SEARCH THE HSDL
Searching for terms: EXACT: "United States. Department of State" in: publisher
Set an Alert to get future results
Results 1 - 30 (of 1,119) sorted by relevance sort by date
Only 1/2! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, which is half the size of the Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
U.S. - Middle East Partnership Initiative: Building Hope for the Years AheadThis speech was given by Secretary of State Colin Powell at The Heritage Foundation. From the speech: "The Middle East is a vast region of vast importance to the American people. Recognizing the region's importance, we have for half a century and more devoted our blood and our treasure to helping the peoples and governments of the Middle East. Indeed, my own career in public service, and especially military service, has been shaped by events in that region. Our Middle East policy has emphasized winning the war on terrorism, disarming Iraq, and bringing the Arab-Israeli conflict to an end. Through the United States-Middle East Partnership Initiative, we will work with governments to establish economic rules and regulations that will attract foreign investment and allow the private sector to flourish. We will help small and medium-sized businesses gain access to the life-blood of capital. As a first step, I am pleased to announce that we will establish Enterprise Funds for the Middle East, modeled after the successful Polish-American Enterprise Fund, and these funds will begin investing in promising new businesses. We will also help more countries share in the bounty of the global economy. Through the U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative, we are adding hope to the U.S.-Middle East agenda. We are pledging our energy, our ability, and our idealism to bring hope to all of God's children who call the Middle East home."United States. Department of StatePowell, Colin L.2002-12-12
-
Press Conference on Iraq Declaration"On November 8th, the United Nations Security Council responded to the challenge issued by President Bush in his 12 September speech to the United Nations General Assembly. On that day, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction and to disclose all of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. As Ambassador John Negroponte said earlier today, Saddam Hussein has so far responded to this final opportunity with a new lie. The burden remains on Iraq to cooperate fully and for Iraq to prove to the international community whether it does or does not have weapons of mass destruction. We are convinced they do until they prove to us otherwise. Resolution 1441 calls for serious consequences for Iraq if it does not comply with the terms of the resolution. Iraq's noncompliance and defiance of the international community has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face these consequences. The world is still waiting for Iraq to comply with its obligations. The world will not wait forever. Security Council Resolution 1441 will be carried out in full. Iraq can no longer be allowed to threaten its people and its region with weapons of mass destruction. It is still up to Iraq to determine how its disarmament will happen. Unfortunately, this declaration fails totally to move us in the direction of a peaceful solution."United States. Department of State2002-12-19
-
Towards Greater Democracy in the Muslim WorldRemarks to the Council on Foreign Relations by Richard N. Haass, Director, Policy Planning Staff. Remarks include opportunities for strengthening democracy in the Muslim world. Sections included in the remarks are as follows: Muslim World Experiments, The Freedom and Democracy Deficit in the Muslim World, Ending the Democratic Exception, American Motives, Lessons Learned, and The Democratic Agenda and Beyond. "... remarks tonight are obviously devoted to the question of democracy. Still, democratization can only be one aspect of U.S. policy. While the long-term forces of democratization work their magic, we still need to deal with other critical issues that come across our desks every day."United States. Department of State2002-12-04
-
Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001This report was submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United States Code, which requires the Department of State to provide Congress a full and complete annual report on terrorism for those countries and groups meeting the criteria of Section (a)(1) and (2) of the Act. As required by legislation, the report includes detailed assessments of foreign countries where significant terrorist acts occurred, and countries about which Congress was notified during the preceding five years. In addition, the report includes all relevant information about the previous year's activities of individuals, terrorist organizations, or umbrella groups known to be responsible for the kidnapping or death of any US citizen during the preceding five years and groups known to be financed by state sponsors of terrorism.United States. Department of State2002-05
-
Countering Terrorism: Security Suggestions for U.S. Business Representatives AbroadThe likelihood of terrorist incidents occurring varies from country to country depending, at least in part, upon the stability of the local government and the degree of frustration felt by indigenous groups or individuals. Alert individuals, prepared for possible terrorist acts, can minimize the likelihood that these acts will be successfully carried out against them. American businesses and their employees living and traveling abroad often have been singled out as targets of terrorists. In fact, recent statistics show that American business interests have been targeted more frequently than those of the Federal government. While there is no absolute protection against terrorism, there are a number of reasonable and commonsense precautions that can provide some degree of individual protection and can serve as psychological and practical deterrents to would-be terrorists.United States. Department of State1999-06
