with distinct missions, but a common
purpose-to secure and strengthen the gains of democracy and free markets while
turning back their enemies. Through this web of institutions and arrangements, the
United States and its partners in the international community are laying a
foundation for security and prosperity in the 21st century.
This strategy encompasses a wide range of initiatives: expanded military alliances
like NATO, its Partnership for Peace, and its partnerships with
Russia and Ukraine; promoting free trade through the World Trade Organization and
the move toward free trade areas by nations in the Americas and elsewhere around
the world; strong arms control regimes like the Chemical Weapons Convention and the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; multinational coalitions combating
terrorism, corruption, crime and drug trafficking; and binding international
commitments to protect the environment and safeguard human rights.
The United States must have the tools necessary to carry out this strategy. We
have worked diligently within the parameters of the Balanced Budget Agreement to
preserve and provide for the readiness of our armed forces while meeting priority
military challenges identified in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The
QDR struck a careful balance between near-term readiness, long-term modernization
and quality of life improvements for our men and women in uniform. It ensured that
the high readiness levels of our forward-deployed and "first-to-fight" forces would
be maintained. The priority we attach to maintaining a high-quality force is
reflected in our budget actions. This fiscal year, with Congress' support for the
Bosnia and Southwest Asia non-offset emergency supplemental funds, we were able to
protect our high payoff readiness accounts. Next year's Defense Budget increases
funding for readiness and preserves quality of life for military personnel.
Although we have accomplished much on the readiness front, much more needs to be
done. Our military leadership and I are constantly reevaluating the readiness of
our forces and addressing problems in individual readiness areas as they arise. I
have
iii
instructed the Office of Management and Budget and the National Security Council to
work with the Department of Defense to formulate a multi-year plan with the
necessary resources to preserve military readiness, support our troops, and
modernize the equipment needed for the next century. I am confident that our
military is-and will continue to be-capable of carrying out our national strategy
and meeting America's defense commitments around the world.
We must also renew our commitment to America's diplomacy-to ensure that we have the
superb diplomatic representation that our people deserve and our interests demand.
Every dollar we devote to preventing conflicts, promoting democracy, and stopping
the spread of disease and starvation brings a sure return in security and savings.
Yet international affairs spending today totals just one percent of the federal
budget-a small fraction of what America invested at the start of the Cold War when
we chose engagement over isolation. If America is to continue to lead the world by
its own example, we must demonstrate our own commitment to these priority tasks.
This is also why we must pay our dues to the United Nations.
Protecting our citizens and critical infrastructures at home is an essential
element of our strategy. Potential adversaries-whether nations, terrorist groups or
criminal organizations-will be tempted to disrupt our critical infrastructures,
impede government operations, use weapons of mass destruction against civilians,
and prey on our citizens overseas. These challenges demand close cooperation
across all levels of government-federal, state and local-and across a wide range of
agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State, the Intelligence
Community, law enforcement, emergency services, medical care providers and others.
Protecting our critical infrastructure requires new partnerships between government
and industry. Forging these new structures will be challenging, but
iv
must be done if we are to ensure our safety at home and avoid vulnerabilities that
those wishing us ill might try to exploit in order to erode our resolve to protect
our interests abroad.
The United States has profound interests at stake in the health of the global
economy. Our future prosperity depends upon a stable international financial
system and robust global growth. Economic stability and growth are essential for
the spread of free markets and their integration into the global economy. The
forces necessary for a healthy global economy are also those that deepen democratic
liberties: the free flow of ideas and information, open borders and easy travel,
the rule of law, fair and even-handed enforcement, protection for consumers, a
skilled and educated work force. If citizens tire of waiting for democracy and
free markets to deliver a better life for them, there is a real risk that they will
lose confidence in democracy and free markets. This would pose great risks not
only for our economic interests but for our national security.
We are taking a number of steps to help contain the current financial turmoil in
Asia and other parts of the world. We are working with other industrialized
nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to spur growth, stop
the financial crisis from spreading, and help the victims of financial turmoil. We
have also intensified our efforts to reform international trade and financial
institutions: building a stronger and more accountable global trading system,
pressing forward with market-opening initiatives, advancing the protection of labor
and the environment and doing more to ensure that trade helps the lives of ordinary
citizens across the globe.
At this moment in history, the United States is called upon to lead-to organize the
forces of freedom and progress; to channel the unruly energies of the global
economy into positive avenues; and to advance our prosperity, reinforce our
democratic ideals and values, and enhance our security.
I. Introduction
We must judge our national security strategy by its success in meeting the
fundamental purposes set out in the preamble to the Constitution:
...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,...
Since the founding of the nation, certain requirements have remained constant. We
must protect the lives and personal safety of Americans, both at home and abroad.
We must maintain the sovereignty, political freedom and independence of the United
States, with its values, institutions and territory intact. And, we must promote
for the well being and prosperity of the nation and its people.
Challenges and Opportunities
The security environment in which we live is dynamic and uncertain, replete with a
host of threats and challenges that have the potential to grow more deadly, but
also offering unprecedented opportunities to avert those threats and advance our
interests.
Globalization-the process of accelerating economic, technological, cultural and
political integration- means that more and more we as a nation are affected by
events beyond our borders. Outlaw states and ethnic conflicts threaten regional
stability and economic progress in many important areas of the world. Weapons of
mass destruction (WMD), terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime are global
concerns that transcend national borders. Other problems that once seemed quite
distant- such as resource depletion, rapid population growth, environmental damage,
new infectious diseases and uncontrolled refugee migration-have important
implications for American security. Our workers and businesses will suffer if
foreign markets collapse or lock us out, and the highest domestic environmental
standards will not protect us if we cannot get others to achieve similar standards.
In short, our citizens have a direct stake in the prosperity and stability of other
nations, in their support for international norms and human rights, in their
ability to combat international crime, in their open markets, and in their efforts
to protect the environment.
Yet, this is also a period of great promise. Globalization is bringing citizens
from all continents closer together, allowing them to share ideas, goods and
information at the tap of a keyboard. Many nations around the world have embraced
America's core values of representative governance, free market economics and
respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law, creating new
opportunities to promote peace, prosperity and greater cooperation among nations.
Former adversaries now cooperate with us. The dynamism of the global economy is
transforming commerce, culture, communications and global relations, creating new
jobs and economic opportunity for millions of Americans.
The Imperative of Engagement
Our strategic approach recognizes that we must lead abroad if we are to be secure
at home, but we cannot lead abroad unless we are strong at home. We must be
prepared and willing to use all appropriate instruments of national power to
influence the actions of other states and non-state actors. Today's complex
security environment demands that all our instruments of national power be
effectively integrated to achieve our security objectives. We must have the
demonstrated will and capabilities to continue to exert global leadership and
remain the preferred security partner for the community of states that share our
interests. We have seen in the past that the international community is often
reluctant to act forcefully without American leadership. In many instances, the
United States is the only nation capable of providing the necessary leadership and
capabilities for an international response to shared challenges. American
leadership and engagement
1
in the world are vital for our security, and our nation and the world are safer and
more prosperous as a result.
The alternative to engagement is not withdrawal from the world; it is passive
submission to powerful forces of change-all the more ironic at a time when our
capacity to shape them is as great as it has ever been. Three-quarters of a
century ago, the United States helped to squander Allied victory in World War I by
embracing isolationism. After World War II, and in the face of a new totalitarian
threat, America accepted the challenge to lead. We remained engaged overseas and
worked with our allies to create international structures-from the Marshall Plan,
the United Nations, NATO and other defense arrangements, to the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank-that enabled us to strengthen our security and
prosperity and win the Cold War. By exerting our leadership abroad we have
deterred aggression, fostered the resolution of conflicts, strengthened
democracies, opened foreign markets and tackled global problems such as protecting
the environment. U.S. leadership has been crucial to the success of negotiations
that produced a wide range of treaties that have made the world safer and more
secure by limiting, reducing, preventing the spread of, or eliminating weapons of
mass destruction and other dangerous weapons. Without our leadership and
engagement, threats would multiply and our opportunities would narrow.
Underpinning our international leadership is the power of our democratic ideals and
values. In designing our strategy, we recognize that the spread of democracy
supports American values and enhances both our security and prosperity. Democratic
governments are more likely to cooperate with each other against common threats,
encourage free trade, and promote sustainable economic development. They are less
likely to wage war or abuse the rights of their people. Hence, the trend toward
democracy and free markets throughout the world advances American interests. The
United States will support this trend by remaining actively engaged in the world.
This is the strategy to take us into the next century.
Implementing the Strategy
Our global leadership efforts will continue to be guided by President Clinton's
strategic priorities: to
2
foster regional efforts led by the community of democratic nations to promote peace
and prosperity in key regions of the world, to increase cooperation in confronting
new security threats that defy borders and unilateral solutions, to strengthen the
military, diplomatic and law enforcement tools necessary to meet these challenges
and to create more jobs and opportunities for Americans through a more open and
competitive economic system that also benefits others around the world. Our
strategy is tempered by recognition that there are limits to America's involvement
in the world. We must be selective in the use of our capabilities and the choices
we make always must be guided by advancing our objectives of a more secure,
prosperous and free America.
We must always be prepared to act alone when that is our most advantageous course.
But many of our security objectives are best achieved-or can only be achieved-
through our alliances and other formal security structures, or as a leader of an ad
hoc coalition formed around a specific objective. Durable relationships with
allies and friendly nations are vital to our security. A central thrust of our
strategy is to strengthen and adapt the security relationships we have with key
nations around the world and create new relationships and structures when
necessary. Examples include NATO enlargement, the
Partnership for Peace, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, the African Crisis
Response Initiative, the regional security dialogue in the ASEAN Regional Forum and
the hemispheric security initiatives adopted at the Summit of the Americas. At
other times we harness our diplomatic, economic, military and information strengths
to shape a favorable international environment outside of formal structures. This
approach has borne fruit in areas as diverse as the elimination of nuclear weapons
from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, our comprehensive assistance package for
Russia and other Newly Independent States (NIS), the advancement of peace in
Northern Ireland, and support for the transformation of South Africa.
Protecting our citizens and critical infrastructures at home is an intrinsic and
essential element of our security strategy. The dividing line between domestic and
foreign policy is increasingly blurred. Globalization enables other states,
terrorists, criminals, drug traffickers and others to challenge the safety of our
citizens and the security of our borders in new ways. The security challenges
wrought by globalization demand close cooperation across all levels of government-
federal, state and local-and across a wide range of agencies, including the
Departments of Defense and State, the Intelligence Community, law enforcement,
emergency services, medical care providers and others. Protecting our critical
infrastructure requires new partnerships between government and industry. Forging
these new structures and relationships will be challenging, but must be done if we
are to ensure our safety at home and avoid vulnerabilities that those wishing us
ill might try to exploit in order to erode our resolve to protect our interests
abroad.
Engagement abroad rightly depends on the willingness of the American people and the
Congress to bear the costs of defending U.S. interests-in dollars, energy and, when
there is no alternative, the risk of losing American lives. We must, therefore,
foster the broad public understanding and bipartisan congressional support
necessary to sustain our international engagement, always recognizing that some
decisions that face popular opposition must ultimately be judged by whether they
advance the interests of the American people in the long run.
3

II. Advancing U.S. National Interests

The goal of the national security strategy is to ensure the protection of our
nation's fundamental and enduring needs: protect the lives and safety of Americans,
maintain the sovereignty of the United States with its values, institutions and
territory intact, and promote the prosperity and well-being of the nation and its
people. In our vision of the world, the United States has close cooperative
relations with the world's most influential countries and has the ability to
influence the policies and actions of those who can affect our national well-being.
We seek to create a stable, peaceful international security environment in which
our nation, citizens and interests are not threatened. The United States will not
allow a hostile power to dominate any region of critical importance to our
interests. We will work to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons and the materials for producing them, and to control other potentially
destabilizing technologies, such as long-range missiles. We will continue to
ensure that we have effective means for countering and responding to the threats we
cannot deter or otherwise prevent from arising. This includes protecting our
citizens from terrorism, international crime and drug trafficking.
We seek a world in which democratic values and respect for human rights and the
rule of law are increasingly accepted. This will be achieved through broadening
the community of free-market democracies, promoting an international community that
is willing and able to prevent or respond effectively to humanitarian problems, and
strengthening international non-governmental movements committed to human rights
and democratization. These efforts help prevent humanitarian disasters, promote
reconciliation in states experiencing civil conflict and address migration and
refugee crises.
We seek continued American prosperity through increasingly open international trade
and sustainable growth in the global economy. The health of the international
economy directly affects our security, just as stability enhances the prospects for
prosperity. Prosperity ensures that we are able to sustain our military forces,
foreign initiatives and global influence. In turn, our engagement and influence
helps ensure that the world remains stable so the international economic system can
flourish.
We seek a cleaner global environment to protect the health and well-being of our
citizens. A deteriorating environment not only threatens public health, it impedes
economic growth and can generate tensions that threaten international stability.
To the extent that other nations believe they must engage in nonsustainable
exploitation of natural resources, our long-term prosperity and security are at
risk.
Since there are always many demands for U.S. action, our national interests must be
clear. These interests fall into three categories. The first includes vital
interests-those of broad, overriding importance to the survival, safety and
vitality of our nation. Among these are the physical security of our territory and
that of our allies, the safety of our citizens, our economic well-being and the
protection of our critical infrastructures. We will do what we must to defend
these interests, including-when necessary-using our military might unilaterally and
decisively.
The second category includes situations in which important national interests are
at stake. These interests do not affect our national survival, but they do affect
our national well-being and the character of the world in which we live. In such
cases, we will use our resources to advance these interests insofar as the costs
and risks are commensurate with the interests at stake. Our efforts to halt the
flow of refugees from Haiti and restore democracy in that state, our participation
in NATO operations in Bosnia and our efforts to protect the global environment are
relevant examples.
The third category is humanitarian and other interests. In some circumstances our
nation may act because our values demand it. Examples include responding to
natural and manmade disasters or violations of human rights, supporting
democratization and civil control of the military, assisting humanitarian demining,
and promoting sustainable development. Often in such cases, the force of our
example bolsters support for our leadership in the world. Whenever possible, we
seek to avert humanitarian disasters and conflict through diplomacy and cooperation
with a wide range of partners, including other governments, international
institutions and non-governmental organizations. This may not only save lives, but
also prevent the drain on resources caused by intervention in crises.
Our strategy is based on three national objectives: enhancing our security,
bolstering our economic prosperity and promoting democracy abroad.
Enhancing Security at Home and Abroad
Our strategy for enhancing U.S. security recognizes that we face diverse threats
requiring integrated approaches to defend the nation, shape the international
environment, respond to crises and prepare for an uncertain future.
Threats to U.S. Interests
The current international security environment presents a diverse set of threats to
our enduring goals and hence to our security:
� Regional or State-Centered Threats: A number of states still have the
capabilities and the desire to threaten our vital interests through coercion or
aggression. They continue to threaten the sovereignty of their neighbors and
international access to resources. In many cases, these states are also actively
improving their offensive capabilities, including efforts to obtain or retain
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and, in some cases, long-range delivery
systems. In Southwest Asia, both Iraq and Iran have the potential to threaten
their neighbors and the free flow of oil from the region. In East Asia, North
Korea maintains its forward positioning of offensive military capabilities on its
border with South Korea.
� Transnational threats: Terrorism, international crime, drug trafficking, illicit
arms trafficking, uncontrolled refugee migrations and environmental damage threaten
U.S. interests, citizens and the U.S. homeland itself. The possibility of
terrorists and other criminals using WMD-nuclear, biological and chemical weapons-
is of special concern. Threats to the national information infrastructure, ranging
from cyber-crime to a strategic information attack on the United States via the
global information network, present a dangerous new threat to our national
security. We must also guard against threats to our other critical national
infrastructures-such as electrical power and transportation-which increasingly
could take the form of a cyber-attack in addition to physical attack or sabotage,
and could originate from terrorist or criminal groups as well as hostile states.
International drug trafficking organizations have become the most powerful and
dangerous organized crime groups the United States has ever confronted due to their
sophisticated production, shipment, distribution and financial systems, and the
violence and corruption they promote everywhere they operate.
� Spread of dangerous technologies: Weapons of mass destruction pose the greatest
potential threat to global stability and security. Proliferation of advanced
weapons and technologies threatens to provide rogue states, terrorists and
international crime organizations the means to inflict terrible damage on the
United States, its allies and U.S. citizens and troops abroad. We must continue to
deter and be prepared to counter the use or threatened use of WMD, reduce the
threat posed by existing arsenals of such weaponry and halt the smuggling of
nuclear materials. We must identify the technical information, technologies and
materials that cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of those seeking to develop
and produce WMD. And we must stop the proliferation of non-safeguarded dual-use
technologies that place these destructive capabilities in the hands of parties
hostile to U.S. and global security interests.
� Foreign intelligence collection: The threat from foreign intelligence services
is more diverse, complex and difficult to counter than ever before.
This threat is a mix of traditional and nontraditional intelligence adversaries
that have targeted American military, diplomatic, technological and commercial
secrets. Some foreign intelligence services are rapidly adopting new technologies
and innovative methods to obtain such secrets, including attempts to use the global
information infrastructure to gain access to sensitive information via penetration
of computer systems and networks. These new methods compound the already serious
threat posed by traditional human, technical and signals intelligence activities.
� Failed states: We can expect that, despite international prevention efforts, some
states will be unable to provide basic governance, services and opportunities for
their populations, potentially generating internal conflict, humanitarian crises or
regional instability. As governments lose their ability to provide for the welfare
of their citizens, mass migration, civil unrest, famine, mass killings,
environmental disasters and aggression against neighboring states or ethnic groups
can threaten U.S. interests and citizens.
The Need for Integrated Approaches
Success in countering these varied threats requires an integrated approach that
brings to bear all the capabilities and assets needed to achieve our security
objectives-particularly in this era when domestic and foreign policies are
increasingly blurred.
To effectively shape the international environment and respond to the full spectrum
of potential threats and crises, diplomacy, military force, our other foreign
policy tools and our domestic preparedness efforts must be closely coordinated. We
must retain a strong foreign assistance program and an effective diplomatic corps
if we are to maintain American leadership. We must maintain superior military
forces at the level of readiness necessary to effectively deter aggression, conduct
a wide range of peacetime activities and smaller-scale contingencies, and,
preferably in concert with regional friends and allies, win two overlapping major
theater wars. The success of all our foreign policy tools is critically dependent
on timely and effective intelligence collection and analysis capabilities.
International cooperation will be vital for building security in the next century
because many of the threats we face cannot be addressed by a single nation.
Globalization of transportation and communications has allowed international
terrorists and criminals to operate without geographic constraints, while
individual governments and their law enforcement agencies remain limited by
national boundaries. Unlike terrorists and criminals, governments must respect the
sovereignty of other nations. Accordingly, a central thrust of our strategy is to
enhance relationships with key nations around the world to combat transnational
threats to common interests. We seek to address these threats by increasing
intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, denying terrorists safe havens,
preventing arms traders from fueling regional conflicts and subverting
international embargoes, and cracking down on drug trafficking, money laundering
and international crime.
Building effective coalitions of like-minded nations is not enough. We are
continuing to strengthen and integrate our own diplomatic, military, intelligence
and law enforcement capabilities so we can act on our own when we must as well as
more effectively lead the international community in responding to these threats.
Potential enemies, whether nations, terrorist groups or criminal organizations, are
increasingly likely to attack U.S. territory and the American people in
unconventional ways. Adversaries will be tempted to disrupt our critical
infrastructures, impede continuity of government operations, use weapons of mass
destruction against civilians in our cities, attack us when we gather at special
events and prey on our citizens overseas. The United States must act to deter or
prevent such attacks and, if attacks occurs despite those efforts, must be prepared
to limit the damage they cause and respond decisively against the perpetrators. We
will spare no effort to bring attackers to justice, ever adhering to our policy
toward terrorists that "You can run, but you cannot hide," and where appropriate to
defend ourselves by striking at terrorist bases and states that support terrorist
acts.
At home, we must have effective capabilities for thwarting and responding to
terrorist acts, countering international crime and foreign intelligence collection,
and protecting critical national infrastructures. Our efforts to counter these
threats cannot be limited exclusively to any one agency within the U.S.
Government. The threats and their consequences cross agency lines, requiring close
cooperation among Federal agencies, state and local governments, the industries
that own and operate critical national infrastructures, non-governmental
organizations and others in the private sector.
Shaping the International Environment
The United States has a range of tools at its disposal with which to shape the
international environment in ways favorable to U.S. interests and global security.
Shaping activities enhance U.S. security by promoting regional security and
preventing or reducing the wide range of diverse threats outlined above. These
measures adapt and strengthen alliances and friendships, maintain U.S. influence in
key regions and encourage adherence to international norms. When signs of potential
conflict emerge, or potential threats appear, we undertake initiatives to prevent
or reduce these threats. Our shaping efforts also aim to discourage arms races,
halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce tensions in critical
regions and combat the spread of international criminal organizations.
Many of our international shaping activities, often undertaken with the cooperation
of our allies and friends, also help to prevent threats from arising that place at
risk American lives and property at home. Examples include countering terrorism,
drug and firearms trafficking, illegal immigration, the spread of WMD and other
threats. Increasingly, shaping the security environment involves a wide range of
Federal agencies, some of which in the past have not been thought of as having such
an international role.
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is a vital tool for countering threats to our national security. The
daily business of diplomacy conducted through our missions and representatives
around the world is a irreplaceable shaping activity. These efforts are essential
to sustaining our alliances, forcefully articulating U.S. interests, resolving
regional disputes peacefully, averting humanitarian catastrophe, deterring
aggression against the United States and our friends and allies, creating trade and
investment opportunities for U.S. companies, and projecting U.S. influence
worldwide.
One of the lessons that has been repeatedly driven home is the importance of
preventive diplomacy in dealing with conflict and complex emergencies. Helping
prevent nations from failing is far more effective than rebuilding them after an
internal crisis. Helping people stay in their homes is far more beneficial than
feeding and housing them in refugee camps. Helping relief agencies and
international organizations strengthen the institutions of conflict resolution is
far less taxing than healing ethnic and social divisions that have already exploded
into bloodshed. In short, while crisis management and crisis resolution are
necessary tasks for our foreign policy, preventive diplomacy is obviously far
preferable.
Credible military force and the demonstrated will to use it are essential to defend
our vital interests and keep America safe. But force alone cannot solve all our
problems. To be most effective, force, diplomacy and our other policy tools must
complement and reinforce each other-for there will be many occasions and many
places where we must rely on diplomatic shaping activities to protect and advance
our interests.
International Assistance
From the U.S.-led mobilization to rebuild post-war Europe to the more recent
creation of export opportunities across Asia, Latin America and Africa, U.S.
foreign assistance has assisted emerging democracies, helped expand free markets,
slowed the growth of international crime, contained major health threats, improved
protection of the environment and natural resources, slowed population growth and
defused humanitarian crises. Crises are averted-and U.S. preventive diplomacy
actively reinforced-through U.S. sustainable development programs that promote
voluntary family planning, basic education, environmental protection, democratic
governance and rule of law, and the economic empowerment of private citizens.
When combined effectively with other bilateral and multilateral activities, such as
through our cooperative scientific and technological programs, U.S. initiatives
reduce the need for costly military and humanitarian interventions. Where foreign
aid succeeds in consolidating free market policies, substantial growth of American
exports has frequently followed. Where crises have occurred, actions such as the
Greater Horn of Africa Initiative have helped stanch mass human suffering and
created a path out of conflict and dislocation through targeted relief. Other
foreign aid programs have worked to help restore elementary security and civic
institutions.
Arms Control
Arms control efforts are an essential element of our national security strategy.
Effective arms control is really defense by other means. We pursue verifiable arms
control agreements that support our efforts to prevent the spread and use of
weapons of mass destruction, halt the use of conventional weapons that cause
unnecessary suffering, and contribute to regional stability at lower levels of
armaments. By increasing transparency in the size, structure and operations of
military forces, arms control agreements and confidence-building measures reduce
incentives and opportunities to initiate an attack, and reduce the mutual
suspicions that arise from and spur on armaments competition. They help provide
the assurance of security necessary to strengthen cooperative relationships and
direct resources to safer, more productive endeavors. Agreements that preserve our
crisis response capability shape the global and regional security environments, and
simultaneously reinforce our commitment to allies and partners. Our arms control
initiatives are an essential prevention measure for enhancing U.S. and allied
security.
Verifiable reductions in strategic offensive arms and the steady shift toward less
destabilizing systems remain essential to our strategy. Entry into force of the
START I Treaty in December 1994 charted the course for reductions in the deployed
strategic nuclear forces of the United States and the Former Soviet Union (FSU).
START I has accomplished much to reduce the risk of nuclear war and strengthen
international security. On the third anniversary of START I entry into force, the
United States and Russia announced that both were two years ahead of schedule in
meeting the treaty's mandated reductions.
Once the START II Treaty enters into force, the United States and Russia will each
be limited to between 3,000-3,500 total deployed strategic nuclear warheads. START
II also will eliminate destabilizing land-based multiple warhead missiles, a truly
historic achievement. Russian ratification of START II will open the door to the
next round of strategic arms control.
At the Helsinki Summit in March 1997, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed that
once START II enters into force, our two nations would immediately begin
negotiations on a START III agreement. They agreed to START III guidelines that,
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 our arsenals by 80 percent
from Cold War heights. They also agreed that START III will, for the first time,
require the U.S. and Russia to destroy nuclear warheads, not just the missiles,
aircraft and submarines that carry them, and opened the door to possible reductions
in non-strategic nuclear weapons. On September 26, 1997, the U.S. and Russia
signed a START II Protocol codifying the agreement at Helsinki to extend the end
date for reductions to 2007 and exchanged letters on early deactivation by 2003 of
those strategic nuclear delivery systems to be eliminated by 2007.
At Helsinki, the two Presidents recognized the NunnLugar Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) Program as the vehicle through which the United States would
facilitate the deactivation of strategic nuclear delivery systems in the FSU
nations. The CTR Program has assisted Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus in becoming
non-nuclear weapons states and will continue to assist Russia in meeting its START
obligations. The program has effectively supported enhanced safety, security,
accounting and centralized control measures for nuclear weapons and fissile
materials in the FSU. CTR is also assisting FSU nations in measures to eliminate
and prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons and biological weapon-related
capabilities. It has supported many ongoing military reductions and reform
measures in the FSU, and has contributed to a climate conducive for further
progress on non-proliferation.
Also at Helsinki, the Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty and recognized the need for effective theater missile defenses
in an agreement in principle on demarcation between systems to counter strategic
ballistic missiles and those to counter theater ballistic missiles. On September
26, 1997, the U.S. Secretary of State and Russian Foreign Minister, along with
their counterparts from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, signed or initialed five
agreements relating to the ABM Treaty. The agreements on demarcation and
succession will be provided to the Senate for its advice and consent following
Russian ratification of START II.
By banning all nuclear test explosions for all time, the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) constrains the development of dangerous nuclear weapons, contributes
to preventing nuclear proliferation and to the process of nuclear disarmament, and
enhances the ability of the United States to monitor suspicious nuclear activities
in other countries through a worldwide sensor network and on-site inspections.
Nuclear tests in India and Pakistan in May 1998 make it more important than ever to
move quickly to bring the CTBT into force and continue establishment of the
substantial verification mechanisms called for in the treaty. The President has
submitted the treaty, which 150 nations have signed, to the Senate and has urged
the Senate to provide its advice and consent this year. Prompt U.S. ratification
will encourage other states to ratify, enable the United States to lead the
international effort to gain CTBT entry into force and strengthen international
norms against nuclear testing. Multilateral and regional arms control efforts also
increase U.S. and global security. We seek to strengthen the Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC) with a new international regime to ensure compliance. At present,
we are negotiating with other BWC member states in an effort to reach consensus on
a protocol to the BWC that would implement an inspection system to deter and detect
cheating. We are also working hard to implement and enforce the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC). The United States Senate underscored the importance of these
efforts with its April 24, 1997 decision, by a vote of 74-26, to give its advice
and consent to ratification of the CWC. The next key step is legislation to
implement full compliance with the commercial declarations and inspections that are
required by the CWC.
In Europe, we are pursuing the adaptation of the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe (CFE) Treaty, consistent with the Decision on Certain Basic Elements adopted
in Vienna on July 23, 1997 by all 30 CFE states. Success in this negotiation will
ensure that this landmark agreement remains a cornerstone of European security into
the 21st century and beyond. We continue to seek Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian
ratification of the 1992 Open Skies Treaty to increase transparency of military
forces in Eurasia and North America. We also promote, through international
organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), implementation of confidence and securitybuilding measures, including the
1994 Vienna Document, throughout Europe and in specific regions of tension and
instability-even where we are not formal parties to such agreements. The
agreements mandated by the Dayton Accords demonstrate how innovative regional
efforts can strengthen stability and reduce conflicts that could adversely affect
U.S. interests abroad.
President Clinton is committed to ending the tragic damage to innocent civilians
due to anti-personnel landmines (APLs). The United States has already taken major
steps in the spirit that motivated the Ottawa Convention, while ensuring our
ability to meet international obligations and provide for the safety and security
of our men and women in uniform. On June 30, 1998, we met-one year ahead of
schedule-the President's May 1996 commitment to destroy all of our non-self-
destructing APLs by 1999, except those we need for Korea and demining training. To
expand and strengthen the Administration policy on APLs that he announced on
September 17, 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 64 in
June 1998. It directs the Defense Department to end the use of all APLs, even of
self-destructing APLs, outside Korea by 2003 and to pursue aggressively the
objective of having APL alternatives ready for Korea by 2006. We will also
aggressively pursue alternatives to our mixed anti-tank systems that contain anti-
personnel submunitions. We have made clear that the United States will sign the
Ottawa Convention by 2006 if we succeed in identifying and fielding suitable
alternatives to our self-destructing APLs and mixed anti-tank systems by then.
Furthermore, in 1997 the Administration submitted for Senate advice and consent the
Amended Landmine Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, which bans the
unmarked, long-duration APLs that caused the worldwide humanitarian problem. We
have established a permanent ban on APL exports and are seeking to universalize an
export ban through the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. In 1998 we are
spending $80 million on humanitarian demining programs, more than double that of
the previous year, and through our "Demining 2010" initiative have challenged the
world to increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of removing landmines that threaten civilians.
Nonproliferation Initiatives
Nonproliferation initiatives enhance global security by preventing the spread of
WMD, materials for producing them and means of delivering them. That is why the
Administration is promoting universal adherence to the international treaty regimes
that prohibit the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, including the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the CWC and the BWC. The NPT was an indispensable
precondition for the denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus and South
Africa. We also seek to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
safeguards system and achieve a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to cap the nuclear
materials available for weapons. A coordinated effort by the intelligence
community and law enforcement agencies to detect, prevent and deter illegal
trafficking in fissile materials is also essential to our counter-proliferation
efforts. The Administration also seeks to prevent destabilizing buildups of
conventional arms and limit access to sensitive technical information, equipment
and technologies by strengthening multilateral regimes, including the Wassenaar
Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and
Technologies, the Australia Group (for chemical and biological weapons), the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. We are
working to harmonize national export control policies, increase information
sharing, refine control lists and expand cooperation against illicit transfers.
Regional nonproliferation efforts are particularly important in three critical
proliferation zones. On the Korean Peninsula, we are implementing the 1994
Agreed Framework, which requires full compliance by
North Korea with nonproliferation obligations. In the Middle East and Southwest
Asia, we encourage regional arms control agreements that address the legitimate
security concerns of all parties and continue efforts to thwart and roll back
Iran's development of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's efforts to
reconstitute its programs. In South Asia, we seek to persuade India and Pakistan
to bring their nuclear and missile programs into conformity with international
nonproliferation standards and to sign and ratify the CTBT.
Through programs such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and
other initiatives, we aim to strengthen controls over weapons-usable fissile
material and prevent the theft or diversion of WMD and related material and
technology. We are working to strengthen the Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material to increase accountability and protection, which complements
our effort to enhance IAEA safeguards. We are purchasing tons of highly enriched
uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons for conversion into commercial
reactor fuel, and working with Russia to redirect former Soviet facilities and
scientists from military to peaceful purposes.
To expand and improve U.S. efforts aimed at deterring proliferation of WMD by
organized crime groups and individuals in the NIS and Eastern Europe, the Defense
Department and FBI are

implementing a joint counter proliferation assistance program that provides

appropriate training, material and services to law enforcement agencies in these
areas. The program's objectives are to assist in establishing a professional cadre
of law enforcement personnel in these nations trained to prevent, deter and
investigate crimes related to the proliferation and diversion of WMD or their
delivery systems; to assist these countries in developing laws and regulations
designed to prevent the illicit acquisition or trafficking of WMD, and in
establishing appropriate enforcement mechanisms; and to build a solid legal and
organization framework that will enable these governments to attack the
proliferation problem at home and participate effectively in international efforts.
Military Activities
The U.S. military plays an essential role in building coalitions and shaping the
international environment in ways that protect and promote U.S. interests. Through
overseas presence and peacetime engagement activities such as defense cooperation,
security assistance, and training and exercises with allies and friends, our armed
forces help to deter aggression and coercion, promote regional stability, prevent
and reduce conflicts and threats, and serve as role models for militaries in
emerging democracies. These important efforts engage every component of the Total
Force: Active, Reserve, National Guard and civilian.
Deterrence of aggression and coercion on a daily basis is crucial. Our ability to
deter potential adversaries in peacetime rests on several factors, particularly on
our demonstrated will and ability to uphold our security commitments when they are
challenged. We have earned this reputation through both our declaratory policy,
which clearly communicates costs to potential adversaries, and our credible
warfighting capability. This capability is embodied in ready forces and equipment
strategically stationed or deployed forward, in forces in the United States at the
appropriate level of readiness to deploy and go into action when needed, in our
ability to gain timely access to critical regions and infrastructure overseas, and
in our demonstrated ability to form and lead effective military coalitions.
Our nuclear deterrent posture is one of the most visible and important examples of
how U.S. military capabilities can be used effectively to deter aggression and
coercion, as reaffirmed in a Presidential Decision Directive signed by President
Clinton in November 1997. Nuclear weapons serve as a hedge against an uncertain
future, a guarantee of our security commitments to allies and a disincentive to
those who would contemplate developing or otherwise acquiring their own nuclear
weapons. Our military planning for the possible employment of U.S. nuclear weapons
is focused on deterring a nuclear war rather than attempting to fight and win a
protracted nuclear exchange. We continue to emphasize the survivability of the
nuclear systems and infrastructure necessary to endure a preemptive attack and
still respond at overwhelming levels. The United States must continue to maintain
a robust triad of strategic forces sufficient to deter any hostile foreign
leadership with access to nuclear forces and to convince it that seeking a nuclear
advantage would be futile. We must also ensure the continued viability of the
infrastructure that supports U.S. nuclear forces and weapons. The Stockpile
Stewardship Program will guarantee the safety and reliability of our nuclear
weapons under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
While our overall deterrence posture-nuclear and conventional-has been effective
against most potential adversaries, a range of terrorist and criminal organizations
may not be deterred by traditional deterrent threats. For these actors to be
deterred, they must believe that any type of attack against the United States or
its citizens will be attributed to them and that we will respond effectively and
decisively to protect our national interests and ensure that justice is done.
Our military promotes regional stability in numerous ways. In Europe, East Asia
and Southwest Asia, where the U.S. has clear, vital interests, the American
military helps assure the security of our allies and friends. The reinforcement of
U.S. forces in the Gulf from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998 clearly illustrates the
importance of military power in achieving U.S. national security objectives and
stabilizing a potentially volatile situation. The U.S. buildup made it clear to
Saddam Hussein that he must comply with UN sanctions and cease hindering UNSCOM
inspections or face dire consequences. It
also denied him the option of moving to threaten his neighbors, as he had done in
past confrontations with the international community. Saddam's agreement to open
the so-called "presidential sites" to UN inspection was a significant step toward
ensuring that Iraq's WMD have been eradicated. It would not have been achieved
without American diplomacy backed by force. Our decision maintain a higher
continuous force level in the Gulf than we had before this most recent
confrontation with Iraq will help deter Saddam from making further provocations and
strengthen the resolve of our coalition partners in the Gulf.
We are continuing to adapt and strengthen our alliances and coalitions to meet the
challenges of an evolving security environment. U.S. military forces prevent and
reduce a wide range of potential conflicts in key regions. An example of such an
activity is our deployment to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to help
prevent the spread of violence to that country. We assist other countries in
improving their pertinent military capabilities, including peacekeeping and
humanitarian response. With countries that are neither staunch friends nor known
foes, military cooperation often serves as a positive means of engagement, building
security relationships today that will contribute to improved relations tomorrow.
Our armed forces also serve as a role model for militaries in emerging democracies
around the world. Our 200-year history of strong civilian control of the military
serves as an example to those countries with histories of non-democratic
governments. Through military-to-military activities and increasing links between
the U.S. military and the military establishments of Partnership for Peace nations,
for instance, we are helping to transform military institutions in Central and
Eastern Europe, as well as in the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet
Union.
International Law Enforcement
Cooperation
As threats to our national security from drug trafficking, terrorism and
international crime increase, development of working relations U.S. and foreign law
enforcement and judicial agencies will play a vital role in shaping law enforcement
priorities in those countries. Law enforcement agencies must continue to find
innovative ways to develop a concerted, global attack on the spread of
international crime.
Overseas law enforcement presence leverages resources and fosters the establishment
of effective working relationships with foreign law enforcement agencies. U.S.
investigators and prosecutors draw upon their experience and background to enlist
the cooperation of foreign law enforcement officials, keeping crime away from
American shores, enabling the arrest of many U.S. fugitives and solving serious
U.S. crimes. This presence develops substantive international links by creating
personal networks of law enforcement professionals dedicated to bringing
international criminals to justice.
In addition, training foreign law enforcement officers is critical to combating
international crime. Such training helps create professional law enforcement
organizations and builds citizen confidence in law enforcement officers, who
understand and operate under the rule of law. Training also builds a common
perspective and understanding of investigative techniques that helps shape
international law enforcement priorities. The FBI and other federal law
enforcement agencies have provided extensive law enforcement training at the
International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary and elsewhere around the
world. This training has proved to be enormously effective in developing
professional law enforcement and security services in emerging democracies.
Environmental Initiatives
Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our
security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders and
can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource
scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as
climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of hazardous
chemicals and waste directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens.
We have a full diplomatic agenda, working bilaterally and multilaterally to respond
aggressively to environmental threats. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is
an important instrument for this cooperation. With 161 member nations, the GEF is
specifically focused on reducing cross-border environmental damage. Our
Environmental Security Initiative joins U.S. agencies with foreign partners to
address regional environmental concerns and thereby reduce the risk to U.S.
interests abroad. We have also undertaken development of an environmental
forecasting system to provide U.S. policymakers advance warning of environmental
stress situations which have the potential for significant impact on U.S.
interests.
At Kyoto in December 1997, the industrialized nations of the world agreed for the
first time to binding limits on greenhouse gases. The agreement is strong and
comprehensive, covering the six greenhouse gases whose concentrations are
increasing due to human activity. It reflects the commitment of the United States
to use the tools of the free market to tackle this problem. It will enhance growth
and create new incentives for the rapid development of technologies through a
system of joint implementation and emissions trading. The Kyoto agreement was a
vital turning point, but we still have a lot of hard work ahead. We must press for
meaningful participation by key developing nations. Multilateral negotiations are
underway and we will pursue bilateral talks with key developing nations. We will
not submit the Kyoto agreement for ratifica-tion until key developing nations have
agreed to participate meaningfully in efforts to address global warming.
Additionally, we seek to accomplish the following:
� achieve increased compliance with the Montreal Protocol through domestic and
multilateral efforts aimed at curbing illegal trade in ozone depleting substances;
� ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, implement the UN Straddling Stocks
Agreement and help to promote sustainable management of fisheries worldwide;

� implement the Program of Action on population growth developed at the 1994 Cairo
Conference, lead a renewed global effort to address population problems and promote
international consensus for stabilizing world population growth;
� expand bilateral forest assistance programs and promote sustainable management of
tropical forests;
� achieve Senate ratification of the Convention to
Combat Desertification;
� negotiate an international agreement to ban twelve persistent organic pollutants,
including such hazardous chemicals as DDT;
� promote environment-related scientific research in other countries so they can
better identify environmental problems and develop indigenous solutions for them;
� increase international cooperation in fighting transboundary environmental crime,
including trafficking in protected flora and fauna, hazardous waste and ozone-
depleting chemicals;
� ratify the Biodiversity Convention and take steps to prevent biodiversity loss,
including support for agricultural research to relieve pressures on forests,
working with multilateral development banks and others to prevent biodiversity loss
in key regions, and use of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species to protect threatened species; and
� continue to work with the Nordic countries and Russia to mitigate nuclear and
non-nuclear pollution in the Arctic, and continue to encourage Russia to develop
sound management practices for nuclear materials and radioactive waste.