-
Significant Incidents of Political Violence Against Americans: 10th Anniversary IssueSignificant Incidents of Political Violence Against Americans: 1997, published by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis (DS/DSS/ITA), is intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the broad spectrum of political violence that American citizens and interests have encountered abroad during 1997. In addition to examining terrorism-related acts, this study also includes other instances of violence affecting Americans. This chronology is designed to encompass major anti-U.S. incidents that occurred in 1997.United States. Department of State1997
-
Strikes on Terrorist-Related Facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan: August 20, 1998Links related to U.S. strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998. Information on these strikes come form the President, Secretary of State and additional information comes from the Travel Department and Background Information.United States. Department of State1998
-
Secretary of State's Advisory Panel Report on Overseas Security, June 1998"In convening the Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, the Secretary of State outlined the scope and dimension of the security problems that confront the United States in continuing to do diplomatic business overseas as well as in providing adequate reciprocal protection for foreigners stationed or visiting the United States on diplomatic business. With the cooperation of a wide range of U.S. Government domestic and foreign affairs agencies, the Panel has examined the issues that relate to diplomatic security in the U.S and overseas. This report addresses questions of organization within the Department, professionalism of those executing security responsibilities, international diplomacy to thwart terrorism, the protection of foreign dignitaries and missions, certain intelligence and alerting processes, physical security standards, and the substantial building program that is required."United States. Department of State1998-06
-
Thematic Summary of a Symposium on Security and the Design of Public BuildingsAmerica is confronting individuals and organizations that have the financing, training, motivation, equipment, and materials to strike at U.S. interests anywhere in the world. The methods of attack vary from assassinations to truck bombs and could include weapons of mass destruction. And, while the network of international terrorist leader Usama bin Ladin is well financed, many other terrorist groups are discovering that they can carry out missions with modest funds, minimal organization, cheap information, and easily accessible weaponry. Whereas symbolism and convenience were once the high priorities in embassy design, security and safety have now moved to the top.United States. Department of State1999-11-30
-
Defending the Nation Against Cyber Attack: Information Assurance in the Global EnvironmentPerhaps the most remarkable thing about the words quoted above is that they were written almost at the dawn of the Information Age. Until recently, we as a nation have paid them little heed. The United States, and the rest of the world, continues to charge headlong into the information revolution -- information technology is making profound inroads into the very fabric of our society and our economy as a nation in the global community. In a very real sense, the "Information Superhighway" has become the economic lifeblood of our nation. While leading the world into the Information Age, at the same time the United States has become uniquely dependent on information technology -- computers and the global network that connect them together. This dependency has become a clear and compelling threat to our economic well-being, our public safety, and our national security. Increased protection against cyber attack is founded upon encryption technology -- including digital signatures -- to provide the authentication, integrity, non-repudiation, and privacy/confidentiality services necessary for information assurance. Strong digitalsignature-based authentication used to provide positive access control is perhaps the most powerful tool in protecting against cyber attack. Digital signature also provides for integrity of electronic information and non-repudiation of cyber-transactions. Encryption is applied to desktops, file servers, and across networks to assure the privacy of sensitive government, business, and personal information. Once the almost exclusive province of governments, encryption technology is now widely available in the commercial marketplace, and is a fundamental enabler for information assurance. The economic prosperity that our nation enjoys today is largely founded in the Information Age and in our global leadership in information technology. Our continued leadership and prosperity in the global economy may well hinge on our national commitment to act as leaders in bringing integrity and responsibility -- information assurance -- to the global information environment we have helped to create. The administration has sent a clear message via PDD-63 that the time to act is now, and the NSA is well-positioned and ready to support the charge with our technical know-how. Information superiority in the Information Age is a clear national imperative.United States. Department of StateMinihan, Kenneth A.1998-11
-