Responding to Threats and Crises

Because our shaping efforts alone cannot guarantee the international security
environment we seek, the United States must be able to respond at home and abroad
to the full spectrum of threats and crises that may arise. Our resources are
finite, so we must be selective in our responses, focusing on challenges that most
directly affect our interests and engaging where we can make the most difference.
Our response might be diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, or military in nature-
or, more likely, some combination of the above. We must use the most appropriate
tool or combination of tools-acting in alliance or partnership when our interests
are shared by others, but unilaterally when compelling national interests so
demand. At home, we must forge an effective partnership of Federal, state and
local government agencies, industry and other private sector organizations.
When efforts to deter an adversary-be it a rogue nation, terrorist group or
criminal organization-occur in the context of a crisis, they become the leading
edge of crisis response. In this sense, deterrence straddles the line between
shaping the international environment and responding to crises. Deterrence in
crisis generally involves signaling the United States' commitment to a particular
country or interest by enhancing our warfighting capability in the theater. Forces
in or near the theater may be moved closer to the crisis and other forces rapidly
deployed to the area. The U.S. may also choose to make additional statements to
communicate the costs of aggression or coercion to an adversary, and in some cases
may choose to employ U.S. forces to underline the message and deter further
adventurism.
The American people rightfully play a central role in how the United States wields
its power abroad. The United States cannot long sustain a commitment without the
support of the public, and close consultations with Congress are important in this
effort. When it is judged in America's interest to intervene, we must remain clear
in purpose and resolute in execution.
Transnational Threats
Today, American diplomats, law enforcement officials, military personnel, members
of the intelligence community and others are increasingly called upon to respond to
growing transnational threats, particularly terrorism, drug trafficking and
international organized crime.
Terrorism
To meet the growing challenge of terrorism, President
Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62 in May 1998. This Directive
creates a new and more systematic approach to fighting the terrorist threat of the
next century. It reinforces the mission of the many U.S. agencies charged with
roles in defeating terrorism; it also codifies and clarifies their activities in
the wide range of U.S. counter-terrorism programs, including apprehension and
prosecution of terrorists, increasing transportation security, and enhancing
incident response capabilities. The Directive will help achieve the President's
goal of ensuring that we meet the threat of terrorism in the 21st century.
Our policy to counter international terrorists rests on the following principles:
(1) make no concessions to terrorists; (2) bring all pressure to bear on all state
sponsors of terrorism; (3) fully exploit all available legal mechanisms to punish
international terrorists; and (4) help other governments improve their capabilities
to combat terrorism. Following these principles, we seek to uncover and eliminate
foreign terrorists and their support networks in our country; eliminate terrorist
sanctuaries; and counter statesupported terrorism and subversion of moderate
regimes through a comprehensive program of diplomatic, law enforcement, economic,
military and intelligence activities. We are working to improve aviation security
at airports in the United States and worldwide, to ensure better security for all
U.S. transportation systems, and to improve protection for our personnel assigned
overseas.
Countering terrorism effectively requires day-to-day coordination within the U.S.
Government and close cooperation with other governments and international
organizations. Foreign terrorists will not be allowed to enter the United States,
and the full force of legal authorities will be used to remove foreign terrorists
from the United States and prevent fundraising within the United States to support
foreign terrorist activity. We have seen positive results from the increasing
integration of intelligence, diplomatic, military and law enforcement activities
among the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, Treasury, Energy, Transportation,
the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The Administration is working with
Congress to increase the ability of these agencies to combat terrorism through
augmented funding and manpower.
The United States has made concerted efforts to deter and punish terrorists and
remains determined to apprehend and bring to justice those who terrorize American
citizens. In January 1998, the United
States signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings. The Convention fills an important gap in international law by expanding
the legal framework for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution
and extradition of persons who engage in such bombings. Whenever possible, we use
law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight against terrorism. But there
have been, and will be, times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply
not enough, when our very national security is challenged, and when we must take
extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. As long as terrorists
continue to target American citizens, we reserve the right to act in self defense
by striking at their bases and those who sponsor, assist or actively support them.
We exercised that right in 1993 with the attack against Iraqi intelligence
headquarters in response to Baghdad's assassination attempt against former
President Bush. We exercised that right again in August 1998.
On August 7, 1998, 12 Americans and nearly 300
Kenyans and Tanzanians lost their lives, and another 5,000 were wounded when our
embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed. Soon afterward, our
intelligence community acquired convincing information from a variety of reliable
sources that the network of radical groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden, perhaps
the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world
today, planned, financed and carried out the bombings. The groups associated with
bin Laden come from diverse places, but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical
glorification of violence and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify
the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary
precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against.
On August 20, 1998, our Armed Forces carried out strikes against terrorist
facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most
active terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Laden
network's infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally thousands
of terrorists from around the globe. Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan
associated with the bin Laden network that was involved in the production of
materials for chemical weapons. The strikes were a necessary and proportionate
response to the imminent threat of further terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel
and facilities. Afghanistan and Sudan had been warned for years to stop harboring
and supporting these terrorist groups. Countries that persistently host terrorists
have no right to be safe havens.
Placing terrorism at the top of the diplomatic agenda has increased international
information sharing and law enforcement efforts. At the June 1997 Denver Summit of
the Eight, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United
Kingdom and the United States reaffirmed their determination to combat terrorism in
all forms, their opposition to concessions to terrorist demands and their
determination to deny hostage-takers any benefits from their acts. They agreed to
intensify diplomatic efforts to ensure that by the year 2000 all States have joined
the international counterterrorism conventions specified in the 1996 UN resolution
on measures to counter terrorism. The eight leaders also agreed to strengthen the
capability of hostage negotiation experts and counterterrorism response units, to
exchange information on technologies to detect and deter the use of weapons of mass
destruction in terrorist attacks, to develop means to deter terrorist attacks on
electronic and computer infrastructure, to strengthen maritime security, to
exchange information on security practices for international special events, and to
strengthen and expand international cooperation and consultation on terrorism.
International Crime
International crime is a serious and potent threat to the American people at home
and abroad. Drug trafficking, illegal trade in firearms, financial crimes- such as
money laundering, counterfeiting, advanced fee and credit card fraud, and income
tax evasion- illegal alien smuggling, trafficking in women and children, economic
espionage, intellectual property theft, computer hacking and public corruption are
all linked to international criminal activity and all have a direct impact on the
security and prosperity of the American people.
Efforts to combat international crime can have a much broader impact than simply
halting individual criminal acts. The efficiency of the market place depends on
transparency and effective law enforcement, which limit distorting factors such as
extortion and corruption. A free and efficient market implies not only the absence
of state control but also limits on unlawful activities that impede rational
business decisions and fair competition. Additionally, the integrity and
reliability of the international financial system will be improved by standardizing
laws and regulations governing financial institutions and improving international
law enforcement cooperation in the financial sector.
To address the increasing threat from these diverse criminal activities, we have
formulated an International Crime Control Strategy that provides a framework for
integrating the federal government response to international crime. The strategy's
major goals and initiatives are to:
� Extend our crime control efforts beyond U.S. borders by intensifying activities
of law enforcement and diplomatic personnel abroad to prevent criminal acts and
prosecute select criminal acts committed abroad.
� Protect U.S. borders by enhancing our inspection, detection, monitoring and
interdiction efforts, seeking stiffer criminal penalties for smuggling, and
targeting law enforcement resources more effectively against smugglers.
� Deny safe haven to international criminals by negotiating new international
agreements for evidence sharing and prompt arrest and extradition of fugitives
(including nationals of the requested country), implementing strengthened
immigration laws to prevent criminals from entering the United States and provide
for their prompt expulsion when appropriate, and promoting increased cooperation
with foreign law enforcement authorities.
� Counter international financial crime by combating money laundering and reducing
movement of criminal proceeds, seizing the assets of international criminals,
enhancing bilateral and multilateral cooperation against financial crime, and
targeting offshore sources of international fraud, counterfeiting, electronic
access device schemes, income tax evasion and other financial crimes.
� Prevent criminal exploitation of international trade by interdicting illegal
technology exports, preventing unfair and predatory trade practices, protecting
intellectual property rights, countering industrial theft and economic espionage,
and enforcing import restrictions on harmful substances, dangerous organisms and
protected species. In fiscal year 1997, the Customs Service seized $59 million in
goods and $55 million in currency being taken out of the country illegally.
� Respond to emerging international crime threats by disrupting new activities of
international organized crime groups, enhancing intelligence efforts, reducing
trafficking in human beings (involuntary servitude, alien smuggling, document fraud
and denial of human rights), crimes against children, and increasing enforcement
efforts against high technology and computer-related crime.
� Foster international cooperation and the rule of law by establishing
international standards, goals and objectives to combat international crime and by
actively encouraging compliance, improving bilateral cooperation with foreign
governments and law enforcement authorities, expanding U.S. training and assistance
programs in law enforcement and administration of justice, and strengthening the
rule of law as the foundation for democratic government and free markets.
The growing threat to our security from transnational crime makes international law
enforcement cooperation vital. We are negotiating and implementing updated
extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties that reflect the changing nature
of international crime and prevent terrorists and criminals from exploiting
national borders to escape prosecution. Moreover, since the primary motivation of
most international criminals is greed, powerful asset seizure, forfeiture and money
laundering laws are key tools for taking action against the financial underpinnings
of international crime. Increasing our enforcement powers through bilateral and
multilateral agreements and efforts makes it harder for criminals to enjoy their
illgotten gains.
At the Birmingham Summit in May 1998, the leaders of the G-8 adopted a wide range
of measures to strengthen the cooperative efforts against international crime that
they launched at their summit in Lyon two years ago. They agreed to increase
cooperation on transnational high technology crime, money laundering and financial
crime, corruption, environmental crimes, and trafficking in drugs, firearms and
women and children. They also agreed to fully support negotiations on a UN
Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, which will broaden many of the efforts
underway among the G-8 to the rest of the international community.
No area of criminal activity has greater international implications than high
technology crime because of the global nature of information networks. Computer
hackers and other cyber-criminals are not hampered by international boundaries,
since information and transactions involving funds or property can be transmitted
quickly and covertly via telephone and information systems. Law enforcement faces
difficult challenges in this area, many of which are impossible to address without
international consensus and cooperation. We seek to develop and implement new
agreements with other nations to address high technology crime, particularly cyber-
crime.
We are making a concerted effort at home and abroad to shut down the illicit trade
in firearms, ammunition and explosives that fuels the violence associated with
terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime. The President has signed
legislation amending the Arms Export Control Act to expand our authority to monitor
and regulate the activities of arms brokers and we have intensified reviews of
applications for licenses to export firearms from the United States to ensure that
they are not diverted to illicit purposes. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) has tightened up proof of residency requirements for aliens
purchasing firearms from dealers in the United States, and ATF and the Customs
Service have intensified their interdiction and investigative efforts at U.S.
borders.
In the international arena, the United States is working with its partners in the
G-8 and through the UN Crime Commission to expand cooperation on combating illicit
arms trafficking. In November 1997, the United States and its partners in the
Organization of American States (OAS) signed the Inter-American Convention Against
the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms-the first international
agreement designed to prevent, combat and eradicate illegal trafficking in
firearms, ammunition and explosives. We are now negotiating an international
agreement that would globalize the OAS convention. Additionally, the ATF and
Customs Service have provided training and assistance to other nations on tracing
firearms, combating internal smuggling and related law enforcement topics.
Drug Trafficking
We have shown that with determined and relentless efforts, we can make significant
progress against the scourge of drug abuse and drug trafficking. In the United
States, drug use has dropped 49 percent since 1979. Recent studies show that drug
use by our young people is stabilizing, and in some categories, declining.
Overall, cocaine use has dropped 70 percent since 1985 and the crack epidemic has
begun to recede. Today, Americans spend 37 percent less on drugs than a decade
ago.
That means over $34 billion reinvested in our society, rather than squandered on
drugs.
The aim of the U.S. National Drug Control Strategy is to cut drug availability in
the United States by half over the next 10 years-and reduce the consequences of
drug use and trafficking by 25 percent over the same period-through expanded
prevention efforts, improved treatment programs, strengthened law enforcement and
tougher interdiction. Our strategy recognizes that, at home and abroad,
prevention, treatment and economic alternatives must be integrated with
intelligence collection, law enforcement and interdiction. Its ultimate success
will require concerted efforts by the public, all levels of government and the
private sector together with other governments, private groups and international
organizations.
Domestically, we seek to educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal
drugs, increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing drug-
related crime and violence, reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal
drug use, and shield America's air, land and sea frontiers from the drug threat.
Working with Congress and the private sector, the Administration has launched a
major antidrug youth media campaign and will seek to extend this program through
2002. With congressional support and matching dollars from the private sector, we
will commit to a five-year, $2 billion public-private partnership to educate our
children to reject drugs.
In concert with our allies abroad, we seek to stop drug trafficking by reducing
cultivation of drugproducing crops, interdicting the flow of drugs at the source
and in transit (particularly in Central and South America, the Caribbean, Mexico
and Southeast Asia), and stopping drugs from entering our country. The Strategy
includes efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and root out corruption in
source nations, prosecute major international drug traffickers and destroy
trafficking organizations, prevent money laundering and use of commercial air and
maritime transportation for drug smuggling, and eradicate illegal drug crops and
encourage alternate crop development or alternative employment in source nations.
We seek to achieve a counterdrug alliance in this hemisphere, one that could serve
as a model for enhanced cooperation in other regions.
The United States is aggressively engaging international organizations, financial
institutions and non-governmental organizations in counternarcotics cooperation.
At the Birmingham Summit in May 1998, the leaders of the G-8 endorsed the principle
of shared responsibility for combating drugs, including cooperative efforts focused
on both eradication and demand reduction. They agreed to reinforce cooperation on
reducing demand and curbing trafficking in drugs and chemical precursors. They
also agreed on the need for a global strategy to eradicate illicit drugs. The
United States supports the UN International Drug Control Program's goal of
dramatically reducing coca and opium poppy cultivation by 2008 and the program's
efforts to combat drug production, trafficking and abuse in some of the most remote
regions of the world. At the UN General Assembly Special Session on drug
trafficking and abuse in June 1998, President Clinton and other world leaders
strengthened existing international counterdrug institutions, reconfirmed the
global partnership against drug abuse and stressed the need for a coordinated
international approach to combating drug trafficking.
Emerging Threats at Home
Due to our military superiority, potential enemies, whether nations or terrorist
groups, may be more likely in the future to resort to terrorist acts or other
attacks against vulnerable civilian targets in the United States instead of
conventional military operations. At the same time, easier access to sophisticated
technology means that the destructive power available to terrorists is greater than
ever. Adversaries may thus be tempted to use unconventional tools, such as WMD or
information attacks, to threaten our citizens, and critical national
infrastructures.
Managing the Consequences of WMD
Incidents
Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in May 1998, established an overarching
policy and assignment of responsibilities for responding to terrorist acts
involving WMD. The Federal Government will respond rapidly and decisively to any
terrorist incident in the United States, working with state and local governments
to restore order and deliver emergency assistance. The Department of Justice,
acting through the FBI, has the overall lead in operational response to a WMD
incident. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) supports the FBI in
preparing for and responding to the consequences of a WMD incident.
The Domestic Terrorism Program is integrating the capabilities and assets of a
number of Federal agencies to support the FBI, FEMA and state and local governments
in consequence management. The program's goal is to build a capability in 120 major
U.S. cities for first responders to be able to deal with WMD incidents by 2002. In
fiscal year 1997, the Defense Department provided training to nearly 1,500
metropolitan emergency responders- firefighters, law enforcement officials and
medical personnel-in four cities. In fiscal year 1998, the program will reach 31
cities. Eventually, this training
will reach all cities via the Internet, video and CD
ROM.
Under the Domestic Terrorism Program, the Defense Department will maintain military
units to serve as augmentation forces for weapons of mass destruction consequence
management and to help maintain proficiency of local emergency responders through
periodic training and exercises. The National Guard, with its mission and long
tradition of responding to national emergencies, has an important role to play in
this effort. The President announced in May 1998 that the Defense Department will
train Army National Guard and reserve elements to assist state and local
authorities to manage the consequences of a WMD attack. This training will be
given to units in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Colorado, California and Washington.
The Domestic Terrorism Program enlists the support of other agencies as well. The
Department of Energy plans for and provides emergency responder training for
nuclear and radiological incidents. The Environmental Protection Agency plans for
and provides emergency responder training for hazardous materials and environmental
incidents. The Department of Health and Human Services, through the Public Health
Service and with the support of the Department of Veterans Affairs and other
Federal agencies, plans and prepares for a national response to medical emergencies
arising from the terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction.
The threat of biological weapons is particularly troubling. In his May 1998
commencement speech at
Annapolis, the President announced a
comprehensive strategy to protect our civilian population from the scourge of
biological weapons. There are four critical areas of focus:
� First, if a hostile nation or terrorists release bacteria or viruses to harm
Americans, we must be able to identify the pathogens with speed and certainty. We
will upgrade our public health and medical surveillance systems. These
improvements will benefit not only our preparedness for a biological weapons
attack- they will enhance our ability to respond quickly and effectively to
outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases.
� Second, our emergency response personnel must have the training and equipment to
do their jobs right. As described above, we will help ensure that federal, state
and local authorities have the resources and knowledge they need to deal with a
crisis.
� Third, we must have the medicines and vaccines needed to treat those who fall
sick or prevent those at risk from falling ill because of a biological weapons
attack. The President will propose the creation of a civilian stockpile of
medicines and vaccines to counter the pathogens most likely to be in the hands of
terrorists or hostile powers.
� Fourth, the revolution in biotechnology offers enormous possibilities for
combating biological weapons. We will coordinate research and development efforts
to use the advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology to create the next
generation of medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tools for use against these
weapons. At the same time, we must continue our efforts to prevent biotechnology
innovations from being applied to development of ever more difficult to counter
biological weapons.
Protecting Critical Infrastructures
Our military power and national economy are increasingly reliant upon
interdependent critical infrastructures-the physical and information systems
essential to the operations of the economy and government. They include
telecommunications, energy, banking and finance, transportation, water systems and
emergency services. It has long been the policy of the United States to assure the
continuity and viability of these critical infrastructures. But advances in
information technology and competitive pressure to improve efficiency and
productivity have created new vulnerabilities to both physical and information
attacks as these infrastructures have become increasingly automated and
interlinked. If we do not implement adequate protective measures, attacks on our
critical infrastructures and information systems by nations, groups or individuals
might be capable of significantly harming our military power and economy.
To enhance our ability to protect these critical infrastructures, the President
signed Presidential Decision Directive 63 in May 1998. This directive makes it
U.S. policy to take all necessary measures to swiftly eliminate any significant
vulnerability to physical or information attacks on our critical infrastructures,
especially our information systems. We will achieve and maintain the ability to
protect them from intentional acts that would significantly diminish the abilities
of the Federal Government to perform essential national security missions and to
ensure the general public health and safety. We will protect the ability of state
and local governments to maintain order and to deliver minimum essential public
services. And we will work with the private sector to ensure the orderly
functioning of the economy and the delivery of essential telecommunications,
energy, financial and transportation services. Any interruption or manipulation of
these critical functions must be brief, infrequent, manageable, isolated and
minimally detrimental to the welfare of the United States.
The National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) integrates relevant federal,
state, and local government entities as well as the private sector, and provides
the national focal point for gathering information on threats to the
infrastructures. It serves as a national resource for identifying and assessing
threats, warning about vulnerabilities, and conducting criminal investigations.
The NIPC will also coordinate the federal government's response to an incident,
including mitigation, investigation and monitoring reconstruction efforts.
Smaller-Scale Contingencies
Smaller-scale contingency operations encompass the full range of military
operations short of major theater warfare, including humanitarian assistance, peace
operations, enforcing embargoes and no-fly zones, evacuating U.S. citizens,
reinforcing key allies, and limited strikes and intervention. These operations
will likely pose the most frequent challenge for U.S. forces and cumulatively
require significant commitments over time. These operations will also put a
premium on the ability of the U.S. military to work closely and effectively with
other U.S. Government agencies, non-governmental organizations, regional and
international security organizations and coalition partners.
Under certain circumstances the U.S. military may provide appropriate and necessary
humanitarian assistance. Those circumstances are when a natural or manmade
disaster dwarfs the ability of the normal relief agencies to respond or the need
for relief is urgent, and the military has a unique ability to respond quickly with
minimal risk to American lives. In these cases, the United States may intervene
when the costs and risks are commensurate with the stakes involved and when there
is reason to believe that our action can make a real difference. Such efforts by
the United States and the international community will be limited in duration, have
a clearly defined end state and be designed to give the affected country the
opportunity to restore its own basic services. This policy recognizes that the
U.S. military normally is not the best tool for addressing long-term humanitarian
concerns and that, ultimately, responsibility for the fate of a nation rests with
its own people.
At times it will be in our national interest to proceed in partnership with others
to preserve, maintain and restore peace. American participation in peace
operations takes many forms, such as the NATO-led coalition in Bosnia, the
American-led UN force in Haiti, the Military Observer Mission Ecuador and Peru
(MOMEP), and our participation in the multilateral coalition operation in the
Sinai. The question of command and control in multinational contingency operations
is particularly critical. Under no circumstances will the President ever