Weapons of Mass Destruction: The U.S. ExperienceThe United States has renounced the use of chemical and biological weapons and has reduced both its conventional and nuclear forces substantially since the end of the Cold War, says Korb. However, as long as some nations continue to try to develop weapons of mass destruction, "the United States will need some form of nuclear deterrent," he says. Korb is Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. With the end of the Cold War and the decline of defense spending, the U.S. economy grew rapidly during the 1990s. By the end of the decade, the U.S. GDP exceeded $8 trillion, unemployment was at 4.3 percent, and inflation was below 2 percent. Maintaining stability in the international system, while not cheap, will not place as much of a burden on the U.S. economy or the American people as the Cold War did. There will, of course, continue to be debates about how much is enough for defense. There are many, like former head of the Strategic Air Command, General Lee Butler, and former commander of the space command and commander of the air component of the Gulf War, General Charles Horner, who argue that the United States should eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. These Air Force generals feel that precision guided U.S. conventional weapons are now so powerful that they can deter use of weapons of mass destruction by themselves. Moreover, they argue that by eliminating nuclear weapons, the United States can seize the moral high ground in the nonproliferation debate. But, like the debates during the Cold War, these debates will not lead to the elimination of all U.S. nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, some nations have tried and will continue to try to develop weapons of mass destruction, and as long as they do, the United States will need some form of nuclear deterrent, particularly since it has given up its chemical and biological weapons.United States. Department of StateKorb, Lawrence J., 1939-1999-09
-
Information Warfare Threat Demands More Attention on All SidesNeither the administration, nor the Congress, nor the public at large is devoting enough serious attention to the growing threat of information warfare, says Senator Jon Kyl. Potential adversaries are honing their ability to attack the critical infrastructure that increasingly runs the nation's communications, transportation, and financial systems -- and its vital defense establishment as well, he warns. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Kyl was interviewed by Contributing Editor Ralph Dannheisser. Topics discussed include vulnerability of digital systems to attack, national security and public safety concerns, possible damage if the information grid is broken into, and legislative attention on this issue. According to Kyl, a large number of countries have information warfare programs under way, some of which are aimed at the United States. In his opinion the United States is, by far, the most vulnerable country because of the degree of our reliance upon technology.United States. Department of StateDannheisser, Ralph1998-11
-
Information Assurance and the New Security EpochThe United States has faced five security epochs, with each change involving transitions from a certain past to an uncertain future. The first epoch was from the Revolutionary War to the mid-1820s, with the United States at the fringe of an international security environment still dominated by Europe. The most recent epoch -- the Cold War -- was dominated by a bipolar world. The United States led the international community in creating institutions to rebuild the shattered economies of Europe and to deal with the collapse of the old Europe-dominated empires in the Third World. At the same time, the United States was leading the free world states to contain communism until the Soviet Union collapsed. Now we are in transition to a new epoch, seemingly characterized by the revival of old dangers -- nationalism and ethnicity. We now live with the unsettling fear of "loose nukes" and chemical and biological weapons in the hands of terrorists. The next security epoch also will present the challenge of cyber security. The explosive growth in the use of information technologies (IT) has had a profound effect on all sectors of the American economy and government. IT has fueled amazing economic growth, dramatically improved communications, and allowed American businesses to compete more effectively than ever. The United States -- and the world -- truly rely on information technology in ways unimaginable even just a few years ago. Information assurance, encryption, and network security pose some of the most daunting challenges the Department of Defense has ever faced. To take advantage of the IT revolution, we must ensure access to and protection of the very assets on which we depend. We are taking giant strides to make this happen, but much more remains to be done. These challenging days require that we turn to the expertise of information professionals both in DOD and in the broader government and private sectors to protect systems vital to all of us. We must ensure that our nation's journey into the new security epoch is as successful as the last.United States. Department of StateHamre, John J.1998-11
-
Adapting the CFE Treaty to New Realities and ChallengesSince its inception, "CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) has become both a process and a venue for continuous dialogue on the security concerns of its participants and, whenever possible, cooperative solutions," says Dunkerley, Special Envoy for CFE. "This dynamic within CFE -- between reinforcing stability and addressing change -- will remain one of its greatest strengths." Since early 1997, negotiations have been under way in Vienna to update the CFE Treaty to take account of dramatic changes throughout Europe since the treaty was originally signed in 1990. These negotiations, taking place among the 30 States Parties within the CFE Joint Consultative Group (JCG), are intended to preserve the treaty's critical benefits, even while establishing a new structure of limitations providing increased stability and transparency. At the same time, individual States Parties have set out projected levels for their future national and territorial ceilings under an adapted CFE Treaty. For many of them, this would involve reductions in their permitted levels in two or more categories of Treaty-Limited Equipment. (In light of the drastic change in circumstances from the 1980s to the present, for example, the United States proposes to cut by more than 50 percent the number of tanks it has been permitted to have in Europe under the treaty. This does not imply a major change to the United States' actual military presence, but rather recognition that original CFE-permitted levels need to adjust to a new security environment.) But much still needs to be done. There are tough decisions ahead for all parties. Translating the work done thus far, and the underlying political agreements, into legal treaty text is a major task. Important details are still open -- especially if we are to secure the necessary transparency this future CFE regime will require. No less critical are the continued efforts of the United States and its allies to ensure the full and timely implementation of all existing CFE obligations under the current treaty and its associated documents. Implementation is the foundation on which successful adaptation can go forward.United States. Department of StateDunkerley, Craig Gordon1999-09
-
Preventing the Spread of Dangerous Weapons to Iraq and Iran"Working in close cooperation with our friends and allies, and adopting a long-term, patient approach, the United States will achieve its goal of curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, changing the behaviors of dangerous states, and thus securing our vital interests in one of the most strategically important regions of the world." When President Clinton was elected in 1992, his administration immediately recognized the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf region and identified two central threats to stability and security there -- Iran and Iraq. In the past two decades, both countries have aggressively sought to build their arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and this drive has created greater instability and uncertainty in a volatile region of the world. One of the most important objectives of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Iraq and Iran. Allowing weapons of mass destruction to spread to Iraq and Iran undermines security and stability throughout the region. Over the course of years of sustained diplomacy, the United States has developed a level of trust and confidence with key states in the Middle East. Working in close cooperation with our friends and allies, and adopting a long-term, patient approach, the United States will achieve its goal of curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, changing the behaviors of dangerous states, and thus securing its vital interests in one of the most strategically important regions of the world.United States. Department of StateRiedel, Bruce O.1999-09
-
Small Arms Use and Proliferation: Strategies for a Global DilemmaSmall arms proliferation is a symptom of increased intrastate conflicts and is "a problem that is not amenable to simple or quick solution and will be with us for the long term," says Newsom, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. "The United States and the international community must therefore address the root causes of intrastate conflict and, at the same time, try to stem the supply of these weapons and contain the devastation that they cause." While most arms control efforts focus on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and heavy conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons designed for military use are responsible for most of the killing and injuries, especially of civilians, in the increasing number of intrastate conflicts that have occurred since the end of the Cold War. These weapons include assault rifles, light and heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and individually portable mortars and missiles. The focus of U.S. policy is to achieve agreement by next year on a Protocol on Illicit Firearms and Ammunition Trafficking to the UN Transnational Organized Crime Convention. This protocol is modeled on the InterAmerican Convention Against the Illicit Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, and Other Related Materials initiated by the OAS. Seven OAS member states have ratified the convention (Mexico, Belize, Bahamas, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru, and Ecuador), and all but four OAS members have signed it. In June 1998 the President transmitted the convention to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. In a larger sense, small arms proliferation is one of many symptoms of increased intrastate conflicts since the end of the Cold War. The proliferation and use of these weapons in such conflicts is a problem that is not amenable to simple or quick solution, and it will be with us for the long term. The United States and the international community must therefore address the root causes of intrastate conflict and, at the same time, try to stem the supply of these weapons and contain the devastation that they cause. This will require us to begin to integrate small arms concerns into the fabric of our diplomatic relations, as we now do with democracy and human rights. Without sustained, creative attention to both aspects of the problem of intrastate conflict, many of the other problems that we strive to mitigate will become worse.United States. Department of StateNewsom, Eric David1999-09
-