relinquish his constitutionally mandated command authority over U.S. forces, but
there may be times when it is in our interest to place U.S. forces under the
temporary operational control of a competent allied or United Nations commander.
Not only must the U.S. military be prepared to successfully conduct multiple
smaller-scale contingencies worldwide, it must be prepared to do so in the face of
challenges such as terrorism, information operations and the threat or use of
weapons of mass destruction. U.S. forces must also remain prepared to withdraw
from contingency operations if needed to deploy to a major theater war.
Accordingly, appropriate U.S. forces will be kept at a high level of readiness and
will be trained, equipped and organized to be multi-mission capable.
Major Theater Warfare
Fighting and winning major theater wars is the ultimate test of our Total Force-a
test at which it must always succeed. For the foreseeable future, the United
States, preferably in concert with allies, must remain able to deter and defeat
large-scale, crossborder aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time
frames. Maintaining such a capability deters opportunism elsewhere while we are
heavily committed to deterring or defeating aggression in one theater, or while
conducting multiple smaller-scale contingencies and engagement activities in other
theaters. It also provides a hedge against the possibility that we might encounter
threats larger or more difficult than we expected. A strategy for deterring and
defeating aggression in two theaters ensures we maintain the capability and
flexibility to meet unknown future threats, while continued global engagement helps
preclude such threats from developing.
Fighting and winning major theater wars entails at least three particularly
challenging requirements. First, we must maintain the ability to rapidly defeat
initial enemy advances short of enemy objectives in two theaters, in close
succession. The United States must maintain this ability to ensure that we can
seize the initiative, minimize territory lost before an invasion is halted and
ensure the integrity of our warfighting coalitions. To meet this challenge, the
forces that would be first to respond to an act of aggression are kept at full
readiness, and the forces that follow them are kept at a level that supports their
being ready to deploy and go into action when called for in the operations plan for
the contingency. Second, the United States must plan and prepare to fight and win
under conditions where an adversary may use asymmetric means against us-
unconventional approaches that avoid or undermine our strengths while exploiting
our vulnerabilities. This is of particular importance and a significant challenge.
Because of our dominance in the conventional military arena, adversaries who
challenge the United States are likely to use asymmetric means, such as WMD,
information operations or terrorism.
The WMD threat to our forces is receiving the special attention it deserves. We
are enhancing the preparedness of our Armed Forces to effectively conduct sustained
operations despite the presence, threat or use of WMD. Such preparedness requires
the capability to deter, detect, protect against and respond to the use of WMD when
necessary. The Administration has significantly increased funding to enhance
biological and chemical defense capabilities and has begun the vaccination of
military personnel against the anthrax bacteria, the most feared biological weapon
threat today. These efforts reinforce our deterrent posture and complement our
nonproliferation efforts by reducing the political and military value of WMD and
their means of delivery.
We are enhancing our ability to defend against hostile information operations,
which could in the future take the form of a full-scale, strategic information
attack against our critical national infrastructures, government and economy-as
well as attacks directed against our military forces. As other countries develop
their capability to conduct offensive information operations, we must ensure that
our national and defense information infrastructures are well protected and that we
can quickly recognize, defend against and respond decisively to an information
attack.
Third, our military must also be able to transition to fighting major theater wars
from a posture of global engagement-from substantial levels of peacetime engagement
overseas as well as multiple concurrent smaller-scale contingencies. Withdrawing
from such operations would pose significant political and operational challenges.
Ultimately, however, the United States must accept a degree of risk associated with
withdrawing from contingency operations and engagement activities in order to
reduce the greater risk incurred if we failed to respond adequately to major
theater wars.
Our priority is to shape effectively the international environment so as to deter
the onset of major theater wars. Should deterrence fail, however, the United
States will defend itself, its allies and partners with all means necessary.
Preparing Now for an
Uncertain Future
We must prepare for an uncertain future even as we address today's security
problems. This requires that we keep our forces ready for shaping and responding
requirements in the near term, while at the same time evolving our unparalleled
capabilities to ensure we can effectively shape and respond in the future.
The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) struck a fine balance between near-term
readiness, longterm modernization and quality of life improvements for our men and
women in uniform. A key element of this balance was our decision to increase
funding for modernization to protect long-term readiness. In this context we
decided to make modest reductions in personnel, primarily in support positions,
across the force structure. But in all these decisions we ensured that the high
readiness levels of our forward-deployed and "first-to-fight" forces were
maintained. While preparing for the challenges of the next century, the readiness
of today's force remains one of our highest priorities. That is why the
Administration, in partnership with the Congress, will continue to assure we
maintain the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military force in the world
for the 21st Century.
Government-wide, we will continue to foster innovative approaches, capabilities,
technologies and organizational structures to better protect American lives,
property and interests at home and abroad. In our defense efforts, we will
continue to explore new approaches for integrating the Active and Reserve
components into a Total Force optimum for future missions, modernize our forces,
ensure the quality of military personnel, and take prudent steps to position
ourselves to effectively counter unlikely but significant future threats. We will
also continue our rapidly growing efforts to integrate and improve the capability
of Federal, state and local agencies-and our private sector partners-to protect
against and respond to transnational threats at home.
The military challenges of the 21st century, coupled with the aging of key elements
of the U.S. force structure, require a fundamental transformation of our military
forces. Although future threats are fluid and unpredictable, U.S. forces are
likely to confront a variety of challenges across the spectrum of conflict,
including efforts to deny our forces access to critical regions, urban warfare,
information warfare, and attacks from chemical and biological weapons. To meet
these challenges, we must transform our forces by exploiting the Revolution in
Military Affairs. Improved intelligence collection and assessment coupled with
modern information processing, navigation and command and control capabilities are
at the heart of the transformation of our warfighting capabilities. Through a
carefully planned and focused modernization program, we can maintain our
technological superiority and replace Cold War-era equipment with new systems
capable of taking full advantage of emerging technologies. With these advanced
systems, the U.S. military will be able to respond rapidly to any contingency,
dominate the battlespace and conduct day-to-day operations much more efficiently
and effectively.
To support this transformation of our military forces, we will work cooperatively
with the Congress to enact legislation to implement the Defense Reform Initiative,
which will free up resources through a Revolution in Business Affairs. This
revolution includes privatization, acquisition reform and elimination of excess
infrastructure through two additional base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in
2001 and 2005. The Revolution in Military Affairs and the Revolution in Business
Affairs are interlocking revolutions: With both, and only with both, we will ensure
that U.S. forces continue to have unchallenged superiority in the 21st century.
It is critical that we renew our commitment to America's diplomacy-to ensure we
have the diplomatic representation required to support our global interests. This
is central to our ability to remain an influential voice on international issues
that affect our well-being. We will preserve that influence so long as we retain
the diplomatic capabilities, military wherewithal and economic base to underwrite
our commitments credibly.
We must continue aggressive efforts to construct appropriate twenty-first century
national security programs and structures. The Defense Department, State
Department and other international affairs agencies are similarly reorganizing to
confront the pressing challenges of tomorrow as well as those we face today.
Federal, state and local law enforcement and emergency response agencies are
enhancing their ability to deal with terrorist threats. Government and industry
are exploring ways to protect critical national infrastructures. We will continue
looking across our government to see if during this time of transition we are
adequately preparing to meet the national security challenges of the next century.
Without preparing today to face the pressing challenges of tomorrow, our ability to
exert global leadership and to create international conditions conducive to
achieving our national goals would be in doubt. Thus, we must strive to strike the
right balance between the near-term readiness requirements of shaping and
responding and the longer-term transformation requirements associated with
preparing now for national security challenges in the twenty-first century.
Overarching Capabilities
Certain capabilities and technologies are critical to protecting the United States
itself and to the worldwide application of U.S. national power for shaping the
international environment and responding to the full spectrum of threats and
crises.
Quality People
Quality people-military and civilian-are our most critical asset. The quality of
our men and women in uniform will be the deciding factor in all future military
operations. In order to fully realize the benefits of the transformation of our
military forces, we must ensure that we remain the most fully prepared and best
trained fighting force in the world. Our people will continue to remain the
linchpin to successfully exploiting our military capabilities across the spectrum
of conflict. To ensure the quality of our military personnel, we will continue to
place the highest priority on initiatives and programs that support recruiting,
quality of life, and the training and education of our men and women in uniform.
We must also have quality civilian personnel in the government agencies that
support our national security, from our diplomatic corps, to the intelligence
community and law enforcement. Effectively countering transnational threats
requires personnel with a variety of highly specialized skills that either are not
readily available in the private sector, or are in high demand in the private
sector. Persons with advanced training in information technology are a prominent
example. Recruiting and retaining quality people with requisite skills is a
significant challenge, and we are exploring innovative approaches for ensuring that
government personnel needs are met.
Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance
Our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are critical
instruments for implementing our national security strategy. The U.S. intelligence
community provides critical support to the full range of our activities abroad-
diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and environmental. Comprehensive collection
and analytic capabilities are needed to provide warning of threats to U.S. national
security, give analytical support to the policy and military communities, provide
near-real time intelligence in times of crisis while retaining global perspective,
identify opportunities for advancing our national interests, and maintain our
information advantage in the international arena.
ISR operations must cover a wider range of threats and policy needs than ever
before. We place the highest priority on preserving and enhancing intelligence
capabilities that provide information on states and groups that pose the most
serious threats to U.S. security. Current intelligence priorities include states
whose policies and actions are hostile to the United States; countries or other
entities that possess strategic nuclear forces or control nuclear weapons, other
WMD or nuclear fissile materials; transnational threats, including terrorism,
international crime and drug trafficking; potential regional conflicts that might
affect U.S. national security interests; intensified counterintelligence against
foreign intelligence collection inimical to U.S. interests, including economic and
industrial espionage; information warfare threats; and threats to U.S. forces and
citizens abroad. Intelligence support is also required to develop and implement
U.S. policies to promote democracy abroad, identify threats to our information and
space systems, monitor arms control agreements, support humanitarian efforts and
protect the environment.
Our ISR capabilities include world-wide collection of news and media broadcasts,
reporting from informants close to important events abroad, spacebased and airborne
collection of imagery and signals intelligence, and integrated, in-depth analysis
of all these sources by highly skilled analysts. Exploiting our tremendous
advantage in continuous, nonintrusive, space-based imaging and information
processing, the ISR system provides the ability to monitor treaty compliance,
military movements and the development, testing and deployment of weapons of mass
destruction. Using ISR products to support diplomatic and military action
contributes to global security by demonstrating that the United States is an
invaluable ally, or would be a formidable foe.
U.S. intelligence capabilities were reviewed twice by independent panels in 1998.
In the wake of the May 1998 Indian nuclear tests, retired Admiral David E.
Jeremiah led a panel that examined the Intelligence Community's ability to detect
and monitor foreign nuclear weapons programs. In July 1998, the Commission to
Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States issued a report on the
challenges we face in attempting to monitor the progress of foreign ballistic
missile programs. Both reviews identified specific areas of intelligence
collection and analysis that need improvement. The Intelligence Community is
taking aggressive action to improve its capabilities in those areas and we will
work closely with the Congress to address the recommendations in the two reports.
While our ISR capabilities are increasingly enhanced by and dependent upon advanced
technologies, there remains no substitute for informed, subjective human judgment.
We must continue to attract and retain enough highly qualified people to provide
human intelligence collection, translation and analysis in those many emerging
areas where there simply is no technological substitute, and we must forge strong
links to the private enterprises and public institutions whose expertise is
especially critical. Increased cooperation among the agencies in the Intelligence
Community and the fusion of all intelligence disciplines provide the most effective
collection and analysis of data on high priority intelligence issues.
We must also be mindful of the continuing need for effective security and
counterintelligence programs. To protect sensitive national security information,
we must be able to effectively counter the collection efforts of foreign
intelligence services through vigorous counterintelligence efforts, comprehensive
security programs and constant evaluation of the intentions and targets of foreign
intelligence services. Counterintelligence remains integral to and underlies the
entire intelligence mission, whether the threat comes from traditional espionage or
the theft of our vital economic information. Countering foreign efforts to gather
technological, industrial and commercial information requires close cooperation
between government and the private sector. Awareness of the threat and adherence
to prescribed personnel, information and physical security standards and
procedures, based on risk management principles, are critical.
Space
We are committed to maintaining our leadership in space. Unimpeded access to and
use of space is essential for protecting U.S. national security, promoting our
prosperity and ensuring our well-being in countless ways.
Space has emerged in this decade as a new global information utility with extensive
political, diplomatic, military and economic implications for the United States.
We are experiencing an ever-increasing migration of capabilities to space as the
world seeks to exploit the explosion in information technology. Telecommunications,
telemedicine, international financial transactions and global entertainment, news,
education, weather and navigation all contribute directly to the strength of our
economy-and all are dependent upon space capabilities. Over 500 US companies are
directly involved in the space industry, with 1996 revenues of $77 billion
projected to reach $122 billion by 2000.
Our policy is to promote development of the full range of space-based capabilities
in a manner that protects our vital security interests. We will deter
threats to our interests in space and, if deterrence fails, defeat hostile efforts
against U.S. access to and use of space. We will also maintain the ability to
counter space systems and services that could be used for hostile purposes against
our ground, air and naval forces, our command and control system, or other
capabilities critical to our national security. We are carefully regulating U.S.
commercial space-based remote sensing to ensure that space imagery is not used to
the detriment of U.S. security interests. At the same time, we will continue
efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to space, and continue
to form global partnerships with other spacefaring nations across the spectrum of
economic, political, environmental and security issues. These efforts require a
balanced approach across all types of U.S. space assets-national security,
military, and commercial. We will remain vigilant to ensure that we do not
compromise our technological superiority while promoting partnerships in space.
Missile Defense
We have robust missile defense development and deployment programs focused on
systems to protect deployed U.S. forces and our friends and allies against theater
ballistic missiles armed with conventional weapons or WMD. These systems will
complement and strengthen our deterrence and nonproliferation efforts by reducing
incentives to develop or use WMD. Significantly, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin
agreed at the Helsinki Summit to maintain the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of
strategic stability, yet adapt it to meet the threat posed by shorter-range
missiles-a threat we seek to counter with U.S. theater missile defense (TMD)
systems. The ABM-TMD demarcation agreement signed in New York on September 26,
1997 helps clarify the distinction between ABM systems, which the ABM Treaty
limits, and TMD systems, which the ABM Treaty does not limit. The demarcation
agreement does not limit any current U.S. core TMD programs, all of which have been
certified by the United States as compliant with the ABM Treaty.
Although it remains the view of the intelligence community that it is unlikely that
countries other than Russia, China and perhaps North Korea will deploy an ICBM
capable of reaching any part of the U.S. before 2010, we are developing, consistent
with our obligations under the ABM Treaty, a limited national missile defense
capability that would position the U.S. to make a decision as early as the year
2000 to deploy within three years a credible national missile defense system.
National Security Emergency
Preparedness
We will do all we can to deter and prevent destructive and threatening forces such
as terrorism, WMD use, disruption of our critical infrastructures, natural
disasters and regional or state-centered threats from endangering our citizens.
But if an emergency occurs, we must also be prepared to respond effectively at home
and abroad to protect lives and property, mobilize the personnel, resources and
capabilities necessary to effectively handle the emergency, and ensure the survival
of our institutions and national infrastructures. National security emergency
preparedness is imperative, and comprehensive, all-hazard emergency planning by
Federal departments, agencies and the military continues to be a crucial national
security requirement.
Overseas Presence and Power
Projection
Due to our alliance commitments and other vital interests overseas, we must have a
force structure and deployment posture that enable us to successfully conduct
military operations across the spectrum of conflict, often in theaters distant from
the United States. Maintaining a substantial overseas presence promotes regional
stability by giving form and substance to our bilateral and multilateral security
commitments and helps prevent the development of power vacuums and instability. It
contributes to deterrence by demonstrating our determination to defend U.S.,
allied, and friendly interests in critical regions and better positions the United
States to respond rapidly to crises. Equally essential is effective and efficient
global power projection, which is the key to the flexibility demanded or our forces
and ultimately provides our national leaders with more options in responding to
potential crises and conflicts. Being able to project power allows us to shape,
deter, and respond even when we have no permanent presence or a limited
infrastructure in the region.
Extensive transportation, logistics and command, control, communications and
intelligence (C3I) capabilities are unique U.S. strengths that enhance our
conventional deterrent and helps to shape the international environment. Strategic
mobility allows the United States to be first on the scene with assistance in many
national or international crises and is a key to successful American leadership and
engagement. The deployment of US and multinational forces requires maintaining and
ensuring access to sufficient fleets of aircraft, ships, vehicles and trains, as
well as bases, ports, prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure. The United
States must have a robust Defense Transportation System, including both military
assets and U.S. flag commercial sealift and airlift, to remain actively engaged in
world affairs.
Our need for strategic mobility to deploy our forces overseas is one of the primary
reasons we are committed to gaining Senate advice and consent to ratification of
the Law of the Sea Convention. Need for this treaty arose from the breakdown of
customary international law as more and more nations unilaterally declared ever
larger territorial seas and other claims over the oceans that threatened the global
access and freedom of navigation that the United States must have to protect its
vital national interests. In addition to lending the certainty of the rule of law
to an area critical to our national security, the treaty protects our economic
interests and preserves our leadership in global ocean policy. The Law of the Sea
Convention thus buttresses the strategic advantages that the United States gains
from being a global power.
Promoting Prosperity
The second core objective of our national security strategy is to promote America's
prosperity through efforts at home and abroad. Our economic and security interests
are inextricably linked. Prosperity at home depends on stability in key regions
with which we trade or from which we import critical commodities, such as oil and
natural gas. Prosperity also demands our leadership in international development,
financial and trade institutions. In turn, the strength of our diplomacy, our
ability to maintain an unrivaled military and the attractiveness of our values
abroad depend in large part on the strength of our economy.
Strengthening Macroeconomic
Coordination
As national economies become more integrated internationally, the United States
cannot thrive in isolation from developments abroad. Our economic health is
vulnerable to disturbances that originate outside our borders. As such,
cooperation with other states and international organizations is vital to
protecting the health of the global economic system and responding to financial
crises.
The recent financial troubles in Asia have demonstrated that global financial
markets dominated by private capital flows provide both immense opportunities and
great challenges. Developing ways to strengthen the international financial
architecture is an urgent and compelling challenge. At the November 1997 Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) meeting, President Clinton and the other
APEC leaders agreed to hold a series of meetings of finance ministers and central
bank governors to address the Asian financial crisis and international financial
reform. The meetings began in February 1998 with representatives from 22 countries
and observers from the major international financial institutions. The on-going
efforts of this group, commonly referred to as the Willard Group or G-22, has
helped to identify measures to prevent and better manage financial crises and
reform the international financial system.
The ultimate objective of our reform efforts is a stable, resilient global
financial system that promotes strong global economic growth providing benefits
broadly to workers and investors in all countries. International financial
institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have a critical
role to play in this effort by promoting greater openness and transparency, by
building strong national financial systems, and by creating mechanisms so that the
private sector shares more fully in the responsibility for preventing and resolving
crises.
Openness and Transparency: For capital to flow freely and safely to where it can be
used most efficiently to promote growth, high quality information about each
economy and investment opportunity must also be freely available. The IMF
introduced the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS) in 1996 to improve the
information collection and publication practices of countries accessing
international capital markets. At present, 45 countries subscribe to the SDDS, but
we need to encourage those IMF members who do not subscribe but seek access to
international capital markets-particularly emerging market economies-to participate
in the SDDS. International financial institutions also have a responsibility to
make their activities open and transparent as a means of enhancing their
credibility and accountability. The IMF recently has shown leadership in promoting
openness and transparency; however, more needs be done in this area.
Financial Sector Reform: The IMF's recent review of the Asian crisis experience
highlighted the key role played by the domestic financial sector as the flash point
and transmission mechanism for the crisis and contagion. Rapid growth and
expanding access to international capital had run ahead of the development in
countries in trouble of a genuine credit culture to assess risk and channel
investment efficiently and of an effective financial sector regulatory and
supervisory mechanism. The situation was further exacerbated by inconsistent
macroeconomic policies, generous explicit and implicit government guarantees,
significant injections of public funds to provide liquidity support to weak
institutions, and to some extent capital controls that distorted the composition of
capital flows.
Crisis Resolution: Our efforts to reduce the risks of crises caused by poor policy
or investor decisions need to be complemented by measures to equip investors,
governments and the international financial system with the means to deal with
those crises that do occur. The IMF plays the central role in the system by
providing conditional international assistance to give countries the breathing room
to stabilize their economies and restore market confidence. Two U.S.-inspired
initiatives have enhanced the IMF's role: the Emergency Financing Mechanism, which
provides for rapid agreement to extraordinary financing requests in return for more
intense regular scrutiny, and the Supplemental Reserve Facility, which enables the
IMF to lend at premium rates in short-term liquidity crises and improve borrower
incentives. To fulfill its crisis resolution responsibility, the IMF must have
adequate resources. We are concerned that IMF liquidity has fallen to dangerously
low levels that could impair the Fund's capacity to respond to renewed pressures
and meet normal demands. The Administration is making an intensive effort to
obtain the necessary Congressional approval to meet our obligations to the IMF.
Recent crises have brought home that in a global financial market we need to find
more effective mechanisms for sharing with the private sector the burden of
managing such problems. In a world in which trillions of dollars flow through
international markets every day, there is simply not going to be enough official
financing to meet the crises that could take place. Moreover, official financing
should not absolve private investors from the consequences of excessive risk-taking
and thus create the "moral hazard" that could plant the seeds of future crises.
Broadening the Financial Reform Agenda: In recent years, the IMF has broadened its
perspective to take account of a wider range of issues necessary for economic