Landmine-Safe World by 2010: Not an Idle DreamThe United States is engaged in a concerted effort to eliminate the threat that landmines pose to civilians worldwide by the end of the next decade, say Steinberg and Zimmerman. They believe the United States can achieve this goal by "working with governments, international agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens around the world." Steinberg, former U.S. Ambassador to Angola, is the Special Representative of the President and Secretary of State for Global Humanitarian Demining. Zimmerman is a Harold W. Rosenthal Fellow working in the President's Office of Global Humanitarian Demining; she is now completing her graduate studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Our government is firmly committed to ending the humanitarian crisis caused by landmines. The goal of President Clinton's "Demining 2010 Initiative" is to eliminate the threat of landmines to civilians around the world by the end of the next decade. We are taking key steps toward this goal. Our government is financing programs in about 28 heavily mined countries to eradicate their worst minefields by providing equipment, financial support, and training for deminers. In sum, we have spent $250 million on these and similar programs over the past five years, and are expanding our efforts to more than $100 million in 1999. Together with our humanitarian demining efforts, the steps outlined in this article are a serious, pragmatic approach toward landmines. Working with governments, international agencies, NGOs, and private citizens, we can achieve the goal of eliminating the threat of landmines to civilians around the world by the year 2010. The children of the new millennium deserve nothing less than to walk the earth without fear.United States. Department of StateSteinberg, Donald K.; Zimmerman, Laurie B.1999-09
-
Year 2000 ProblemThe world currently faces one of the great challenges of the Information Age. As we head toward a new millennium, many computer systems, as well as the computer chips embedded in everything from personal computers to household appliances and sophisticated manufacturing equipment, are set to shift backwards in time. The problem is that many older computer systems and microprocessors, as computer chips are known, use only the last two digits of a year to keep track of the date. So, when the year 2000 arrives, those chips may recognize 00 as the year 1900, not 2000. The resulting malfunctions could cause serious disruptions of power grids, water treatment plants, financial networks, telecommunications systems, and air traffic control systems worldwide. In an increasingly wired world with a global economy, computer networks are only as strong as their weakest link. While each nation is likely to experience its own particular system problems, in a very real sense we are all in this together. Year 2000-related disruptions are likely to begin before the new millennium as outmoded systems attempt to calculate or schedule future events. Precisely what will happen is difficult to predict at this point. There are a number of Internet Web sites in the United States where some experts that one would not normally think of as alarmists have predicted widespread system failures that will result in power outages, traffic problems, economic recession, and possibly, in some regions, food shortages. While the author tends to be more optimistic than these doomsayers, he is concerned particularly about countries where inactivity and lack of awareness could lead to fulfillment of some worst-case scenarios. The point is that by taking action now we can minimize the disruptions and, hopefully, effect a seamless transition to the year 2000.United States. Department of StateKoskinen, John Andrew, 1939-1998-11
-
Patriot's Progress: September 11 and Freedom in AmericaAnything can happen. It was the lesson of September 11. Where were you on September 11? More to the point, where were you on September 10? The sudden movements of life, like those of the free mind, remain out of our control. Patriotism itself in the free country is out of control--anger, grief, sympathy, mutual appreciation, criticism, self-doubt, amusement, swerving to dreaminess, and individual independence. What can happen to a nation can happen to a state of mind, particularly in a country that is created out of a state of mind. If we were learning anything so far, it was that freedom was more difficult and complicated than we had ever dreamed. Where were we in our own country? Where were we in relation to the rest of the world? We do not like to think about the rest of the world very much. Big business likes to think of the world as customers. But for the rest of us, the great wide world has merely become the place where floods and earthquakes happen far away, especially since Russia has transmogrified from menace to (sort of) friend. If we had been more aware of the Muslim world, people told us, we could have anticipated September 11, if not prevented it. If we were more aware of our enemies in the world, we were told, we could raise them from poverty and from their ignorance about us--how wonderful we are, when you get to know us, how decent, fair-minded, how playful. In sum, our alertness to the conditions and attitudes of the wider world probably did nothing to draw us closer to it--except, in the most watery wishful thinking. America, we concluded, and rightly in my view, did nothing to deserve the murderous attacks on our people. If education would help in the future, by all means, let's all get educated. But that was a separable matter from the mad decisions of zealots. We are sure that we mean something worthwhile to ourselves and to others, that we have good reasons to survive and to triumph, and we will look for more.United States. Department of StateRosenblatt, Roger2002-09
-
Hope Is an Answer: An Interview with George Carpenter, Procter and Gamble, and Dr. Robert K. Pelant, Heifer InternationalThe United States policy toward development assistance is based on the belief that poverty provides a breeding ground for disease and deprivation, and potentially for crime, corruption, and terrorism. The terrorist attacks of September 11 reaffirmed this conviction, and donors-- government, private, and corporate--are pursuing their goals to bring hope and opportunity to the world's poorest people with renewed vigor. Two experts involved in private sector assistance and sustainable development activities discussed the evolving views in this field with Global Issues Managing Editor Charlene Porter. Dr. Robert K. Pelant is director of the Asia/South Pacific Programs for the non-profit organization Heifer International, devoted to helping hungry people in the world develop the resources to feed themselves. George Carpenter is director of Corporate Sustainable Development for the Procter & Gamble Corporation, and is actively involved in the corporation's multinational assistance programs focused on environment, health, and social issues in developing countries.United States. Department of StatePorter, Charlene2002-09