growth and financial stability. It is seeking to create a more level playing field
in which private sector competition can thrive; reduce unproductive government
spending, including excessive military expenditures and subsidies and guarantees to
favored sectors and firms; protect the most vulnerable segments of society from
bearing the brunt of the burden of adjustment; and encourage more effective
participation by labor and the rest of civil society in the formulation and
implementation of economic policies, including protection of labor rights.
The United States and the other leading industrialized nations are also promoting a
range of World Bank and regional development bank reforms that the United States
has been urging for a number of years. Key elements include substantially
increasing the share of resources devoted to basic social programs that reduce
poverty; safeguarding the environment; supporting development of the private sector
and open markets; promotion of good governance, including measures to fight
corruption and improve the administration of justice; and internal reforms of the
multilateral development banks (MDBs) to make them more efficient. Furthermore,
international financial institutions such as the IMF and MDBs have played a strong
role in recent years in countries and regions of key interest to the United States,
such as Russia, the Middle East, Haiti and Bosnia.
Enhancing American Competitiveness
We seek to ensure a business environment in which the innovative and competitive
efforts of the private sector can flourish. To this end, we will continue to
encourage the development, commercialization and use of civilian technology. We
will invest in a worldclass infrastructure for the twenty-first century, including
the national information and space infrastructure essential for our knowledge-based
economy. We will invest in education and training to develop a workforce capable
of participating in our rapidly changing economy. And we will continue our efforts
to open foreign markets to U.S. goods and services.
Enhancing Access to Foreign
Markets
In a world where over 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United
States, we must expand our international trade to sustain economic growth at home.
Our prosperity as a nation in the twenty-first century will depend upon our ability
to compete effectively in international markets. The rapidly expanding global
economy presents enormous opportunities for American companies and workers. Over
the next decade the global economy is expected to grow at three times the rate of
the U.S. economy. Growth will be particularly powerful in many emerging markets.
If we do not seize these opportunities, our competitors surely will. We must
continue working hard to secure and enforce agreements that protect intellectual
property rights and enable Americans to compete fairly in foreign markets.
Trade agreement implementing authority is essential for advancing our nation's
economic interests. Congress has consistently recognized that the President must
have the authority to break down foreign trade barriers and create good jobs.
Accordingly, the Administration will work with Congress to fashion an appropriate
grant of fast track authority.
The Administration will continue to press our trading partners-multilaterally,
regionally and bilaterally-to expand export opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers
and companies. We will position ourselves at the center of a constellation of
trade relationships-such as the World Trade Organization, APEC, the Transatlantic
Marketplace and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). We will seek to
negotiate agreements, especially in sectors where the U.S. is most competitive-as
we did in the Information Technology Agreement and the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Financial Services and Telecommunications Services Agreements.
As we look ahead to the next WTO Ministerial meeting, to be held in the United
States in late 1999, we will aggressively pursue an agenda that addresses U.S.
trade objectives. We will also remain vigilant in enforcing the trade agreements
reached with our trading partners. That is why the U.S. Trade Representative and
the Department of Commerce created offices in 1996 dedicated to ensuring foreign
governments are fully implementing their commitments under these agreements.
Promoting an Open Trading
System
The successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade significantly strengthened the world trading system.
The U.S. economy is expected to gain over $100 billion per year in GDP once the
Uruguay Round is fully implemented. The Administration remains committed to
carrying forward the success of the Uruguay Round and to the success of the WTO as
a forum for openly resolving disputes.
We have completed the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) which goes far toward
eliminating tariffs on high technology products and amounts to a global annual tax
cut of $5 billion. We look to complete the first agreement expanding products
covered by the ITA in 1998. We also concluded a landmark WTO agreement that will
dramatically liberalize world trade in telecommunications services. Under this
agreement, covering over 99 percent of WTO member telecommunications revenues, a
decades old tradition of telecommunications monopolies and closed markets will give
way to market opening deregulation and competition- principles championed by the
United States.
The WTO agenda includes further negotiations to reform agricultural trade,
liberalize service sector markets, and strengthen protection for intellectual
property rights. At the May 1998 WTO Ministerial, members agreed to initiate
preparations for these negotiations and to consider other possible negotiating
topics, including issues not currently covered by WTO rules. These preparatory
talks will continue over the course of the next year so that the next round of
negotiations can be launched at the 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in the United
States.
We also have a full agenda of accession negotiations with countries seeking to join
the WTO. As always, the United States is setting high standards for accession in
terms of adherence to the rules and market access. Accessions offer an opportunity
to help ground new economies in the rules-based trading system and reinforce their
own reform programs. This is why we will take an active role in the accession
process dealing with the 32 applicants currently seeking WTO membership.
Through Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) negotiations of a Multilateral Agreement on Investment, we are
seeking to establish clear legal standards on expropriation, access to binding
international arbitration for disputes and unrestricted investment-related
transfers across borders. Also in the OECD, the United States is taking on issues
such as corruption and labor practices that can distort trade and inhibit U.S.
competitiveness. We
seeking to have OECD members outlaw bribery of
foreign officials, eliminate the tax deductibility of foreign bribes, and promote
greater transparency in government procurement. To date, our efforts on
procurement have been concentrated in the World Bank and the regional development
banks, but our initiative to pursue an agreement on transparency in WTO member
procurement regimes should make an additional important contribution. We have also
made important strides on labor issues. The WTO has endorsed the importance of
core labor standards sought by the United States since the Eisenhower
Administration-the right to organize and bargain collectively, and prohibitions
against child labor and forced labor. We will continue pressing for better
integration of the international core labor standards into the WTO's work,
including through closer WTO interaction with the International Labor Organization
(ILO).
We continue to ensure that liberalization of trade does not come at the expense of
national security or environmental protection. For example, the national security,
law enforcement and trade policy communities worked together to make sure that the
WTO agreement liberalizing global investment in telecommunications was consistent
with U.S. national security interests. Moreover, our leadership in the Uruguay
Round negotiations led to the incorporation of environmental provisions into the
WTO agreements and creation of the Committee on Trade and Environment, where
governments continue to pursue the goal of ensuring that trade and environment
policies are mutually supportive. In addition, with U.S. leadership, countries
participating in the Summit of the Americas are engaged in sustainable development
initiatives to ensure that economic growth does not come at the cost of
environmental protection.
In May 1998, President Clinton presented to the WTO a set of proposals to further
U.S. international trade objectives:
� First, that the WTO make further efforts to eliminate trade barriers and pursue a
more open global trading system in order to spur economic growth, better jobs,
higher incomes, and the free flow of ideas, information and people.
� Second, that the WTO provide a forum where business, labor, environmental and
consumer groups can provide regular input to help guide further evolution of the
WTO. The trading system we build for the 21st century must ensure that economic
competition does not threaten the livelihood, health and safety of ordinary
families by eroding environmental and consumer protection or labor standards.
� Third, that a high-level meeting of trade and environmental officials be convened
to provide direction for WTO environmental efforts, and that
the WTO and the International Labor Organization commit to work together to ensure
that open trade raises the standard of living for workers and respects core labor
standards.
� Fourth, that the WTO open its doors to the scrutiny and participation of the
public by taking every feasible step to bring openness and accountability to its
operations, such as by opening its dispute settlement hearings to the public and
making the briefs for those hearings publicly available.
� Fifth, that the nations of the world join the United States in not imposing any
tariffs on electronic commercial transmissions sent across national borders. The
revolution in information technology represented by the Internet is the greatest
force for prosperity in our lifetimes; we cannot allow discriminatory barriers to
stunt the development of this promising new economic opportunity. An electronic
commerce work program was agreed to at the May 1998 WTO Ministerial. It will be
reviewed at the 1999 ministerial meeting.
� Sixth, that all WTO members make government purchases through open and fair
bidding and adopt the OECD antibribery convention. Prosperity depends upon
government practices that are based upon the rule of law rather than bureaucratic
caprice, cronyism or corruption.
� Seventh, that the WTO explore a faster trade negotiating process and develop an
open trading system that can change as fast as the global marketplace. Positive
steps include annual tariff and subsidy reductions in agriculture, greater openness
and competition in the services sector, further tariff reductions in the industrial
sector, and stronger intellectual property protection.
Export Strategy and Advocacy
Program
The Administration created America's first national export strategy, reforming the
way government works with the private sector to expand exports. The new Trade
Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC) has been instrumental in improving export
promotion efforts, coordinating our export financing, implementing a government-
wide advocacy initiative and updating market information systems and product
standards education.
The export strategy is working, with the United States regaining its position as
the world's largest exporter. While our strong export performance has supported
millions of new, export-related jobs, we must export more in the years ahead if we
are to further strengthen our trade balance position and raise living standards
with high-wage jobs. Our objective remains to expand U.S. exports to over $1.2
trillion by the year 2000, which will mean over 2.5 million new American jobs and a
total of over 14.6 million jobs supported by exports.
Enhanced Export Control
The United States is a world leader in high technology exports, including
satellites, cellular phones, computers and commercial aircraft. Some of this
technology has direct or indirect military applications. For that reason, the
United States government carefully controls high technology exports through a
licensing process involving the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the
Commerce Department and other agencies. Changes to U.S. export controls over the
last decade have allowed America's most important growth industries to compete
effectively overseas and create good jobs at home while ensuring that proper
safeguards are in place to protect important national security interests.
The cornerstone of our export control policy is protection of our national
security; but imposing the tightest possible restrictions on high technology
exports is not always the best way to protect our security. In an increasingly
competitive global economy, the United States retains a monopoly over very few
technologies. As a result, rigid export controls increasingly would not protect
our national security because the same products can be obtained readily from
foreign sources. Rigid controls would make U.S. high technology companies less
competitive globally, thus losing market share and becoming less able to produce
the innovative, cutting-edge products for the U.S. military and our allies.
Our current policy-developed in the Reagan and
Bush Administrations and continued by President Clinton-recognizes that we must
balance a variety of factors. In the wake of the Cold War, the Bush Administration
accelerated the process of moving the licensing of essentially commercial items
from the State Department's Munitions List to the Commerceadministered Commodity
Control List in order to promote high technology exports by making license
decisions more predictable and timely. In 1995, by Executive Order, President
Clinton expanded the right of the Departments of Defense, State and Energy and the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to fully participate in the decision-making
process. Previously, these agencies reviewed only certain dual-use applications; as
a result of the Executive Order, they have the right to review every dual-use
application. If any of these agencies disagree with a proposed export, it can
block the license and put the issue into a dispute resolution process that can
ultimately rise to the President. As a result, reviews of dual-use licenses are
today more thorough and broadly based than ever before.
While our export controls and the regulations that implement them have become
easier for American exporters to follow, we have also enhanced our ability to
identify, stop and prosecute those who attempt to evade them. For example, in
fiscal year 1997 efforts of the Commerce Department's criminal investigators led to
over $1 million in criminal fines and over $16 million in civil penalties. We have
significant enforcement weapons to use against those who would evade our export
controls, and we are using them vigorously.
Finally, U.S. efforts to stem proliferation cannot be effective without the
cooperation of other countries. To that end, we have strengthened multilateral
cooperation through the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control
Regime, the Australia Group (for the control of chemical and biological weapons-
related related items), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Wassenaar
Arrangement, which through U.S. leadership is shaping multilateral export controls
for the next century. These multilateral efforts enlist the world community in the
battle against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, advanced
conventional weapons and sensitive technologies, while at the same time producing a
level playing field for U.S. business by ensuring that our competitors face
corresponding export controls.
Providing for Energy Security
The United States depends on oil for about 40 percent of its primary energy needs
and roughly half of our oil needs are met with imports. Although we import less
than 10% of Persian Gulf exports, our allies in Europe and Japan account for about
85% of these exports, thus underscoring the continued strategic importance of the
region. We are undergoing a fundamental shift away from reliance on Middle East
oil. Venezuela is our number one foreign supplier and Africa supplies 15% of our
imported oil. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela combined supply more than twice as much
oil to the United States as the Arab OPEC countries.
The Caspian Basin, with potential oil reserves of 160 billion barrels, promises to
play an increasingly important role in meeting rising world energy demand in coming
decades. We have made it a priority to work with the countries of the region to
develop multiple pipeline ventures that will ensure access to the oil. We are also
working on several fronts to enhance the stability and safeguard the independence
of these nations. While these developments are significant, we must remember that
the vast majority of proven oil reserves lie in the Middle East and that the global
oil market is largely interdependent.
Conservation measures and research leading to great-er energy efficiency and
alternative fuels are a critical element of the U.S. strategy for energy security.
The U.S. economy has grown roughly 75 percent since the first oil shock in 1973.
During that time U.S. oil consumption remained virtually stable, reflecting
conservation efforts and increased energy efficiency. Our research must continue
to focus on developing highly efficient transportation systems and to shift them to
alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, ethanol or methanol from biomass, and others.
This research will also help address concerns about climate change by providing new
approaches for meeting guidelines on emission of greenhouse gases. Over the longer
term, U.S. dependence on access to foreign oil sources may be increasingly
important as domestic resources are depleted. Although U.S. oil consumption has
been essentially level since 1973, our reliance on imported oil has increased due
to a decline in domestic production. Domestic oil production declined during that
period because oil prices were not high enough to generate new oil exploration
sufficient to sustain production levels from our depleted resource base.
Conservation and energy research notwithstand-ing, the United States will continue
to have a vital interest in ensuring access to foreign oil sources. We must
continue to be mindful of the need for regional stability and security in key
producing areas to ensure our access to and the free flow of these resources.
Promoting Sustainable
Development Abroad
Environmental and natural resource issues can impede sustainable development
efforts and promote regional instability. Many nations are struggling to provide
jobs, education and other services to their citizens. The continuing poverty of a
quarter of the world's people leads to hunger, malnutrition, economic migration and
political unrest. Malaria, AIDS and other epidemics, including some that can
spread through environmental damage, threaten to overwhelm the health facilities of
developing countries, disrupt societies and stop economic growth.
Sustainable development improves the prospects for democracy in developing
countries and expands the demand for U.S. exports. It alleviates pressure on the
global environment, reduces the attraction of the illegal drug trade and other
illicit commerce, and improves health and economic productivity. U.S. foreign
assistance focuses on four key elements of sustainable development: broad-based
economic growth, environmental security, population and health, and democracy.
We will continue to advocate environmentally sound private investment and
responsible approaches by international lenders. The multilateral development
banks are now placing increased emphasis upon sustainable development in their
funding decisions, including assisting borrowing countries to better manage their
economies. The U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, part of the
Administration's Climate Change Action Plan, encourages U.S. businesses and non-
governmental organizations to apply innovative technologies and practices to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable development abroad. The
initiative, which includes 32 projects in 12 countries, has proven effective in
transferring technology for environmentally sound, sustainable development. The
Global Environmental Facility provides a source of financial assistance to the
developing world for climate change, biodiversity and oceans initiatives that will
benefit all the world's citizens. Environmental damage in countries of the NIS and
Central and Eastern Europe continues to impede their ability to emerge as
prosperous, independent countries. We are focusing technical assistance and
encouraging nongovernmental environmental groups to provide expertise to the NIS
and Central and Eastern European nations that have suffered the most acute
environmental crises.
Promoting Democracy
The third core objective of our national security strategy is to promote democracy
and human rights. The number of states moving away from repressive governance
toward democratic and publicly accountable institutions is impressive. Since the
success of many of those changes is by no means assured, our strategy must focus on
strengthening their commitment and institutional capacity to implement democratic
reforms.
Emerging Democracies
We seek international support in helping strengthen democratic and free market
institutions and norms in countries making the transition from closed to open
societies. This commitment to see freedom and respect for human rights take hold
is not only just, but pragmatic, for strengthened democratic institutions benefit
the United States and the world.
The United States is helping consolidate democratic and market reforms in Central
and Eastern Europe and the NIS. Integrating the Central and Eastern European
nations into European security and economic organizations, such as NATO and the EU,
will help lock in and preserve the impressive progress these nations have made in
instituting democratic and market-economic reforms. Our intensified interaction
with Ukraine has helped move that country onto the path of economic reform, which
is critical to its longterm stability. In addition, our efforts in Russia, Ukraine
and the other NIS facilitate our goal of achieving continued reductions in nuclear
arms and compliance with international nonproliferation accords.
Continuing advances in democracy and free markets in our own hemisphere remain a
priority, as reflected by the President's 1997 trips to Latin America and the
Caribbean and the Summit of the Americas in Santiago this year. In the Asia
Pacific region, economic dynamism is increasingly associated with political
modernization, democratic evolution and the widening of the rule of law-and it has
global impacts. We are particularly attentive to states whose entry into the camp
of market democracies may influence the future direction of an entire region; South
Africa now holds that potential with regard to sub-Saharan Africa.
The methods for assisting emerging democracies are as varied as the nations
involved. We must continue leading efforts to mobilize international economic and
political resources, as we have with Russia, Ukraine and the other NIS. We must
take firm action to help counter attempts to reverse democracy, as we have in Haiti
and Paraguay. We must give democratic nations the fullest benefits of integration
into foreign markets, which is part of the reason NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of
GATT ranked so high on our agenda and why we are now working to forge the FTAA. We
must help these nations strengthen the pillars of civil society, supporting
administration of justice and rule of law programs, assisting the development of
democratic civil-military relations, and training foreign police and security
forces to solve crimes and maintain order without violating the basic rights of
their citizens. And we must seek to improve their market institutions and fight
corruption and political discontent by encouraging good governance practices.
Adherence to Universal Human Rights and Democratic Principles
We must sustain our efforts to press for political liberalization and respect for
basic human rights worldwide, including in countries that continue to defy
democratic advances. Working bilaterally and through multilateral institutions,
the United States promotes universal adherence to international human rights and
democratic principles. Our efforts in the United Nations and other organizations
are helping to make these principles the governing standards for acceptable
international behavior.
We will also continue to work-bilaterally and with multilateral institutions-to
ensure that international human rights principles protect the most vulnerable or
traditionally oppressed groups in the world-women, children, workers, refugees and
persons persecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs or ethnic descent. To
this end, we will seek to strength-en and improve the UN Human Rights Commission
and other international mechanisms that promote human rights and address violations
of international humanitarian law, such as the international war crimes tribunals
for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
To focus additional attention on the more vulnerable or traditionally oppressed
people, we seek to spearhead new international initiatives to combat the sexual
exploitation of minors, child labor, homelessness among children, violence against
women and children, and female genital mutilation. We will continue to work with
individual nations, such as Russia and China, and with international institutions
to combat religious persecution. We are encouraging governments to not return
people to countries where they face persecution. We ask that they provide asylum
or offer temporary protection to persons fleeing situations of conflict or
generalized human rights abuses. We seek to ensure that such persons are not
returned without due consideration of their need for permanent protection.
Violence against women and trafficking in women and girls is are international
problem with national implications. We have seen cases of trafficking in the
United States for purposes of forced prostitution, sweatshop labor and domestic
servitude. The United States is committed to combating trafficking in women and
girls with a focus on the areas of prevention, victim assistance and protection,
and enforcement. On March 11, 1998, President Clinton directed a wide range of
expanded efforts to combat violence against women in the United States and around
the world, including efforts to increase national and international awareness of
trafficking in women and girls. The President called for continued efforts to
fully implement the 1994 Violence Against Women Act and restore its protection for
immigrant victims of domestic violence in the United States so that they will not
be forced to choose between deportation and abuse. He also called upon the Senate
to give its advice and consent to ratification to the Convention on the Elimination
of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which will enhance our efforts to
combat violence against women, reform unfair inheritance and property rights, and
strengthen women's access to fair employment and economic opportunity.
The United States will continue to speak out against human rights abuses and carry
on human rights dialogues with countries willing to engage us constructively.
Because police and internal security services can be a source of human rights
violations, we use training and contacts between U.S. law enforcement and their
foreign counterparts to help address these problems. Federal law enforcement
agents can serve as role models for investigators in countries where the police
have been instruments of oppression and at the same time reduce international crime
and terrorism that affects U.S. interests. In appropriate circumstances, we must
be prepared to take strong measures against human rights violators. These include
economic sanctions, as have been maintained against Nigeria, Iraq, Burma, North
Korea and Cuba, visa restrictions and restricting sales of arms and police
equipment that may be used to commit human rights abuses.
Humanitarian Activities
Our efforts to promote democracy and human rights are complemented by our
humanitarian programs, which are designed to alleviate human suffering, help
establish democratic regimes that respect human rights and pursue appropriate
strategies for economic development. These efforts also enable the United States
to help prevent humanitarian disasters with far more significant resource
implications.
We also must seek to promote reconciliation in states experiencing civil conflict
and to address migration and refugee crises. To this end, the United States will
provide appropriate financial support and work with other nations and international
bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees. We also will assist efforts to protect the rights of
refugees and displaced persons and to address the economic and social root causes
of internal displacement and international flight. Finally, we will cooperate with
other states to curb illegal immigration into this country.
Private firms and associations are natural allies in activities and efforts
intended to bolster market economies. We have natural partners in labor unions,
human rights groups, environmental advocates, chambers of commerce and election
monitors in promoting democracy and respect for human rights and in providing
international humanitarian assistance; thus, we should promote democratization
efforts through private and non-governmental groups as well as foreign governments.
Supporting the global movement toward democracy requires a pragmatic, long-term
effort focused on both values and institutions. Our goal is a broadening of the
community of free-market democracies and stronger international non-governmental
movements committed to human rights and democratization.