-
Economic Cost of TerrorismOsama bin Laden announced in a video taped sometime late in 2001 that the September 11 attacks "struck deep at the heart of America's economy." Fortunately he was wrong. The U.S. economy was scraped and bruised on that terrible day, but it is clear that the heart of the American economy is still beating strongly. The U.S. economy has proven to be highly resilient. Despite an estimated $120 billion of damage and a great deal of anxiety, one year after the attacks the U.S. is in the midst of an economic recovery. There are three reasons for the resilience of the U.S. economy. First, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates three times in the wake of the attacks after cutting rates eight times in the eight months preceding them. Second, in May 2001, President Bush signed into law the first tax cut since 1986 and the Congress passed a stimulus bill, which included business tax cuts, in early 2002. Finally, and most importantly, productivity continued to grow throughout the U.S. recession. One of the greatest tests of the strength in underlying productivity trends is the performance in those trends during economic downturns and external shocks to the economy. Clearly, the U.S. productivity performance during the 2001 recession and following the September 11 attacks was spectacular. Capitalism is more than buildings and airplanes. It is embodied in the institutions and individuals of a society. While terrorists murdered a great deal of financial talent in their evil and cowardly acts on September 11, U.S. institutions and the vast majority of its creative talent remain intact. The end result was a quick reversal of economic fortunes. From one month to the next, Americans stopped and reflected, became resolved about fighting back, and then returned to work as the most productive citizens in the world. Osama bin Laden missed his mark.United States. Department of StateWesbury, Brian S.2002-09
-
Resilience and Renewal at the PentagonArlington, Virginia--On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked an American civilian airliner using it to attack what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rightly calls America's symbol of "military might." In a terrifying instant, three of the Pentagon's five concentric rings of corridors were penetrated by a plane-turned-missile flying at 560 kilometers-per-hour delivering tons of explosive jet fuel that would turn reinforced concrete into mush. One year later, what seemed the nearly impossible has been accomplished at the Pentagon. Construction workers hauled away 45,000 metric tons of debris and devoted an equivalent of 3 million hours to do what some said, at first, could not be accomplished: return Department of Defense (DOD) employees to their formerly demolished office space by September 11, 2002. But there is still one startling reminder of the fury of the attack. A single rectangular block of charred, pockmarked, cracked limestone from the damaged structure stands out from its new surroundings as a stark reminder of the recent past. Inscribed simply "September 11, 2001," it is located near the jet's point of impact and covers a dedication capsule put in place on June 11 by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to mark completion of the outside of the building. The bronze capsule is dedicated to the victims and contains items identified for inclusion by families of the victims, construction workers, and Defense Department management "as a testament to the strength and resolve" of Americans. The contents include lists of the names of those killed in the attack on the Pentagon, and the 46,000 people who wrote to express thanks to those who suffered from the attack, as well as badges from police and fire crews who aided in the rescue effort. Perhaps those who are still grappling--in many different ways--with what happened beside the Potomac River last year should bear in mind the words of the secretary of defense: "from the ashes, hope springs."United States. Department of StatePorth, Jacquelyn S.2002-09
-
Critical Balance: Individual Rights and National Security in Uncertain TimesAmong the many effects of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11 has been a vigorous debate about certain civil liberties. Should suspected terrorists be treated differently from other suspects in court? Should the activities and whereabouts of noncitizens in the United States be regulated more strictly? Should we begin to require national identity cards? Several of these issues have gone beyond the stage of discussion, as suspected terrorists have been detained and brought to trial and as new legislation is passed and old legislation reinterpreted to permit stricter scrutiny of communications and financial transactions. Issues and concerns include: the government's actions under the United States Patriot Act; the government's aggressive use of laws that currently exist to detain in prison possible terrorists and those suspected of aiding them or of having useful information about them; and trials against suspected terrorists.United States. Department of StateBlitz, Mark2002-09
-
Missile Defenses and New Approaches to DeterrenceIn a speech at the National Defense University on May 1, 2001, President Bush stated that "deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation." He called for "new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces." These new concepts of deterrence should help underwrite a comprehensive strategy for combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology. Such a strategy will require the following components: maintaining and improving core alliance relations, and reassuring friends that we are committed to ensuring a stable international order and that our security interests are inseparable from their own; resolving challenges, rather than postponing them in a way that delays but makes even more dangerous the threats we will face in the future; recasting our foreign policy to better integrate all sources of influence available to us; and dissuading adversaries from undertaking hostile courses of action while retaining the capability to defeat aggression. To be effective, our strategy must encompass a broad range of policies and programs, including proactive nonproliferation and threat-reduction efforts, counterproliferation measures, and effective response capabilities to mitigate the consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). One essential ingredient for the success of this strategy is reshaping our military doctrine and capabilities to be responsive to contemporary and emerging threats. This will require the transformation of our deterrence posture. The strategic concepts and military forces of the past are ill-suited to counter the more pressing elements of today's threats. As a result, it is imperative to manage the transition to a more stable security environment by changing the way we think about and practice deterrence. We must redesign deterrence to be proactive rather than reactive. Deterrence of new threats requires new and different concepts and capabilities. The Department of Defense's recently completed Nuclear Posture Review is an important step in this direction. It lays the foundation for a diversified approach to deterrence that incorporates both conventional offensive strike capabilities and missile defenses, thus reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons.United States. Department of StateKartchner, Kerry M., 1956-2002-07
-
Nuclear Offensive Arms Reductions: Past and PresentThe process of implementing arms control agreements that reduce nuclear arms has been complicated, especially with the backdrop of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the new states that took its place. Future historians will debate whether the increased openness regarding the implementation of both START and INF contributed to a more general easing of relations between the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Moscow Treaty is not just a new treaty, but a new kind of treaty. Reflecting the mutual trust and cooperation in the new U.S.-Russian strategic relationship, the Moscow Treaty affords a great deal of flexibility to each Party to meet unforeseen future contingencies. It is simple -- just five articles and 485 words, barely two pages long, with no annexes or protocols, as opposed to the 47 pages and 19 articles of START, with its hundreds of pages of annexes and protocols. It gives each side the flexibility to carry out reductions, for example, by removing warheads from bomber bases and missiles, or by removing missiles, launchers, and bombers from operational service. In contrast, START mandated precise "counting rules" that force -- sometimes unrealistically -- over- and under-counting of actual weapons in the name of strict parity and unambiguous accounting. The flexibility provided by the new treaty allows each side to determine how to make its own reductions.United States. Department of StateDavis, Richard A., 1942-2002-07
-
U.S. Approaches to NonproliferationDenying proliferators WMD technology and expertise is "a central framing element" of U.S. nonproliferation policy, says Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf. He sees the key U.S. challenges as: reducing and ceasing WMD materials production; stopping Iran's acquisition of WMD and missiles; stopping nuclear and missile proliferation in and from South Asia; strengthening export controls, especially on Iraq; and strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency. Our first priority has to be security against WMD and missile use, development, deployment, and export.United States. Department of StateWolf, John S.2002-07
-
Speaking to Our Silent Allies: Public Diplomacy and U.S. Foreign Policy"The updated National Security Strategy proceeds from an understanding that the power of the United States is immense and unprecedented, but it also wisely notes that we cannot achieve all of our goals by acting alone," says U.S. Representative Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee. "We must have allies to help shoulder the tasks, especially if we are to render our accomplishments secure." For all of America's enormous power, transforming the world is too heavy a burden to attempt alone. But we are not alone. The peoples of the world represent an enormous reservoir of strategic resources waiting to be utilized. The formula is a simple one: we can best advance our own interests not by persuading others to adopt our agenda but by helping them achieve their own freedom. In so doing, we must always remember that although we have many vocal opponents, these are vastly outnumbered by the legions of our silent allies. Mr. Hyde introduced legislation which was passed in form of a bill, H.R. 3969. H.R. 3969 is divided into three sections: The first reshapes and refocuses the State Department's public diplomacy programs, including specifying a series of objectives to be attained and requiring an annual plan be formulated to determine how these are to be implemented. The second section establishes a series of exchange programs focused on the Muslim world. The third section of the bill reorganizes our international broadcasting services in order to prepare them for far-reaching and innovative reforms.United States. Department of StateHyde, Henry J.2002-12