lII. Integrated Regional Approaches

Our policies toward different regions reflect our overall strategy tailored to
unique challenges and opportunities.
Europe and Eurasia
European stability is vital to our own security. The United States has two
strategic goals in Europe. The first is to build a Europe that is truly
integrated, democratic, prosperous and at peace. This would complete the mission
the United States launched 50 years ago with the Marshall Plan and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Our second goal is to work with our allies and partners across the Atlantic to meet
the global challenges no nation can meet alone. This means working together to
support peace efforts in troubled regions, to counter global threats such as the
spread of weapons of mass destruction and dual-use technology, and to build a more
open world economy and without barriers to transatlantic trade and investment. We
will continue to strengthen the OSCE's role in conflict prevention and crisis
management and seek closer cooperation with our European partners in dealing with
non-military security threats through our New Transatlantic Agenda with the
European Union (EU).
Enhancing Security
NATO remains the anchor of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of
transatlantic security. As a guarantor of European security and a force for
European stability, NATO must play a leading role in promoting a more integrated
and secure Europe, prepared to respond to new challenges. We will maintain
approximately 100,000 military personnel in Europe to fulfill our commitments to
NATO, provide a 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 enlargement is a crucial element of the U.S. and Allied strategy to build an
undivided, peaceful Europe. The end of the Cold War changed the nature of the
threats to this region, but not the fact that Europe's stability is vital to our
own national security. The addition of well-qualified democracies, which have
demonstrated their commitment to the values of freedom and the security of the
broader region, will help deter potential threats to Europe, deepen the continent's
stability, bolster its democratic advances, erase its artificial divisions, and
strengthen an Alliance that has proven its effectiveness both during and since the
Cold War.
In December 1997, the NATO foreign ministers signed the three protocols of
accession for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, making them full members of
the Alliance subject to ratification by all current and incoming NATO members. On
May 21, 1998, the President signed the instruments of ratification for the three
protocols following a strong, bipartisan 80-19 vote of approval in the U.S. Senate.
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic will make the Alliance stronger while
helping to enlarge Europe's zone of democratic stability. They have been leaders
in Central Europe's dramatic transformation over the past decade and have helped
make Central Europe the continent's most robust zone of economic growth. They will
strengthen NATO through the addition of military resources, strategic depth and the
prospect of greater stability in Europe's central region. Our Alliance with them
will improve our ability to protect and advance our interests in the transatlantic
area and contribute to our security in the years to come.
At the same time, we have vigorously pursued efforts to help other countries that
aspire to membership become the best possible candidates. Together with our Allies
we are enhancing the Partnership for Peace and continuing political contacts with
aspiring states. We are also continuing bilateral programs to advance this agenda,
such as the President's Warsaw Initiative, which is playing a critical role in
helping the militaries of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia become more
interoperable with NATO. Building on the increasing links between NATO and the
Partnership for Peace nations, Partners will increasingly contribute to real-world
NATO missions, as many are doing in the NATO-led operation in Bosnia.
Some European nations do not desire NATO membership, but do desire strengthened
ties with the Alliance. The Partnership for Peace provides an ideal venue for such
relationships. It formalizes relations, provides a mechanism for mutual beneficial
interaction and establishes a sound basis for combined action should that be
desired. For all these reasons, Partnership for Peace will remain a central and
permanent part of the European security architecture.
NATO also is pursuing several other initiatives to enhance its ability to respond
to new challenges and deepen ties between the Alliance and Partner countries. NATO
has launched the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council to strengthen political dialogue
and practical cooperation with all Partners, and established a NATO-Ukraine
Charter, which provides a framework for enhanced relations. As a result of the
1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, NATO and Russia developed the Permanent Joint
Council to enhance political consultation and practical cooperation, while
retaining NATO's decision-making authority. Our shared goal remains constructive
Russian participation in the European security system.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will hold its Fiftieth Anniversary summit
meeting in Washington on April 24-25, 1999. This summit will mark NATO's
extraordinary record of success over the past fifty years in protecting the
security of the United States and our European allies. As agreed at the 1997
Madrid summit, we hope to use the upcoming summit meeting in Washington to welcome
the entry of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as new members of the
alliance. Looking to the future, the summit will advance the common work of NATO
allies and partners to build an undivided Europe that is peaceful, prosperous, and
democratic.
As we help build a comprehensive European security architecture, we must continue
to focus on regional security challenges.
Southeastern Europe and the Balkans: There are significant security challenges in
Southeastern Europe. Instability in this region could threaten the consolidation of
reforms, disrupt commerce and undermine our efforts to bring peace to Bosnia and
other parts of the former Yugoslavia.
The United States has an abiding interest in peace and stability in Bosnia because
continued war in that region threatens all of Europe's stability. Implementation
of the Dayton Accords is the best hope for creating a self-sustaining peace in
Bosnia. NATO-led forces are contributing to a secure environment in Bosnia and
providing essential support for the broader progress we are making in implementing
the Dayton Accords. Further progress is necessary, however, to create conditions
that will allow implementation to continue without a large military presence. We
are committed to full implementation of the Dayton Accords and success in Bosnia.
We support the efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia and broader efforts to promote justice and reconciliation in Bosnia.
We are deeply concerned about the ongoing bloodshed in Kosovo, which threatens
security and stability throughout the Balkan region. We are firmly convinced that
the problems in Kosovo can best be resolved through a process of open and
unconditional dialogue between authorities in Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanian
leadership. We seek a peaceful resolution of the crisis that guarantees
restoration of human and political rights which have been systematically denied the
Kosovar Albanian population since Belgrade withdrew autonomy in 1989. In support
of that objective, NATO is reviewing options for deterring further violence against
the civilian population in Kosovo and stabilizing the military situation in the
region.
We are redoubling our efforts to advance the integration of several new democracies
in Southeastern Europe (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslavian
Republic of Macedonia) into the European mainstream. More specifically, the
President's Action Plan for Southeast Europe seeks to promote further democratic,
economic, and military reforms in these countries, to encourage greater regional
cooperation, and to advance common interests, such as closer contact with NATO, and
increased law enforcement training and exchanges to assist in the fight against
organized crime.
Tensions on Cyprus, Greek-Turkish disagreements in the Aegean and Turkey's
relationship with the EU have serious implications for regional stability and the
evolution of European political and security structures. Our goals are to stabilize
the region by reducing longstanding Greek-Turkish tensions and pursuing a
comprehensive settlement on Cyprus. A democratic, secular, stable and Western-
oriented Turkey is critical to these efforts and has supported broader U.S. efforts
to enhance stability in Bosnia, the NIS and the Middle East, as well as to contain
Iran and Iraq.
The Baltic States: For over fifty years, the United States has recognized the
sovereignty and independence of the republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
During this period, we never acknowledged their forced incorporation into the
Soviet Union. The special nature of our relationship with the Baltic States is
recognized in the Charter of Partnership signed on January 16, 1998, which
clarifies the principles upon which U.S. relations with the Baltic states are based
and provides a framework for strengthening ties and pursuing common goals. These
goals include integration of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the transatlantic
community and development of close, cooperative relationships among all the states
in Northeastern Europe. The Charter also establishes mechanisms for high-level
review and adjustment of this cooperation.
Northern Ireland: After a 30-year winter of sectarian violence, Northern Ireland
has the promise of a springtime of peace. The agreement that emerged from the
Northern Ireland peace talks on April 10, 1998 opened the way to build a society
based on enduring peace, justice and equality. On May 22, 1998, the people of
Ireland and Northern Ireland seized this opportunity to turn the common tragedy of
Northern Ireland's past into a shared triumph for the future by strongly endorsing
the peace accord. In so doing, they have written a new chapter in the rich history
of their island by creating the best chance for peace in a generation.
The United States actively promoted this peace process and will continue to stand
with those who seek to build lasting peace and enduring prosperity in Ireland and
Northern Ireland. They can count on the continuing aid, support and encouragement
of the United States. The task of making the peace endure will be difficult. Some
may seek to undermine this agreement by returning to violence. Anyone who does so,
from whatever side and whatever faction, will have no friends in America. We will
work closely with British and Irish law enforcement and intelligence officials to
prevent outrages before they happen by identifying terrorists and their sources of
financial and material support.
We will continue to work with Northern Ireland's leaders as they seek to transform
the promise of the Accord into a reality-with new democratic institutions and new
economic opportunities for all of Northern Ireland's people. Working through the
International Fund for Ireland and the private sector, we will help the people
seize the opportunities that peace will bring to attract new investment to create
new factories, workplaces and jobs, and establish new centers of learning to
prepare for the 21st Century.
Newly Independent States (NIS): The United States is pursuing a wide range of
security objectives in the NIS. We seek to bring Russia, Ukraine and the other NIS
into a new, cooperative European security order, which includes strengthening their
participation in NATO Partnership for Peace activities and building effective NATO-
Russia and NATO-Ukraine partnerships. We seek to reduce the threat of nuclear war
and the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, as well as other weapons of mass
destruction and their delivery systems, especially to outlaw states.
The United States has vital security interests in the evolution of Russia, Ukraine
and the other NIS into democratic market economies, peacefully and prosperously
integrated into the world community. The governmental and financial sectors in
this region appear especially susceptible to penetration by organized criminal
groups, who have the ability to subvert and destroy these nascent institutions.
Further democratic and economic reforms and integration into the WTO and other
international economic institutions will strengthen the rule of law and respect for
human rights, foster growth by expanding private sector activity, and encourage
open and cooperative policies toward the global community.
Promoting Prosperity
Europe is a key element in America's global commercial engagement. Europe and the
United States produce over half of all global goods and services. More than 60% of
total U.S. investment abroad is in Europe and fourteen million workers on both
sides of the Atlantic earn their livelihoods directly from transatlantic commerce.
As part of the New Transatlantic Agenda launched at the 1995 U.S.-EU Summit in
Madrid, the United States and the EU agreed to take concrete steps to reduce
barriers to trade and investment through the creation of an open New Transatlantic
Marketplace. We have concluded Mutual Recognition Agreements eliminating redundant
testing and certification requirements covering $50 billion in two-way trade. Our
governments are also cooperating closely with the Transatlantic Business Dialogue,
a U.S.-European business partnership, to address a wide range of trade barriers.
Building on the New Transatlantic Agenda, the United
States and the EU launched the Transatlantic Economic Partnership on May 18, 1998.
This is a major new initiative to deepen our economic relations, reinforce our
political ties and reduce trade frictions that have plagued our bilateral
relationship. The first element of the initiative is reducing barriers that affect
manufacturing, agriculture and services. In the manufacturing area we will focus on
standards and technical barriers that American businesses have identified as the
most significant obstacle to expanding trade. In the agricultural area we will
focus on regulatory barriers that have inhibited the expansion of agriculture
trade, particularly in the biotechnology area. In the area of services we will
seek to open our markets further and to create new opportunities for the number of
service industries that are so active in the European market.
The second element of the Transatlantic Economic Partnership is a broader,
cooperative approach to addressing a wide range of trade issues. We agreed to
maintain current practices, and will continue not imposing duties on electronic
transmissions and develop a work program in the WTO for electronic commerce. We
will seek to adopt common positions and effective strategies for accelerating
compliance with WTO commitments on intellectual property. We will seek to promote
government procurement opportunities, including promoting compatibility of
electronic procurement information and government contracting systems. We will
seek innovative ways to promote our shared labor and environmental values around
the world. To promote fair competition, we will seek to enhance the compatibility
of our procedures with potentially significant reductions in cost for American
companies.
The United States strongly supports the process of European integration embodied in
the EU. We are also encouraging bilateral trade and investment in non-EU countries
and supporting enlargement of the EU. We recognize that EU nations face
significant economic challenges with nearly 20 million people unemployed, and that
economic stagnation has eroded public support for funding outward-looking foreign
policies and greater integration. We are working closely with our European
partners to expand employment, promote long-term growth and support the New
Transatlantic Agenda.
By supporting historic market reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and in the NIS,
we both strengthen our own economy and help new democracies take root. Poland,
economically troubled as recently as 1989, now symbolizes the new dynamism and
rapid growth that extensive, free-market reforms make possible. Recent economic
turbulence in Russia demonstrates that the transition to a more prosperous, market-
based economy will be a longterm process characterized by promise and
disappointment. In Ukraine, reinvigorating economic reform remains a key challenge
to strengthening national security and independence. Much remains to be done
throughout the region to assure sustainable economic recoveries and adequate social
protection.
The United States will continue helping the NIS economies integrate into
international economic and other institutions and develop healthy business
climates. We will continue to mobilize the international community to provide
assistance to support reform. The United States is working closely with Russia and
Ukraine in priority areas, including defense conversion, the environment, trade and
investment, and scientific and technological cooperation. We are also encouraging
investment, especially by U.S. companies, in NIS energy resources and their export
to world markets, thereby expanding and diversifying world energy supplies and
promoting prosperity in the NIS.
Ultimately, the success of economic and financial reforms in the countries recently
emerged from communism will depend more on private investment than official aid.
One of our priorities, therefore, is to help countries stimulate foreign and
domestic investment. At the Helsinki Summit, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin
defined an ambitious reform agenda covering key tax, energy and commercial laws
crucial for Russia to realize its potential for attracting foreign investment.
Further, the Presidents outlined steps to accelerate Russian membership on
commercial terms in key economic organizations such as the WTO. It is in both
Russia's interest and ours that we work with Russian leaders on passage of key
economic and commercial legislation. We are cooperating with Russia to facilitate
oil and gas exports to and through Russia from neighboring Caspian countries. We
also support development of new East-West oil and gas export routes across the
Caspian Sea and through the Transcaucasus and Turkey.
Ukraine is at an important point in its economic transition-one that will affect
its integration with Europe and domestic prosperity. The United States has
mobilized the international community's support for Ukrainian economic reform,
pushed to improve Ukraine's investment climate, and championed its integration into
key European, transatlantic and global economic institutions. Two other challenges
stand out: first, to instill respect for the rule of law so that a more
transparent, level economic playing field is established and democratic governance
prevails; and, second, to gain international support as it seeks to close down
Chernobyl and reform its energy sector. The U.S.-Ukraine Binational Commission,
chaired by Vice President Gore and President Kuchma, serves as a focal point to
coordinate bilateral relations and to invigorate Ukrainian reform efforts.
A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia will help promote stability and
security from the Mediterranean to China and facilitate rapid development and
transport to international markets of the large Caspian oil and gas resources, with
substantial U.S. commercial participation. While the new states in the region have
made progress in their quest for sovereignty and a secure place in the
international arena, much remains to be done in democratic and economic reform and
in settling regional conflicts, such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia.
Promoting Democracy
Thoroughgoing democratic and economic reforms in the NIS and Europe's former
communist states are the best measures to avert conditions which could foster
aggressive nationalism and ethnic hatreds. Already, the prospect of joining or
rejoining the Western democratic family has dampened the forces of nationalism and
strengthened the forces of democracy and reform in many countries of the region.
The independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic and economic
reform of the NIS are important to American interests. To advance these goals, we
are utilizing our bilateral relationships, our leadership of international
institutions, and billions of dollars in private and multilateral resources. But
the circumstances affecting the smaller countries depend in significant measure on
the fate of reform in the largest and most powerful-Russia. The United States will
continue vigorously to promote Russian reform and international integration, and
discourage any reversal in the progress that has been made. Our economic and
political support for the Russian government depends on its commitment to internal
reform and a responsible foreign policy.
East Asia and the Pacific
President Clinton's vision of a new Pacific community links security interests with
economic growth and our commitment to democracy and human rights. We continue to
build on that vision, cementing America's role as a stabilizing force in a more
integrated Asia Pacific region.
Enhancing Security
Our military presence has been essential to maintaining the stability that has
enabled most nations in the Asia Pacific region to build thriving economies for the
benefit of all. To deter aggression and secure our own interests, we will maintain
approximately 100,000 U.S. military personnel in the region. Our commitment to
maintaining an active military presence in the region and our treaty alliances with
Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines serve as the foundation
for America's continuing security role.
We are maintaining healthy relations with the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), which now includes Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos and Burma. We are also supporting regional
dialogue- such as in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)-on the full range of common
security challenges. By meeting on confidence-building measures such as search and
rescue cooperation and peacekeeping, the ARF can help enhance regional security and
understanding.
Japan
The United States and Japan reaffirmed our bilateral security relationship in the
April 1996 Joint Security Declaration. The alliance continues to be the
cornerstone for achieving common security objectives and for maintaining a stable
and prosperous environment for the Asia Pacific region as we enter the twenty-first
century. In September 1997, both Governments issued the revised
Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation which will result in greater
bilateral cooperation in peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations, in
situations in areas surrounding Japan, and in the defense of Japan itself. The
revised Guidelines, like the U.S.-Japan security relationship itself, are not
directed against any other country.
In April 1998, in order to support the new Guidelines, both governments agreed to
a revised Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) which expands the
exchange of provision of supplies and services to include reciprocal provision of
logistics support during situations surrounding Japan that have an important
influence on Japan's peace and security. While the guidelines and its related
efforts have specifically focused on regional security, both countries have
continued to cooperate in the implementation of the Special Action Committee on
Okinawa (SACO) Final report. This effort initiated plans and measures to realign,
consolidate, and reduce U.S. facilities and areas in Okinawa in order to ease the
impact of U.S. Forces' presence on the people of Okinawa. Implementation of SACO
will ultimately aid in ensuring the maintenance of U.S. operational capabilities
and force presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
U.S.-Japan security cooperation extends to promoting regional peace and stability,
seeking universal adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and addressing
the dangers posed by transfers of destabilizing conventional arms and sensitive
dual-use goods and technologies. Our continued progress in assisting open trade
between our countries and our broad-ranging international cooperation, exemplified
by the Common Agenda, provide a sound basis for our relations into the next
century.
Korean Peninsula
Tensions on the Korean Peninsula remain the principal threat to peace and stability
in East Asia. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has publicly stated
a preference for peaceful reunification, but continues to dedicate a large portion
of dwindling resources to enhance the combat capability of its huge military
forces. Renewed conflict has been prevented since 1953 by a combination of the
Armistice Agreement, which brought an end to open hostilities; the United Nations
Command, which has visibly represented the will of the UN Security Council to
secure peace; and the physical presence of U.S. and ROK troops in the Combined
Forces Command, which has demonstrated the alliance's resolve.
The inauguration of Kim Dae-jung as President of the Republic of Korea on February
25, 1998 marked an important turning point on the Korean Peninsula. It marked the
triumph of democracy in South Korea and the first peaceful transition of power from
the ruling party to an opposition party. It was also a remarkable triumph for
President Kim, who had been denied the Presidency in 1971 by voter intimidation and
fraud, kidnapped and almost murdered by government agents, sentenced to death in
1991, imprisoned for six years and in exile or under house arrest for over ten
years. President Kim personifies the victory of democracy over dictatorship in
South Korea.
President Kim has set a new course toward peace and stability on the Korean
Peninsula by opening new channels for dialogue and seeking areas for cooperation
between North and South. During their summit meeting in June 1998, President
Clinton and President Kim discussed the situation on the Korean Peninsula,
reaffirming South Korea's role as lead interlocutor with the North Koreans and the
importance of our strong defense alliance. President Clinton expressed strong
support for President Kim's vision of engagement and efforts toward reconciliation
with the North. The United States is working to create conditions of stability by
maintaining solidarity with our South Korean ally, emphasizing America's commitment
to shaping a peaceful and prosperous Korean Peninsula and ensuring that an isolated
and struggling North Korea does not opt for a military solution to its political
and economic problems.
Peaceful resolution of the Korean conflict with a nonnuclear, reunified peninsula
will enhance stability in the
East Asian region and is clearly in our strategic interest. We are willing to
improve bilateral political and economic ties with North Korea-consistent with the
objectives of our alliance with the ROK-to draw the North into more normal
relations with the region and the rest of the world. Our willingness to improve
bilateral relations will continue to be commensurate with the North's cooperation
in efforts to reduce tensions on the peninsula. South Korea has set a shining
example for nonproliferation by forswearing nuclear weapons, accepting safeguards,
and developing a peaceful nuclear program that brings benefits to the region. We
are firm that North Korea must freeze and dismantle its graphite-moderated reactors
and related facilities and fully comply with its NPT obligations under the Agreed
Framework. We also seek to cease North Korea's chemical and biological weapon
programs and ballistic missile proliferation activities. The United States, too,
must fulfill its obligations under the Agreed Framework and the Administration will
work with the Congress to ensure the success of our efforts to address the North
Korean nuclear threat. The North must also engage in a productive dialogue with
South Korea; continue the recently revived United Nations Command-Korean People's
Army General Officer Dialogue talks at
Panmunjon; participate constructively in the Four Party Talks among the United
States, China, and North and South Korea to reduce tensions and negotiate a peace
agreement; and support our efforts to recover the remains of American servicemen
missing since the Korean War.
China
A stable, open, prosperous People's Republic of China (PRC) that assumes its
responsibilities for building a more peaceful world is clearly and profoundly in
our interests. The prospects for peace and prosperity in Asia depend heavily on
China's role as a responsible member of the international community. China's
integration into the international system of rules and norms will influence its own
political and economic development, as well as its relations with the rest of the
world. Our relationship with China will in large measure help to determine whether
the 21st century is one of security, peace, and prosperity for the American people.
Our success in working with China as a partner in building a stable international
order depends on establishing a productive relationship that will build sustained
domestic support.
Our policy toward China is both principled and pragmatic: expanding our areas of
cooperation while dealing forthrightly with our differences. Seeking to isolate
China is clearly unworkable. Even our friends and allies around the world would
not support us; we would succeed only in isolating ourselves and our own policy.
More importantly, choosing isolation over engagement would not make the world
safer. It would make it more dangerous. It would undermine rather than strengthen
our efforts to foster stability in Asia and halt the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. It would hinder the cause of democracy and human rights in
China, set back worldwide efforts to protect the environment, and cut off one of
the world's most important markets.
President Jiang Zemin's visit to the United States in
October 1997-the first state visit by the President of China to the United States
in twelve years-marked significant progress in the development of U.S.-PRC
relations. President Clinton's reciprocal visit to Beijing in June 1998-the first
state visit by an American president to China in this decade-further expanded and
strengthened our relations. The two summits were important milestones toward
building a constructive U.S.-China strategic partnership.
In their 1997 summit, the two Presidents agreed on a number of steps to strengthen
cooperation in international affairs: establishing a WashingtonBeijing presidential
communications link to facilitate direct contact, regular presidential visits to
each other's capitals, and regular exchanges of visits by cabinet and sub-cabinet
officials to consult on political, military, security and arms control issues. They
agreed to establish a consultation mechanism to strengthen military maritime
safety-which will enable their maritime and air forces to avoid accidents,
misunderstandings or miscalculations- and to hold discussions on humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief. In their June 1998 meeting, they agreed to
continue their regular summit meetings and to intensify the bilateral dialogue on
security issues.
Arms control and non-proliferation issues were high on the agenda for 1998 summit,
which expanded and strengthened the series of agreements that were reached at the
1997 summit. In Beijing, Presidents Clinton and Jiang announced that the United
States and China will not target their strategic nuclear weapons at each other.
They confirmed their common goal to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
We welcomed China's statement that it attaches importance to issues related to the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and missile nonproliferation and that it
has begun to actively study joining the MTCR. Our two nations will continue
consultations on MTCR issues in 1998. Both sides agreed to further strengthen
controls on the export of dual-use chemicals and related production equipment and
technology to assure they are not used for production of chemical weapons, and
China announced that it has expanded the list of chemical precursors which it
controls. The two Presidents issued a joint statement calling for strengthening of
the Biological Weapons Convention and early conclusion of a protocol establishing a
practical and effective compliance mechanism and improving transparency. They
issued a joint statement affirming their commitment to ending the export and
indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines and to accelerating global
humanitarian demining. We also reached agreement with China on practices for end-
use visits on U.S. high technology exports to China, which will establish a
framework for such exports to China.
China is working with the United States on important regional security issues. In
June 1998, China chaired a meeting of the permanent members of the UN Security
Council to forge a common strategy for moving India and Pakistan away from a
nuclear arms race. China condemned both countries for conducting nuclear tests and
joined us in urging them to conduct no more tests, to sign the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, to avoid deploying or testing missiles, and to work to resolve their
differences through dialogue. At the 1998 summit, Presidents Clinton and Jiang
issued a joint statement on their shared interest in a peaceful and stable South
Asia and agreed to continue to coordinate their efforts to strengthen peace and
stability in that region. On the Korean Peninsula, China has become a force for
peace and stability, helping us to convince North Korea to freeze its dangerous
nuclear program, playing a constructive role in the four-party peace talks.
The United States and China are working to strengthen cooperation in the field of
law enforcement and mutual legal assistance, including efforts to combat
international organized crime, narcotics trafficking, alien smuggling, illegal
immigration, counterfeiting and money laundering. We have established a joint
liaison group for law enforcement cooperation and assigned counternarcotics
officers to each other's embassies in 1998.
Our key security objectives for the future include:
� sustaining the strategic dialogue begun by the recent summits and other high-
level exchanges;
� enhancing stability in the Taiwan Strait through peaceful approaches to cross-
Strait issues and encouraging dialogue between Beijing and Taipei;
� strengthening China's adherence to international nonproliferation norms,
particularly in its export controls on ballistic missile and dual use technologies;
� achieving greater openness and transparency in China's military;
� encouraging a constructive PRC role in international affairs through active
cooperation in ARF, the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) and the Northeast Asia Security Dialogue; and
� improving law enforcement cooperation with PRC officials through increased
liaison and training.
Southeast Asia
Our strategic interest in Southeast Asia centers on developing regional and
bilateral security and economic relationships that assist in conflict prevention
and resolution and expand U.S.
participation in the region's economies. U.S. security objectives in the region
are to maintain our security alliances with Australia, Thailand and the
Philippines, to sustain security access arrangements with Singapore and other ASEAN
countries, and to encourage the emergence of a strong, cohesive ASEAN capable of
enhancing regional stability and prosperity.
Our policy combines two approaches: First, maintaining our increasingly productive
relationship with ASEAN-especially our security dialogue under the ARF. Second,
pursuing bilateral initiatives with individual Southeast Asian nations to promote
political stability, foster market-oriented economic reforms, and reduce or contain
the effects of Asian organized crime, particularly the flow of heroin from Burma
and other countries in the region.
Promoting Prosperity
A prosperous and open Asia Pacific is key to the economic health of the United
States. On the eve of the recent financial problems in Asia, the 18 members of
APEC contributed about one-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 more to Asia than Europe. In states like California, Oregon and Washington,
exports to Asia account for more than half of each state's total exports. U.S.
direct investments in Asia represent about one-fifth of total U.S. direct foreign
investment.
Our economic objectives in East Asia include recovery from the recent financial
crisis, continued progress within APEC toward liberalizing trade and investment,
increased U.S. exports to Asian countries through market-opening measures and
leveling the playing field for U.S. business, and WTO accession for China and
Taiwan on satisfactory commercial terms. Opportunities for economic growth abound
in Asia and underlie our strong commitment to multilateral economic cooperation,
such as via the annual APEC leaders meetings.
Promoting sustainable development, protecting the environment and coping with the
global problem of climate change are important for ensuring long-term prosperity in
the Asia Pacific region. The Kyoto Agreement was a major step forward in
controlling the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change, but its success
depends on meaningful participation by key developing nations as well as the
industrialized nations of the world. Rapid economic growth in China and India make
their participation essential to the global effort to control greenhouse gases.
The Asian Financial Crisis
Over the last decade, the global economy has entered a new era-an era of
interdependence and opportunity. Americans have benefited greatly from the
worldwide increase of trade and capital flows. This development has contributed to
steady GNP growth, improvements in standards of living, more high paying jobs
(particularly in export-oriented industries), and low inflation.
The United States has enormously important economic and national security interests
at stake in East Asia. Prolonged economic distress and financial instability will
have an adverse effect on U.S. exports to the region, the competitiveness of
American companies, and the well being of American workers. There also is a risk
that if the current crisis is left unchecked its effects could spread beyond East
Asia. Simply put, we cannot afford to stand back in hopes that the crisis will
resolve itself. When we act to help resolve the Asian financial crisis, we act to
protect the well-being of the American people.
In the face of this challenge, our primary objective is to help stabilize the
current financial situation. Our strategy has four key elements: support for
economic reforms; working with international financial institutions to provide
structural and humanitarian assistance; providing bilateral humanitarian aid and
contingency bilateral financial assistance if needed; and urging strong policy
actions by Japan and the other major economic powers to promote global growth.
We will continue to support South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia as they implement
economic reforms designed to foster financial stability and investor confidence in
order to attract the capital flows required to restore economic growth. These
reform programs have at their core restructuring the financial sector, promoting
greater transparency in trade and investment laws and regulations, and ending
policydirected lending practices. All three nations face a difficult road ahead
that will test their political will. The international community can continue to
help ameliorate adverse consequences of the crisis, but only resolute action to
keep to the agreed policy course will bring a resumption of sustained growth.
Although the Asian financial crisis is having a crippling effect, we believe the
underlying fundamentals for economic recovery are good and are confident that full
and vigorous implementation of economic reforms combined with the efforts of the
international community will lead to the restoration of economic growth to the
countries of the region. U.S. initiatives in APEC will open new opportunities for
economic cooperation and permit U.S. companies to expand their involvement in
substantial infrastructure planning and construction throughout the region. While
our progress in APEC has been gratifying, we will explore options to encourage all
Asia Pacific nations to pursue open markets.
The United States will continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank, other
international financial institutions, the governments in East Asia and the private
sector to help stabilize financial markets, restore investor confidence and achieve
muchneeded reforms in the troubled East Asian economies. Our goal is to help the
region recover quickly and to build a solid, resilient foundation for future
economic growth in the region.
China
Bringing the PRC more fully into the global trading system is manifestly in our
national interest. China is one of the fastest growing markets for our goods and
services. As we look into the next century, our exports to China will support
hundreds of thousands of jobs across our country. For this reason, we must
continue our normal trade treatment for China, as every President has done since
1980, strengthening instead of undermining our economic relationship.
An important part of integrating China into the marketbased world economic system
is opening China's highly protected market through lower border barriers and
removal of distorting restraints on economic activity. We have negotiated landmark
agreements to combat piracy of intellectual property and advance the interests of
our creative industries. We have also negotiated-and vigorously enforced-
agreements on textile trade. At their 1997 and 1998 summits, President Clinton and
President Jiang agreed to take a number of positive measures to expand U.S.-China
trade and economic ties. We will continue to press China to open its markets (in
goods, services and agriculture) as it engages in sweeping economic reform.
It is in our interest that China become a member of the WTO; however, we have been
steadfast in leading the effort to ensure that China's accession to the WTO occurs
on a commercial basis. China maintains many barriers that must be eliminated, and
we need to ensure that necessary reforms are agreed to before accession occurs. At
the 1997 summit, the two leaders agreed that China's full participation in the
multilateral trading system is in their mutual interest. They agreed to intensify
negotiations on market access, including tariffs, nontariff measures, services,
standards and agriculture, and on implementation of WTO principles so that China
can accede to the WTO on a commercial basis at the earliest possible date. They
reiterated their commitment to this process in their 1998 summit.
China has been a helpful partner in international efforts to stabilize the Asian
financial crisis. In resisting the temptation to devalue its currency, China has
seen that its own interests lie in preventing another round of competitive
devaluations that would have severely damaged prospects for regional recovery. It
has also contributed to the rescue packages for affected economies.
Japan
The Administration continues to make progress on increasing market access in Asia's
largest economy. Since the beginning of the first Clinton Administration, the
United States and Japan have reached 35 trade agreements designed to open Japanese
markets in key sectors, including autos and auto parts, telecommunications, civil
aviation, insurance and glass. The Administration also has intensified efforts to
monitor and enforce trade agreements with Japan to ensure that they are fully
implemented. The United States also uses multilateral venues, such as WTO dispute
settlement and negotiation of new multilateral agreements, to further open markets
and accomplish our trade objectives with Japan.
During the period from 1993 to 1996, U.S. exports to Japan increased from $47.9
billion to $67.6 billion, and the bilateral trade deficit fell from $59.4 billion
to $47.6 billion. The recent economic downturn in
Japan, however, has reversed this positive trend with the bilateral trade deficit
for the first four months 1998 already at $20.8 billion, up 32 percent from the
same period in 1996. Sustained global expansion and recovery in Asia cannot be
achieved when the second largest economy in the world, accounting for more than
half of Asian output, is in recession and has a weakened financial system.
Japan has a crucial role to play in Asia's economic recovery. Japan must generate
substantial growth to help maintain a growing world economy and absorb a growing
share of imports from emerging markets. To do this Japan must reform its financial
sector, stimulate domestic demand, deregulate its economy, and further open its
markets to foreign goods and services. We look forward to substantial and
effective actions to achieve a domestic demand-led recovery, to restore health to
the financial sector and to make progress on deregulation and opening markets.
Strong, immediate, tangible actions by the Japanese Government are vital to make
Japan again an engine of growth and to help spur a broader economic recovery in
Asia, as well as reinvigorate a critical market for U.S. goods and services.
South Korea
At their summit meeting in June 1998, President
Clinton reaffirmed to President Kim that the United States will continue its strong
support for his efforts to reform the Korean economy, liberalize trade and
investment, strengthen the banking system and implement the IMF program. President
Clinton reiterated our commitment to provide bilateral finance if needed under
appropriate conditions. The two presidents discussed a number of concrete steps to
promote growth in both our countries and explored ways to more fully open our
markets and to further integrate the Republic of Korea into the global economy,
including new discussions on a bilateral investment treaty. They also signed an
Open Skies agreement which permits unrestricted air service between our two
countries.
Thailand

Thailand, a key U.S. security partner in the region, also faces serious economic
difficulties. The U.S. government continues to work with Thailand to ease the
strain of the financial crisis. We are taking concrete steps to lessen the
financial burden of military programs, including decreasing the scope of military
contacts such as visits and exercises, and looking for ways to reduce the impact of
the crisis on security assistance programs. The Royal Thai armed forces have
earned high marks for their stabilizing influence.

Promoting Democracy
Some have argued that democracy is unsuited for Asia or at least for some Asian
nations-that human rights are relative and that Western support for international
human rights standards simply mask a form of cultural imperialism. The democratic
aspirations and achievements of the Asian peoples prove these arguments incorrect.
We will continue to support those aspirations and to promote respect for human
rights in all nations. Each nation must find its own form of democracy, and we
respect the variety of democratic institutions that have emerged in Asia. But
there is no cultural justification for tyranny, torture or denial of fundamental
freedoms. Our strategy includes efforts to:
� pursue a constructive, goal-oriented approach to achieving progress on human
rights and rule of law issues with China;
� foster a meaningful political dialogue between the ruling authorities in Burma
and the democratic opposition;
� work with the new government of Indonesia to promote improved respect for human
rights, strengthened democratic processes and an internationally acceptable
political solution in East Timor;
� work with ASEAN to restore democracy to Cambodia and encourage greater respect
for human rights; and