-
U.S. Military: A Global View of Peace and Security in the 21st CenturyOne hundred years ago, those involved in the nation's national security business wrestled with many of the same, or certainly similar, issues that we face today, says General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Then and now, regional powers can threaten the nation's interest in distant conflict. Then, as now, internal strife from religious hatreds, ethnic rivalry, tribal conflicts, can, and often does, lead to bloodletting. And then and now, U.S. troops often play a role in the crisis to restore peace." This article is based on remarks made by General Myers at a recent event at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "During the Cold War, we faced the threat of nuclear conflict with a superpower, but deterrence contained that threat because we placed at risk something the adversary held very dear. That was, in essence, their very existence. Today, if a weak power is a terrorist network with weapons of mass destruction, deterrence won't work most of the time. When they're willing to commit suicide to further their agenda, what do they value that we can place at risk? This dilemma reflects the unprecedented nature of today's security environment. And to meet these very daunting challenges, the president recently published a new National Security Strategy. In support of that, let me tell you about three broad considerations of the military's role in supporting our new national security strategy. The first consideration is that the United States military has got to accomplish a multitude of tasks. The second consideration is our military's role in this, the 21st century, and geography. The question you might ask is: Should the military be focused regionally or should we focus more globally? My unequivocal answer is yes. The third role is an issue that's been talked about a lot lately. It's in the national security strategy, and the military has a role. It's the issue of preemption. In my view, any discussion we have in the future almost has to include weapons of mass destruction and the dramatic change they've brought to our security environment. If terrorists or hostile regional powers have them, they can hold at risk our society and certainly the societies of our friends and allies. To help counter the threat, our Armed Forces are increasing our ability to operate in a coherent and in a global manner. We've got to have that global view and put this competency on a par with our regional capabilities. And we've got to talk about risk -- the risk of action and, of course, the risk of inaction, and when the U.S. should act in its own defense."United States. Department of StateMyers, Richard B., 1942-2002-12
-
Balance of Power that Favors Freedom"President Bush's new National Security Strategy offers a bold vision for protecting our nation that captures today's new realities and new opportunities," says National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. "It calls on America to use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom. As the president says in the cover letter: we seek to create the conditions in which all nations and all societies can chose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty'." Because of our own history, the United States knows we must be patient -- and humble. Change -- even if it is for the better -- is often difficult. And progress is sometimes slow. America has not always lived up to our own high standards. When the Founding Fathers said, "We, the people," they didn't mean me. Democracy is hard work. And 226 years later, we are still practicing each day to get it right. We have the ability to forge a 21st century that lives up to our hopes and not down to our fears. But only if we go about our work with purpose and clarity. Only if we are unwavering in our refusal to live in a world governed by terror and chaos. Only if we are unwilling to ignore growing dangers from aggressive tyrants and deadly technologies. And only if we are persistent and patient in exercising our influence in the service of our ideals, and not just ourselves.United States. Department of StateRice, Condoleezza, 1954-2002-12
-
Evolving Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle EastThe sub-regional tensions in North Africa, the Gulf, and South Asia, along with the tensions associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, interact in ways that may well force all of the major powers in the Middle East to continue their efforts to acquire chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and delivery systems," says Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair for Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In spite of international arms control efforts, and various discussions of weapons of mass destruction-free zones in the Middle East, the major powers in the region clearly see chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons as key instruments of power. The same is true of long-range delivery systems, such as missiles. At this point in time, Yemen seems to be the only country to have voluntarily given up such weapons, and did so only because the deterioration of its small stock of chemical weapons and its inability to obtain continuing foreign support for its FROG and Scud B missiles left few other options. There are no current prospects that arms control and export control regimes can halt the ability of regional states to slowly acquire nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. It is all too clear, however, that even if such controls could be developed, regional states would simply pursue biological weapons and less obvious methods of delivery. As a result, dealing with CBRN threats is likely to be a permanent aspect of the security problems of the Middle East.United States. Department of StateCordesman, Anthony H.2002-07