� achieve the fullest possible accounting of missing U.S. service members, promote
greater respect for human rights in Vietnam, and press for full Vietnamese
implementation of the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR)
program.
The Western Hemisphere
Our hemisphere enters the twenty-first century with an unprecedented opportunity to
secure a future of stability and prosperity-building on the fact that every nation
in the hemisphere except Cuba is democratic and committed to free market economies.
The end of armed conflict in Central America and other improvements in regional
security have coincided with remarkable political and economic progress throughout
the Americas. The people of the Americas are already taking advantage of the vast
opportunities being created as emerging markets are connected through electronic
commerce and as robust democracies allow individuals to more fully express their
preferences. Sub-regional political, economic and security cooperation in North
America, the Caribbean, Central America, the Andean region and the Southern Cone
have contributed positively to peace and prosperity throughout the hemisphere.
Equally important, the people of the Americas have reaffirmed their commitment to
combat together the difficult new threats of narcotics and corruption. U.S.
strategy is to secure the benefits of the new climate in the hemisphere while
safeguarding the United States and our friends against these threats.
The 1994 Summit of the Americas in Miami produced hemispheric agreement to
negotiate the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and agreements on measures
that included continued economic reform and enhanced cooperation on issues such as
the environment, counternarcotics, money laundering and corruption. Celebrating
the region's embrace of democracy and free markets, that historic meeting committed
the United States to a more cooperative relationship with the hemisphere. U.S.
agencies have used the Miami Summit Action Plan to establish productive
relationships and strengthen cooperation with their Latin American and Caribbean
counterparts in a host of areas.
Our engagement with the hemisphere reached unprecedented levels in 1997 and 1998.
In May 1997, President Clinton traveled to Mexico for a summit meeting with
President Zedillo, then held summits with Central American leaders in Costa Rica
and Caribbean leaders in Barbados, highlighting the importance of working with our
neighbors to solve problems of great concern to Americans such as drugs,
immigration and transnational crime. In October 1997, in Venezuela, Brazil and
Argentina, the President underscored opportunities for cooperation with vibrant
democracies and their fast growing markets.
This substantial engagement with the hemisphere at the beginning of the President's
second term continued at the Second Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile in
April 1998. At the Summit, the leaders of the hemisphere focused on the areas
needed to prepare our citizens for the 21st century: education, democracy, economic
integration and poverty relief.
Enhancing Security
The principal security concerns in the hemisphere are transnational in nature, such
as drug trafficking, organized crime, money laundering, illegal immigration, and
terrorism. In addition, our hemisphere is leading the way in recognizing the
dangers to democracy produced by corruption and rule of law issues. These threats,
especially narcotics, produce adverse social effects that undermine the
sovereignty, democracy and national security of nations in the hemisphere.
We are striving to eliminate the scourge of drug trafficking in our hemisphere. At
the Santiago Summit, the assembled leaders launched a Multilateral Counterdrug
Alliance to better organize and coordinate efforts in the hemisphere to stem the
production and distribution of drugs. The centerpiece of this alliance will be a
mechanism to evaluate each member country's progress in achieving their agreed
counternarcotics goals. Summit leaders also agreed to improve cooperation on
extraditing and prosecuting individuals charged with narcotics trafficking and
related crimes; strengthen efforts against money laundering and forfeiture of
assets used in criminal activity; reinforce international and national mechanisms
to halt illicit traffic and diversion of chemical precursors; enhance national
programs for fostering greater awareness of the dangers of drug abuse, preventing
illicit drug consumption and providing treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration;
and eliminate illicit crops through national alternative development programs,
eradication and interdiction.
We are also pursuing a number of bilateral and regional counternarcotics
initiatives. As part of our partnership with Mexico, we are striving to increase
counterdrug and law enforcement cooperation, while in the Caribbean we are
intensifying a coordinated effort on counternarcotics and law enforcement. The
reduction in trade barriers resulting from the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows more inspection resources to be
directed to thwarting attempts by organized crime to exploit the expanding volume
of trade for increased drug smuggling.
The Santiago Summit addressed other transnational security concerns as well.
Summit leaders called for the rapid ratification and entry into force of the 1997
Inter-American Convention to Combat the Illicit
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition Explosives and Related
Material. They also agreed to encourage states to accede to the international
conventions related to terrorism and convene, under the auspices of the OAS, the
Second Specialized Inter-American Conference to evaluate the progress attained and
to define future courses of action for the prevention, combat and elimination of
terrorism.
We are advancing regional security cooperation through bilateral security
dialogues, multilateral efforts in the Organization of American States (OAS) and
Summit of the Americas on transparency and regional confidence and security
building measures, exercises and exchanges with key militaries (principally focused
on peacekeeping), and regular Defense Ministerials. Working with Argentina, Brazil
and Chile, the other three guarantor nations of the Peru-Ecuador peace process, the
United States has brought the parties closer to a permanent solution to this
decades-old border dispute, the resolution of which is important to regional
stability. The Military Observer Mission, Ecuador-Peru (MOMEP), composed of the
four guarantor nations, successfully separated the warring factions, created the
mutual confidence and security among the guarantor nations. The U.S. sponsored
multilateral military exercise focused on combating drug trafficking, supporting
disaster relief (particularly important because of the El Nino phenomenon) and
participation in international peacekeeping. It has spurred unprecedented
exercises among neighboring countries in Central America and the Southern Cone.
Additionally, the Southern Cone has increasingly shared the burden of international
peacekeeping operations. The Santiago Summit tasked the OAS to expand topics
relating to confidence and security building measures with the goal of convening a
Special Conference on Security by the beginning of the next decade. Several
countries in the region have joined our call to promote transparency by publishing
white papers on defense. Our efforts to encourage multilateral cooperation are
enhancing confidence and security within the region and will help expand our
cooperative efforts to combat the transnational threats to the Western Hemisphere,
particularly in Columbia where social, political and criminal violence is spilling
across borders. We are also working to ensure successful transfer of stewardship
of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian people.
In light of the advances in democratic stability throughout Latin America and
mindful of the need for restraint, the Administration has moved to case-bycase
consideration of requests for advanced conventional arms transfers, on par with
other areas of the world. Such requests will be reviewed in a way that will serve
our objectives of promoting defense cooperation, restraint in arms acquisition and
military budgets, and an increased focus on peacekeeping, counternarcotics efforts
and disaster relief.
Promoting Prosperity
Economic growth and integration in the Americas will profoundly affect the
prosperity of the United States in the 21st century. Latin America has become the
fastest growing economic region in the world and our fastest growing export market.
In 1998, our exports to Latin America and the Caribbean are expected to exceed
those to the EU.
Building on the vision articulated at Miami in 1994 and the groundwork laid by
trade ministers over the last four years, the Santiago Summit launched formal
negotiations to initiate the FTAA by 2005. The negotiations will cover a broad
range of important issues, including market access, investment, services,
government procurement, dispute settlement, agriculture, intellectual property
rights, competition policy, subsidies, anti-dumping and countervailing duties. A
Committee on Electronic Commerce will explore the implications of electronic
commerce for the design of the FTAA, and a Committee on Civil Society will provide
a formal mechanism for labor, business, consumer, environmental and other non-
government organizations to make recommendations on the negotiations so that all
citizens can benefit from trade. Governments also will cooperate on promoting core
labor standards recognized by the International Labor Organization.
We seek to advance the goal of an integrated hemisphere of free market democracies
by consolidating NAFTA's gains and obtaining Congressional Fast Track trade
agreement implementing authority. Since the creation of NAFTA, our exports to
Mexico have risen significantly while the Agreement helped stabilize Mexico through
its worst financial crisis in modern history. Considering that Mexico has now
become our second-largest export market, it is imperative that its economy remain
open to the United States and NAFTA helps to ensure that. We will continue working
with Mexico and interested private parties to continue the mutually beneficial
trade with our largest trading partner and neighbor to the north, Canada. We are
also committed to delivering on the President's promise to negotiate a
comprehensive free trade agreement with Chile because of its extraordinary economic
performance and its active role in promoting hemispheric economic integration.
While we support the freer flow of goods and investment, there is also reason to be
sensitive to the concerns of smaller economies during the period of transition to
the global economy of the 21st century. To address this problem, and in light of
the increased competition NAFTA presents to Caribbean trade, we will seek
Congressional approval to provide enhanced trade benefits under the Caribbean Basin
Initiative (CBI) to help prepare that region for participation in the FTAA. With
the assistance of institutions such as OPIC, we will encourage the private sector
to take the lead in developing small and medium-sized businesses in the Caribbean
through the increased flow of investment capital. We must also encourage Caribbean
countries and territories to implement programs to attract foreign and domestic
investment.
At the Santiago Summit, the hemisphere's leaders reaffirmed that all citizens must
participate in the opportunities and prosperity created by free market democracy.
They pledged to ensure access to financial services for a significant number of the
50 million micro, small and medium size enterprises in the hemisphere by the year
2000, to work with multilateral institutions and regional organizations to invest
about $400-500 million over the next three years, and to streamline and
decentralize property registration and titling procedures and assure access to
justice for the poor. Governments will enhance participation by promoting core
labor standards recognized by the ILO, strengthening gender equity, working to
eliminate exploitative child labor, negotiating a new Declaration of Principles on
Fundamental Rights of Workers, and promoting education and training for indigenous
populations. To improve quality of life, Summit leaders pledged to pursue
elimination of measles by the year 2000 and reduce the incidence of diseases such
as pneumonia and mumps by the year 2002, to strengthen regional networks of health
information such as through telemedicine, to give highest priority to reducing
infant malnutrition, and to strengthen cooperation to implement Santa Cruz
Sustainable Development Plan of Action.
Promoting Democracy
Many Latin American nations have made tremendous advances in democracy and economic
progress over the last several years. But our ability to sustain the hemispheric
agenda depends in part on meeting the challenges posed by weak democratic
institutions, persistently high unemployment and crime rates, and serious income
disparities. In some Latin American countries, citizens will not fully realize the
benefits of political liberalization and economic growth without regulatory,
judicial, law enforcement and educational reforms, as well as increased efforts to
integrate all members of society into the formal economy.
At the Santiago Summit, the hemisphere's leaders reaffirmed their commitment to
strengthening democracy, justice and human rights. They agreed to intensify
efforts to promote democratic reforms at the regional and local level, protect the
rights of migrant workers and their families, improve the capabilities and
competence of civil and criminal justice systems, and encourage a strong and active
civil society. They pledged to promptly ratify the Inter-American Convention
Against Corruption to strengthen the integrity of governmental institutions. They
supported the creation of a Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression as part of
the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights. The Rapporteur will help resolve
human rights cases involving the press and focus international attention on attacks
against the hemisphere's emerging Fourth Estate, as their investigative reporting
provokes increasing threats from drug traffickers and other criminal elements.
Summit leaders also agreed to establish an Inter-American Justice Studies Center to
facilitate training of personnel, to exchange of information and other forms of
technical cooperation to improve judicial systems, to end impunity, combat
corruption and provide protection from rising domestic and international crime, and
to create a secure legal environment for trade and investment.
The hemisphere's leaders agreed at the Santiago Summit that education is the
centerpiece of reforms aimed at making democracy work for all the people of the
Americas. The Summit Action Plan adopted at Santiago will build on the
achievements of the 1994 Miami Summit. It will advance numerous cooperative
efforts based on the guiding principles of equity, quality, relevance and
efficiency. The Santiago Plan's targets are to ensure by the year 2010 primary
education for 100% of children and access to quality secondary education for at
least 75% of young people. The plan also includes solid commitments to finance
schools, textbooks, teacher training, technology for education, to create education
partnerships between the public and private sectors, to use technology to link
schools across national boundaries and to increase international exchanges of
students.
We are also seeking to strengthen norms for defense establishments that are
supportive of democracy, transparency, respect for human rights and civilian
control in defense matters. Through continued engagement with regional armed
forces, facilitated by our own modest military activities and presence in the
region, we are helping to transform civil-military relations. Through initiatives
such as the Defense Ministerial of the Americas and the Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies, we are increasing civilian expertise in defense
affairs and reinforcing the positive trend in civilian control.
Haiti and Cuba are of special concern to the United States. The restoration of
democracy in Haiti remains a positive example for the hemisphere. In Haiti we
continue to support respect for human rights and economic growth by a Haitian
government capable of managing its own security and paving the way for a fair
presidential election in 2000. Our efforts to train law enforcement officers in
Haiti have transformed the police from a despised and feared instrument of
repression to an accountable public safety agency. We are committed to working with
our partners in the region and in the international community to meet the challenge
of institutionalizing Haiti's economic and political development. Haiti will
benefit from a Caribbean-wide acceleration of growth and investment, stimulated in
part by enhancement of CBI benefits. The United States remains committed to
promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba and forestalling a mass exodus
that would endanger the lives of migrants and the security of our borders. While
maintaining pressure on the regime to make political and economic reforms, we
continue to encourage the emergence of a civil society to assist the transition to
democracy when the change comes. In March 1998, President Clinton announced a
number of measures designed to build on the success of the Pope's January
1998 visit to Cuba, expand the role of the Catholic Church and other elements of
civil society, and increase humanitarian assistance. As the Cuban people feel
greater incentive to take charge of their own future, they are more likely to stay
at home and build the informal and formal structures that will make transition
easier. Meanwhile, we remain firmly committed to bilateral migration accords that
ensure migration in safe, legal and orderly channels.
The Middle East, Southwest and South Asia
The May 1998 Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests clearly illustrate that a wide
range of events in this region can have a significant impact on key U.S. security
objectives. Choices made in the Middle East, Southwest and South Asia will
determine whether terrorists operating in and from the region are denied the
support they need to perpetrate their crimes, whether weapons of mass destruction
will imperil the region and the world, whether the oil and gas fields of the
Caucasus and Central Asia become reliable energy sources, whether the opium harvest
in Afghanistan is eliminated, and whether a just and lasting peace can be
established between Israel and the Arab countries.
Enhancing Security
The United States has enduring interests in pursuing a just, lasting and
comprehensive Middle East peace, ensuring the security and well-being of Israel,
helping our Arab friends provide for their security, and maintaining the free flow
of oil at reasonable prices. Our strategy reflects those interests and the unique
characteristics of the region as we work to extend the range of peace and
stability.
The Middle East Peace Process
An historic transformation has taken place in the political landscape of the Middle
East: peace agreements are taking hold, requiring concerted implementation efforts.
The United States-as an architect and sponsor of the peace process-has a clear
national interest in seeing the process deepen and widen to include all Israel's
neighbors. We will continue our steady, determined leadership-standing with those
who take risks for peace, standing against those who would destroy it, lending our
good offices where we can make a difference and helping bring the concrete benefits
of peace to people's daily lives. Future progress will require movement in the
following areas:
� continued Israeli-Palestinian engagement on remaining issues in the Interim
Agreement, and negotiation of permanent status issues;
� resuming Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese negotiations with the objective of
achieving peace treaties; and
� normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel.
Southwest Asia
In Southwest Asia, the United States remains focused on deterring threats to
regional stability, countering threats posed by WMD and protecting the security of
our regional partners, particularly from Iraq and Iran. We will continue to
encourage members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to work closely on
collective defense and security arrangements, help individual GCC states meet their
appropriate defense requirements and maintain our bilateral defense agreements.
We will maintain an appropriate military presence in Southwest Asia using a
combination of ground, air and naval forces. As a result of the confrontation with
Iraq in late 1997 and early 1998 over to Iraqi interference with UN inspection
teams, we increased our continuous military presence in the Gulf to back our on-
going efforts to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.
Our forces in the Gulf are backed by our ability to rapidly reinforce the region in
time of crisis, which we demonstrated convincingly in late 1997 and early 1998. We
remain committed to enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq,
which are essential for implementing the UN resolutions and preventing Saddam from
taking large scale military action against Kuwait or the Kurd and Shia minorities
in Iraq.
We would like to see Iraq's reintegration into the international community;
however, we have made clear that Iraq must comply with all relevant UN Security
Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein must cease the cynical manipulation of UN
humanitarian programs and cooperate with Security Council Resolution 1153, which
authorizes increased humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. Iraq must also
move from its posture of deny, delay and obscure to a posture of cooperation and
compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions designed to rid Iraq of WMD and
their delivery systems. Iraq must also comply with the memorandum of understanding
reached with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in February 1998. Our policy is
directed not against the people of Iraq but against the aggressive behavior of the
government. Until that behavior changes, our goal is containing the threat Saddam
Hussein poses to Iraq's neighbors, the free flow of Gulf oil and broader U.S.
interests in the Middle East.
Our policy toward Iran is aimed at changing the behavior of the Iranian government
in several key areas, including its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction
and long-range missiles, its support for terrorism and groups that violently oppose
the peace process, its attempts to undermine friendly governments in the region,
and its development of offensive military capabilities that threaten our GCC
partners and the flow of oil.
There are signs of change in Iranian policies. In
December 1997, Iranian officials welcomed Chairman Arafat to the Islamic Summit in
Tehran and said that, although they did not agree with the peace process, they
would not seek to impose their views and would accept what the Palestinians could
accept. In January 1998, President Khatemi publicly denounced terrorism and
condemned the killing of innocent Israelis. Iran's record in the war against drugs
has greatly improved and it has received high marks from the UN for its treatment
of more than two million Iraqi and Afghan refugees. Iran is participating in
diplomatic efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and is making a
welcome effort to improve relations with its neighbors in the Gulf.
We view these developments with interest, both with regard to the possibility of
Iran assuming its rightful place in the world community and the chance for better
bilateral ties. We also welcome statements by President Khatemi that suggest a
possibility of dialogue with the United States, and are taking concrete steps in
that direction. This month, we implemented a new, more streamlined procedure for
issuing visas to Iranians who travel to the United States frequently. We also
revised our Consular Travel Warning for Iran so that it better reflects current
attitudes in Iran towards American visitors. We have supported cultural and
academic exchanges, and facilitated travel to the United States by many Iranians.
However, these positive signs must be balanced against the reality that Iran's
support for terrorism has not yet ceased, serious violations of human rights
persist, its efforts to develop long range missiles, including the 1,300 kilometer-
range Shahab-3 it flight tested in July 1998, and its efforts to acquire WMD
continue. The United States will continue to oppose any country selling or
transferring to Iran materials and technologies that could be used to develop
longrange missiles or weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, we oppose Iranian
efforts to sponsor terror.
We are ready to explore further ways to build mutual confidence and avoid
misunderstandings with Iran. We will strengthen our cooperation with allies to
encourage positive changes in Iranian behavior. If a dialogue can be initiated and
sustained in a way that addresses the concerns of both sides, then the United
States would be willing to develop with the Islamic Republic a road map leading to
normal relations.
South Asia
South Asia has experienced an important expansion of democracy and economic reform.
Our strategy is designed to help the peoples of that region enjoy the fruits of
democracy and greater stability by helping resolve long-standing conflict and
implementing confidence-building measures. Regional stability and improved
bilateral ties are also important for U.S. economic interests in a region that
contains a fifth of the world's population and one of its most important emerging
markets. We seek to establish relationships with India and Pakistan that are
defined in terms of their own individual merits and reflect the full weight and
range of U.S. strategic, political and economic interests in each country. In
addition, we seek to work closely with regional countries to stem the flow of
illegal drugs from South Asia, most notably from Afghanistan.
The United States has long urged India and Pakistan to take steps to reduce the
risk of conflict and to bring their nuclear and missile programs into conformity
with international standards. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear test explosions
were unjustified and threaten to spark a dangerous nuclear arms race in Asia. As a
result of those tests and in accordance with our laws the United States imposed
sanctions against India and Pakistan. The sanctions include termination of
assistance except for humanitarian assistance for food or other agricultural
commodities; termination of sales of defense articles or services; termination of
foreign military financing; denial of nonagricultural credit, credit guarantees or
other financial assistance by any agency of the U.S. Government; prohibiting U.S.
banks from making any loan or providing any credit to the governments of India and
Pakistan except for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural
commodities; and prohibiting export of specific goods and technology subject to
export licensing by the Commerce Department.
India and Pakistan are contributing to a self-defeating cycle of escalation that
does not add to the security of either country. They have put themselves at odds
with the international community over these nuclear tests. In concert with the
other permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G-8 nations, the United
States has called on both nations to renounce further nuclear tests, to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty immediately and without conditions, and to resume
their direct dialogue and take decisive steps to reduce tensions in South Asia. We
also strongly urge these states to refrain from any actions, such as testing,
deployment or weaponization of ballistic missiles, that would further undermine
regional and global stability. And we urge them to join the clear international
consensus in support of nonproliferation and to join in negotiations in Geneva for
a cut off of fissile material production.
Promoting Prosperity
The United States has two principle economic objectives in the region: to promote
regional economic cooperation and development, and to ensure unrestricted flow of
oil from the region. We seek to promote regional trade and cooperation on
infrastructure through the multilateral track of the peace process, including
revitalization of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) economic summits.
The United States depends on oil for about 40 percent of its primary energy needs
and roughly half of our oil needs are met with imports. Although we import less
than 10% of Persian Gulf exports, our allies in Europe and Japan account for about
85% of these exports. Previous oil shocks and the Gulf War underscore the strategic
importance of the region and show the impact that an interruption of oil supplies
can have on the world's economy. Appropriate responses to events such as Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait can limit the magnitude of the crisis. Over the longer term,
U.S. dependence on access to these and other foreign oil sources will remain
important as our reserves are depleted. The United States must remain vigilant to
ensure unrestricted access to this critical resource. Thus, we will continue to
demonstrate U.S. commitment and resolve in the Persian Gulf.
Promoting Democracy
We encourage the spread of democratic values throughout the Middle East and
Southwest and South Asia and will pursue this objective by a constructive dialogue
with countries in the region. In Iran, for example, we hope the nation's leaders
will carry out the people's mandate for a government that respects and protects the
rule of law, both in its internal and external affairs. We will promote
responsible indigenous moves toward increasing political participation and
enhancing the quality of governance and will continue to vigorously challenge many
governments in the region to improve their human rights records. Respect for human
rights also requires rejection of terrorism. If the nations in the region are to
safeguard their own citizens from the threat of terror, they cannot tolerate acts
of indiscriminate violence against civilians, nor can they offer refuge to those
who commit such acts.
U.S. policies in the Middle East and Southwest Asia are not anti-Islamic-an
allegation made by some opponents of our efforts to help bring lasting peace and
stability to the region. Islam is the fastestgrowing religious faith in the United
States. We respect deeply its moral teachings and its role as a source of
inspiration and instruction for hundreds of millions of people around the world.
U.S. policy in the region is directed at the actions of governments and terrorist
groups, not peoples or faiths. The standards we would like all the nations in the
region to observe are not merely Western, but universal.
Africa
In recent years, the United States has supported significant change in Africa with
considerable success: multi-party democracies are more common and elections are
more frequent and open, human rights are more widely respected, the press is more
free, U.S.-Africa trade is expanding, and a pragmatic consensus on the need for
economic reform is emerging. A new, post-colonial generation of leadership is
reaching maturity in Africa, with more democratic and pragmatic approaches to
solving their countries' problems and developing their human and natural resources.
To further those successes, President Clinton made an unprecedented 12-day trip to
Africa in March-April 1998. With President Museveni of Uganda, he cohosted the
Entebbe Summit for Peace and Prosperity to advance cooperation on conflict
prevention, human rights and economic integration. The summit was attended by
Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, Presidents Moi of Kenya, Mkapa of Tanzania,
Bizimungu of Rwanda and Kabila of Congo. During the trip, the President unveiled a
number of new programs to support democracy, prosperity and opportunity, including
initiatives on education, rule of law, food security, trade and investment,
aviation, and conflict resolution. President Clinton directly addressed the
violent conflicts that have threatened African democracy and prosperity.
Sustaining our success in Africa will require that we identify those issues that
most directly affect our interests and where we can make a difference through
efficient targeting of our resources. A key challenge is to engage the remaining
autocratic regimes to encourage those countries to follow the example of other
African countries that are successfully implementing political and economic
reforms.
Enhancing Security
Serious transnational security threats emanate from pockets of Africa, including
state-sponsored terrorism, narcotics trafficking, international crime,
environmental damage and disease. These threats can only be addressed through
effective, sustained engagement in Africa. We have already made significant
progress in countering some of these threats-investing in efforts to combat
environmental damage and disease, leading international efforts to halt the
proliferation of land mines and the demining of Angola, Mozambique, Namibia,
Rwanda, Ethiopia and Eritrea. We continue efforts to reduce the flow of narcotics
through Africa and to curtail international criminal activity based in Africa. We
seek to keep Africa free of weapons of mass destruction by supporting South
Africa's nuclear disarmament and accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon
state, securing the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT, and
promoting establishment of the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
Libya and Sudan continue to pose a threat to regional stability and the national
security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Our policy toward
Libya is designed to block its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and
development of conventional military capabilities that threaten its neighbors, and
to compel Libya to cease its support for terrorism and its attempts to undermine
other governments in the region. The government of Libya has continued these
activities despite calls by the Security Council that it demonstrate by concrete
actions its renunciation of terrorism. Libya also continues to defy the United
Nations by refusing to turn over the two defendants in the terrorist bombing of Pan
Am 103. We remain determined that the perpetrators of this act and the attack on
UTA 772 be brought to justice. We have moved to counter Sudan's support for
international terrorism and regional destabilization by imposing comprehensive
sanctions on the Khartoum regime, continuing to press for the regime's isolation
through the UN Security Council, and enhancing the ability of Sudan's neighbors to
resist Khartoum-backed insurgencies in their countries through our Frontline States
initiative.
Persistent conflict and continuing political instability in some African countries
remain chronic obstacles to Africa's development and to U.S. interests there,
including unhampered access to oil and other vital natural resources. Our efforts
to resolve conflict include working to fully implement the Lusaka Accords in
Angola, sustaining the fragile new government in Liberia, supporting the recently
restored democratic government in Sierra Leone and the Economic Community of West
African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) efforts to ensure security there, and
achieving a peaceful, credible transition to democratic government in Nigeria, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and CongoBrazzaville.
To foster regional efforts to promote prosperity, stability and peace in Africa,
the United States in 1996 launched the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) to
work with Africans to enhance their capacity to conduct effective peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations. We are coordinating with the French, British, other donor
countries and African governments in developing a sustainable plan of action. The
United States has already trained battalions from Uganda, Senegal, Malawi, Mali and
Ghana, and is planning to train troops in Benin and Cote D'Ivoire later this year.
We are consulting closely on ACRI activity with the UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations, the Organization of
African Unity (OAU) and its Crisis Management Center, and African sub-regional
organizations already pursuing similar capacity enhancements. We hope and expect
that other African countries will also participate in the effort in the future,
building a welltrained, interoperable, local capacity for peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations in a region that has been fraught with turbulence and
crisis and all too dependent upon outside assistance to deal with these problems.
On April 1, 1998, President Clinton announced that the United States will be
establishing the African Center for Security Studies (ACSS). The ACSS will be a
regional center modeled after the George C. Marshall Center in Germany, designed in
consultation with African nations and intended to promote the exchange of ideas and
information tailored specifically for African concerns. The goal is for ACSS to be
a source of academic yet practical instruction in promoting the skills necessary to
make effective national security decisions in democratic governments, and engage
African military and civilian defense leaders in a substantive dialogue about
defense policy planning in democracies.
Promoting Prosperity
A stable, democratic, prosperous Africa will be a better economic partner, a better
partner for security and peace, and a better partner in the fights against drug
trafficking, crime, terrorism, disease and environmental degradation. An
economically dynamic Africa will be possible only when Africa is fully integrated
into the global economy. Our aim, therefore, is to assist African nations to
implement economic reforms, create favorable climates for trade and investment, and
achieve sustainable development. A majority of sub-Saharan Africa's 48 countries
have adopted market-oriented economic and political reforms in the past seven
years.
To support this positive trend, the President has proposed the Partnership for
Economic Growth and Opportunity in Africa to support the economic transformation
underway in Africa. The Administration is working closely with Congress to
implement key elements of this initiative through rapid passage of the African
Growth and Opportunity Act. By significantly broadening market access, spurring
growth in Africa and helping the poorest nations eliminate or reduce their
bilateral debt, this bill will better enable us to help African nations undertake
difficult economic reforms and build better lives for their people through
sustainable growth and development.
Further integrating Africa into the global economy has obvious political and
economic benefits. It will also directly serve U.S. interests by continuing to
expand 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 largest largely untapped
markets. Although the United States enjoys only a seven percent market share in
Africa, already 100,000 American jobs depend on our exports there. Increasing both
the U.S. market share and the size of the African market will bring tangible
benefits to U.S. workers and increase prosperity and economic opportunity in
Africa. To encourage U.S. trade with and investment in Africa, we are pursuing
several new initiatives and enhancements to the Partnership for Economic Growth and
Opportunity, including greater market access, targeted technical assistance,
enhanced bilateral and World Bank debt relief, and increased bilateral trade ties.
To further our trade objectives in Africa, the President inaugurated the Ron Brown
Commercial Center in Johannesburg, South Africa on March 28, 1998. The
Center, which is operated and funded by the
Department of Commerce, provides support for
American companies looking to enter or expand into the sub-Saharan African market.
It promotes U.S. exports through a range of support programs and facilitates
business contacts and partnerships between African and American businesses. The
Center also serves as a base for other agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, the
Trade Development Agency and USTR to expand their assistance to business.
Because safe air travel and secure airports are necessary for increasing trade,
attracting investment, and expanding tourism, the President on April 1, 1998
announced the "Safe Skies for Africa" initiative.
The goals of this $1.2 million program-funded by the Departments of State and
Transportation-are to work in partnership with Africa to increase the number of
sub-Saharan African countries that meet ICAO standards for aviation safety, improve
security at 8-12 airports in the region within 3 years, and improve regional air
navigation services in Africa by using modern satellite-based navigation aids and
communications technology. The initiative focuses on safety assessments and
security surveys in selected countries and formulating action plans together with
Africa civil aviation authorities to bring aviation safety and security practices
in Africa up to accepted world standards.
To support the desire of African nations to invest in a better and healthier future
for their children, the President on March 24, 1998 announced three new initiatives
to improve educational standards, ensure adequate food and agricultural production,
and fight the deadly infectious diseases that claim the lives of too many African
children.
� The Education for Development and
Democracy Initiative seeks to boost African integration into the global community
by improving the quality of, and technology for, education in Africa. The
initiative is centered on community resource centers, publicprivate partnerships,
and educating and empowering girls. We plan on spending approximately $120 million
over two years in support of this initiative.
� The Africa Food Security Initiative will assist African nations in strengthening
agriculture and food security in a number of key areas, including production of
healthy and alternative crops, better market efficiency and distribution of
existing crops, increased trade and investment in agricultural industries,
attacking crop diseases, and increasing access to agricultural technology systems
to assist with increased crop production and distribution. Our pilot budget for
the first two years of the initiative will be $61 million, which complements
USAID's current investments in these efforts.
� The third initiative is combating the infectious diseases that claim many young
lives. To help combat malaria, we will provide an additional $1 million grant to
provide further assistance to the Multilateral Initiative on Malaria. The grant
will focus on continuing educational seminars and will support the Regional Malaria
Lab in Mali to reinforce its position as a regional center of excellence in Africa.
This effort will complement our ongoing Infectious Disease Initiative for Africa
that focuses on surveillance, response, prevention and building local resistance to
infectious diseases.
Promoting Democracy
In Africa as elsewhere, democracies have proved more peaceful, stable and reliable
partners with which we can work and are more likely to pursue sound economic
policies. We will continue to work to sustain the important progress Africans have
achieved to date and to broaden the growing circle of African democracies.
Restoration of democracy and respect for human rights in Nigeria has long been one
of our major objectives in Africa. In June 1998, President Clinton reaffirmed to
Nigeria's new leadership the friendship of the United States for the people of
Nigeria and underscored our desire for improved bilateral relations in the context
of Nigeria taking swift and significant steps toward a successful transition to a
democratically elected civilian government that respects the human rights of its
citizens. The release of some political prisoners by the Nigerian government is an
encouraging sign, but much more needs to be done and the United States will
continue to press for a credible transition to a democratic, civilian government.
Through President Clinton's $30 million Great Lakes Justice Initiative, the United
States will work with both the people and governments of the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Rwanda and Burundi to support judicial systems which are impartial,
credible, effective and inclusive. This initiative seeks to strengthen judicial
bodies, such as relevant Ministries of Justice and Interior; improve the
functioning of court systems, prosecutors, police and prison systems; work with
national officials on specific problem areas such as creation of civilian police
forces and legal assistance programs; support training programs for police and
judiciary officials; develop improved court administration systems; provide human
rights training for military personnel and support prosecution of abuses
perpetrated by military personnel; demobilize irregular elements of standing armies
and reintegrate them into society and programs; and demobilize child soldiers.
In addition, we will work with our allies to find an effective formula for
promoting stability, democracy and respect for human rights in the Democratic
Republic of Congo so that it and a democratic Nigeria can become the regional
centers for economic growth, and democratic empowerment that they can and should
be. In order to help post-apartheid South Africa achieve its economic, political,
democratic and security goals for all its citizens, we will continue to provide
substantial bilateral assistance, vigorously promote U.S. trade and investment, and
pursue close cooperation and support for our mutual interests and goals through the
versatile Binational Commission chaired by the Vice Presidents of each country.
Ultimately, the prosperity and security of Africa depends on extensive political
and economic reform, and it is in the U.S. interest to support and promote such
reforms.

IV. Conclusions
Today, on the brink of the twenty-first century, we are building new frameworks,
partnerships and institutions-and adapting existing ones-to strengthen America's
security and prosperity. We are working to construct new cooperative security
arrangements, rid the world of weapons that target whole populations, build a truly
global economy, and promote democratic values and economic reform. Because
diplomatic and military responses alone may not deter threats to our national
security from non-state actors such as criminals and terrorist groups, we must
promote increased cooperation among law enforcement officials and improved methods
for dealing with international crime and terrorism. Ours is a moment of historic
opportunity to create a safer, more prosperous tomorrow-to make a difference in the
lives of our citizens.
This promising state of affairs did not just happen, and there is no guarantee that
it will endure. The contemporary era was forged by steadfast American leadership
over the last half century-through efforts such as the Marshall Plan, NATO, the
United Nations and the World Bank. The clear dangers of the past made the need for
national security commitments and expenditures obvious to the American people.
Today, the task of mobilizing public support for national security priorities is
more complicated. The complex array of unique dangers, opportunities and
responsibilities outlined in this strategy are not always readily apparent as we go
about our daily lives focused on immediate concerns. Yet, in a more integrated and
interdependent world, we must remain actively engaged in world affairs to
successfully advance our national interests. To be secure and prosperous, America
must continue to lead.
Our international leadership focuses on President Clinton's strategic priorities:
to foster regional efforts led by the community of democratic nations to promote
peace and prosperity in key regions of the world, to create more jobs and
opportunities for Americans through a more open and competitive trading system that
also benefits others around the world, to increase cooperation in confronting new
security threats that defy borders and unilateral solutions, and to strengthen the
intelligence, military, diplomatic and law enforcement tools necessary to meet
these challenges. Our international leadership is ultimately founded upon the
power of our democratic ideals and values. The spread of democracy supports
American values and enhances our security and prosperity. The United States will
continue to support the trend toward democracy and free markets by remaining
actively engaged in the world.
Our engagement abroad requires the active, sustained support of the American people
and the bipartisan support of the U.S. Congress. This Administration remains
committed to explaining our security interests, objectives and priorities to the
nation and seeking the broadest possible public and congressional support for our
security programs and investments. We will continue to exercise our leadership in
the world in a manner that reflects our national values and protects the security
of this great nation.
59

5
38

37

37