From fork-admin@xent.com Sat Sep 21 10:43:13 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C13F16F03 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:42:55 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:42:55 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8L4VYC08647 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 05:32:22 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C046294178; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from hotmail.com (dav72.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.22.207]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFAE29409C for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:30:22 -0700 X-Originating-Ip: [207.202.171.254] From: "Mr. FoRK" To: References: <979BE8FE-CCF6-11D6-817E-000393A46DEA@alumni.caltech.edu> Subject: Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-Id: X-Originalarrivaltime: 21 Sep 2002 04:30:22.0799 (UTC) FILETIME=[99936DF0:01C26127] Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:34:51 -0700 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, US_DOLLARS_2 version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty" I'm not a socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear examples? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rohit Khare" To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:10 PM Subject: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g > > A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human > > race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. > > Absolutely correct. Perhaps the most fundamental thing to realize about > life on Earth today. > > The following is a fascinating document of official Government policy > that bears close reading. It is the aspirations of a wonderful nation in > an imperfect world. > > > The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, > > however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the > > future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an > > area where America must excel. > > I was recently at a lecture about the surprising success of Radio Sawa, > our new music-and-news channel for 15-30 year old Arabs. It's #1 in > practically every market it's entered, nearing 90% listenership in > Amman. And it's even beginning to be trusted for news, well past BBC and > taking share from every other government broadcaster. > > It is as hard to imagine America losing a war of ideas in the long-term > as it is to imagine America making any headway at all in the short term. > > Many of you may disagree, but I found the document below surprisingly > centrist. If you know the code, you can hear clearly partisan tones, re: > ICC, Taiwan Relations Act, etc. But, still, this is as much a Democratic > platform as not. Africa and AIDS take up more mindshare than I feared > they might. > > As you read, replace "United States" with "Roman Empire" and it may make > as much sense, in the long view of history. I don't know how proud to be > about that, but it is telling. Sometime I daydream that the President > might sit down with the nation with Perotista flip charts and explain to > our citizens the sheer vastness of our 700+ military installations > overseas and what they do for us. It would be a powerful education on > how engaged we are in the world around us. > > Heck, I'd love to see a real-time map of Federal expenditures around the > globe, a softly glowing necklace of embassies, carriers, arctic research > stations, hotels, golf courses, warehouses, libraries, clinics and all > the rest of the influence a trillion dollars here or there can buy. > > Of course, this still doesn't leave me any more comfortable with the > real news in this document: the Bush Doctrine for pre-emptive strikes. > I'd sooner repeal the Church amendments on covert action than permit > such a principle to be loosed upon the world. > > Rohit > > ----------------------------------------------------- > September 20, 2002 > > Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy > > Following is the full text of President Bush's new national security > strategy. The document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the > United States," will soon be transmitted to Congress as a declaration of > the Administration's policy. > > INTRODUCTION > > THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and > totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of > freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, > democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only > nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and > guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the > potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People > everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; > worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own > property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom > are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of > protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of > freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. > > Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military > strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our > heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for > unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that > favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies > can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and > economic liberty. By making the world safer, we allow the people of the > world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace > against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace > by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the > peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent. > > Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental > commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed > dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great > industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of > individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less > than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to > penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies > against us. > > To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal -- > from better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and > cutting off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global > reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help > nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will > hold to account nations that are compromised by terror -- because the > allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and > countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop > new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every > turn. > > The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism > and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking > weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing > so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to > succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other > means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, > contain, and curtail our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous > technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America > will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We > cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must > be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans, using the best intelligence > and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who > saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have > entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. > > As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic > opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community > has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the > seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace > instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers > find ourselves on the same side -- united by common dangers of terrorist > violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common > interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by > common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching > for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese > leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of > national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political > freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage > the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, > because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and > international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great > powers -- even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, > trade, and cultural advancement. > > Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend > the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring > the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to > every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us > that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our > national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people > into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and > corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and > drug cartels within their borders. > > The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a > better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free > trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies > out of poverty -- so the United States will work with individual > nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to > build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. > The United States will deliver greater development assistance through > the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, > invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. We will also > continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of > AIDS and other infectious diseases. > > In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is > guided by the conviction that all nations have important > responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. > Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the > spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international > aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For > freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required. > > We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, > better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply > the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed > to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade > Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as > other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment > these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations > are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to > rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment. > > Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of > every person -- in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has > been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the > clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and > it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity > holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all > these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in > this great mission. > > I. Overview of America's International Strategy > > > "Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We > fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors > liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists > and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among > the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and > open societies on every continent." > > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > The United States possesses unprecedented -- and unequaled -- strength > and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of > liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with > unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great > strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that > favors freedom. > > For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great > struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and > equality. > > That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and > race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and > discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we > are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by > catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must > defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends. > > This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to > translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, > and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a > distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our > values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help > make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to > progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations > with other states, and respect for human dignity. > > And this path is not America's alone. It is open to all. > > To achieve these goals, the United States will: > > * champion aspirations for human dignity; > > * strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent > attacks against us and our friends; > > * work with others to defuse regional conflicts; > > * prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our > friends, with weapons of mass destruction; > > * ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and > free trade; > > * expand the circle of development by opening societies and building > the infrastructure of democracy; > > * develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of > global power; and > > * transform America's national security institutions to meet the > challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century. > > > II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity > > > "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the > language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require > different methods, but not different moralities." > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we > stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because > these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation > owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and > mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live > free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be > oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of > the secret police. > > America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human > dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; > free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; > religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property. > > These demands can be met in many ways. America's constitution has served > us well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, > facing different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these > core principles into their own systems of governance. History has not > been kind to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and > aspirations of their people. > > Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in > our worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of > Independence were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a > stronger, but is a freer and more just society. > > Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And > when openings arrive, we can encourage change -- as we did in central > and eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000. When > we see democratic processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in > the Republic of Korea, and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin > America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can > evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all > cherish. > > Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, > the national security strategy of the United States must start from > these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty. > > Our principles will guide our government's decisions about international > cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation > of resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international > bodies. > > We will: > > * speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of > human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to > advance freedom; > > * use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who > struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward > democracy are rewarded for the steps they take; > > * make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key > themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation > from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights > to move toward a better future; and > > * take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience > and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments. > > > We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist > it. > > III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent > Attacks Against Us and Our Friends > > > "Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have > the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already > clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been > waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is > peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on > the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of > our choosing." > > > > > > President Bush > Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral) > September 14, 2001 > > > > The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of > global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or > religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, > politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents. > > In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a > lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed > within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United > States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals > with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who > knowingly harbor or provide aid to them. > > The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in > our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly > elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come > through the persistent accumulation of successes -- some seen, some > unseen. > > Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, > and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to > achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition > forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not > only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of > trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South > America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia. > > Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist > organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, > control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will > have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate. > > We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a > coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional > campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure > the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial > tools necessary to finish the task. > > The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the > financing of terrorism. We will identify and block the sources of > funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who > support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial > system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, > and prevent the movement of terrorists' assets through alternative > financial networks. > > However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the > cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we > seek. > > We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by: > > * direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and > international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist > organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of > terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction > (WMD) or their precursors; > > * defending the United States, the American people, and our interests > at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it > reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to > enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate > to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by > acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing > harm against our people and our country; and > > * denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists > by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign > responsibilities. > > > We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international > terrorism. This includes: > > * using the full influence of the United States, and working closely > with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are > illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as > slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government > can condone or support and all must oppose; > > * supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim > world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote > terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation; > > * diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by > enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources > on areas most at risk; and > > * using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of > information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of > those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism. > > > While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense we are also > strengthening America's homeland security to protect against and deter > attack. > > This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization > since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council > and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland > Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental > reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland > encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public > and the private sector. > > This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, > emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with > terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened > to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and > mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop > terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic. > > While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism > in today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. > Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations > and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where > governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we > will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and > our allies can provide. > > As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work > with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as > non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the > humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to > rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, > threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists > > In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are > ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom > and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this > conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, > productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in > ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. > > IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts > > > "We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. > The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements > look so small." > > > > > > President Bush > Berlin, Germany > May 23, 2002 > > > > Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional > disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In > an increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our > alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create > horrifying affronts to human dignity. When violence erupts and states > falter, the United States will work with friends and partners to > alleviate suffering and restore stability. > > No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action -- > direct or indirect -- is warranted. We have finite political, economic, > and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States > will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind: > > * The United States should invest time and resources into building > international relationships and institutions that can help manage local > crises when they emerge. > > * The United States should be realistic about its ability to help > those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when > people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively. > > > Policies in several key regions offer some illustrations of how we will > apply these principles: > > The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of > human suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state > of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance > to other global priorities of the United States. There can be no peace > for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed > to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in > peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a > government that serves their interests, and listens to their voices, and > counts their votes. The United States will continue to encourage all > parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and > comprehensive settlement to the conflict. > > The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank > stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic > development, increased humanitarian assistance and a program to > establish, finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If > Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront > corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support > for the creation of a Palestinian state. > > Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. > Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. So the > United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete > steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. > As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw > fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent > with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement > activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, > freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians > to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial > role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and > Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them. > > In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India > and Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This administration invested > time and resources building strong bilateral relations with India and > Pakistan. These strong relations then gave us leverage to play a > constructive role when tensions in the region became acute. With > Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan's > choice to join the war against terror and move toward building a more > open and tolerant society. The Administration sees India's potential to > become one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century > and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly. Our > involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier investments in > bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India and Pakistan > that can help defuse military confrontation. > > Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and > respect for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting > the rule of law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to > employ the engine of opportunity that has helped lift some of its > neighbors out of poverty and desperation. It is the initiative by > Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance to make a difference. > > In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with > countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, > Canada, Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic > hemisphere where our integration advances security, prosperity, > opportunity, and hope. We will work with regional institutions, such as > the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of American States > (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of > the entire hemisphere. > > Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising > from the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict > and unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and > security of the United States. Therefore we have developed an active > strategy to help the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce > their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of > drugs, while -- as important -- we work to reduce the demand for drugs > in our own country. > > In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist > groups that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking > activities that help finance the operations of such groups. We are > working to help Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat > illegal armed groups of both the left and right by extending effective > sovereignty over the entire national territory and provide basic > security to the Colombian people. > > In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, > and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United > States -- preserving human dignity -- and our strategic priority -- > combating global terror. American interests and American principles, > therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an > African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. > Together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa's > fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous > borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence > infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists. > > An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars > spread beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions > of the willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to > confronting these emerging transnational threats. > > Africa's great size and diversity requires a security strategy that > focuses bilateral engagement, and builds coalitions of the willing. This > administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the > region: > > * countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South > Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement > and require focused attention; > > * coordination with European allies and international institutions is > essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace > operations; and > > * Africa's capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations > must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational > threats on a sustained basis. > > > Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the > surest route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are > conflicts over material resources and political access often tragically > waged on the basis of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to > the African Union with its stated commitment to good governance and a > common responsibility for democratic political systems offers > opportunities to strengthen democracy on the continent. > > V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends > with Weapons of Mass Destruction > > > "The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and > technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear > weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, > even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to > strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and > have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the > capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and > we will oppose them with all our power." > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States -- with our > allies and friends -- to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of > force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the > collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security > environment has undergone profound transformation. > > Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our > relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the > balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear > arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as > counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were > inconceivable. > > But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. > None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power > that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and > motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain > destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest > states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass > destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex > and dangerous. > > In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue > states that, while different in important ways, share a number of > attributes. These states: > > * brutalize their own people and squander their national resources > for the personal gain of the rulers; > > * display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, > and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; > > * are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with > other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively > to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; > > * sponsor terrorism around the globe; and > > * reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything > for which it stands. > > > At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's > designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against > Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear > weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become > the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested > increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. > Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as > well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has > become a looming threat to all nations. > > We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients > before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction > against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must > take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new > partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military > forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective > missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence > collection and analysis. > > Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes: > > * Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend > against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key > capabilities -- detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce > capabilities -- are integrated into our defense transformation and our > homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated > into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of > our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed > adversaries. > > * Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and > terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise > necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, > arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction > assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when > necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials. We will > continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their > increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and > threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 > billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step > forward. > > * Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD > use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of > WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such > weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading > enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States > must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our > forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked. > > > It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of > this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the > United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have > in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy > of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be > caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. > We cannot let our enemies strike first. > > * In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we > faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an > effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of > retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states > more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and > the wealth of their nations. > > * In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered > weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who > used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons > of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and > military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also > allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our > allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior > of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means > of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States. > > * Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a > terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the > targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death > and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between > states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to > action. > > > For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer > an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves > against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars > and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption > on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible > mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. > > We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and > objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not > seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would > fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use > of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed > and delivered covertly and without warning. > > The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian > population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law > of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, > mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and > these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired > and used weapons of mass destruction. > > The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions > to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the > threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling > the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if > uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To > forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United > States will, if necessary, act preemptively. > > The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging > threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. > Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek > the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot > remain idle while dangers gather. > > We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our > actions. To support preemptive options, we will: > > * build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide > timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge; > > * coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the > most dangerous threats; and > > * continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to > conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results. > > > The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat > to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our > actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. > > VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and > Free Trade. > > > "When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a > privileged few, no amount -- no amount -- of development aid is ever > enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in > better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade > revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively." > > > > > > President Bush > Monterrey, Mexico > March 22, 2002 > > > > A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing > prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth > supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher > incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs > economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it > reinforces the habits of liberty. > > We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America's > shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic > policies and responding to their own economic challenge. We will use our > economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of > policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic > growth, including: > > * pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business > investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity; > > * tax policies -- particularly lower marginal tax rates -- that > improve incentives for work and investment; > > * rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are > confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic > endeavors; > > * strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most > efficient use; > > * sound fiscal policies to support business activity; > > * investments in health and education that improve the well-being and > skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and > > * free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the > diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and > opportunity. > > > The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not > command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the > best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further > strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for > all economies -- industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the > developing world. > > A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S. > national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies > for their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake > of global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in > their economies are particularly important in this regard, as are > Japan's efforts to end deflation and address the problems of > non-performing loans in the Japanese banking system. We will continue to > use our regular consultations with Japan and our European partners -- > including through the Group of Seven (G-7) -- to discuss policies they > are adopting to promote growth in their economies and support higher > global economic growth. > > Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic > growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand > the productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging > markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise > living standards and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a > world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that > allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in > their future. > > We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve > access to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will > continue to pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial > markets. We will work actively with other countries, the International > Monetary Fund (IMF), and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action > Plan negotiated earlier this year for preventing financial crises and > more effectively resolving them when they occur. > > The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from > occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing > so. We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy > conditions for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on > achieving economic growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, > exchange rate policy, and financial sector policy. > > The concept of "free trade" arose as a moral principle even before it > became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others > value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something > that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the > freedom for a person -- or a nation -- to make a living. To promote free > trade, the Unites States has developed a comprehensive strategy: > > * Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we > helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, > especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for > completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the > accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade > Organization. We will assist Russia's preparations to join the WTO. > > * Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies > in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of > the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United > States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, > targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and > government procurement. We will also offer more opportunity to the > poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences > allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free > trade. > > * Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the > free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration > will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and > Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of > developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. > Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will > be our principal focal points. > > * Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every > administration's trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with > Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished > majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing > Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for > developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will > work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade > agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade > Promotion Authority. > > * Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade > policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, > competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open > societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional > integration -- all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in > developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa > Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods > produced in the 35 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We will make more > use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue > to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer > countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, > the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public > health. We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are > flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical > medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and > malaria. > > * Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. > Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on > enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing > disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a > global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations > that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws > against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international > community must be able to address genuine concerns about government > subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which > undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred. > > * Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound > statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used > in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the > American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the > enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that > the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American > workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the > change and dynamism of open markets. > > * Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster > economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with > widening prosperity. We will incorporate labor and environmental > concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy "network" > between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the > International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade > talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade. > > * Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security > and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our > allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and > types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, > Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region. We will also continue to > work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient > technologies. > > > Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize > greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing > them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the > global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse > gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such > emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 > years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be > to: > > * remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for > international cooperation; > > * obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of > the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to > companies that can show real cuts; > > * develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission > reductions; > > * promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as > well as nuclear power -- which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, > while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks; > > * increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to > a total of $4.5 billion -- the largest sum being spent on climate change > by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year's > budget; and > > * assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas > emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and > resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and > better path. > > > VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building > the Infrastructure of Democracy > > > "In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to > rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we > must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens." > > > > > > President Bush > Washington, D.C. (Inter-American > Development Bank) > March 14, 2002 > > > > A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human > race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including > all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development -- and > opportunity -- is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of > U.S. international policy. > > Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic > growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served > to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and > perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars > spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction > achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy. > > Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this > failure. We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing > for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance -- and > the strategies to achieve those objectives -- must change. > > This Administration's goal is to help unleash the productive potential > of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is > impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have > implemented real policy changes we will provide significant new levels > of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should > set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world's > poorest economies within a decade. > > The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to > achieve this goal: > > * Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of > national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core > development assistance given by the United States. While continuing our > present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, > these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge > Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest > in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight > corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest > in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and > enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward > countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those > that have not to implement reforms. > > * Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development > banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a > comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other > multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of > the world's poor. We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. > contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. > contributions to the International Development Association (IDA) -- the > World Bank's fund for the poorest countries -- and the African > Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing > poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially > in the poorest countries. We will continue to press the multilateral > development banks to focus on activities that increase economic > productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, > and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant > must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in > developing countries. > > * Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development > assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world's > poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that > more children are getting a better education, more people have access to > health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a > better future for their families. We have a moral obligation to measure > the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering > results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own > development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral > development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for > achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA > replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation > system that measures recipient countries' progress. For the first time, > donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the > achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. > contribution is linked in this way. We will strive to make sure that the > World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this > progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything > that these institutions do. > > * Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in > the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants > is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, > particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with > ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA > agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the > poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, > sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress > by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development > banks. We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private > sector to match government efforts by using grants to support > development projects that show results. > > * Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are > the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, > most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and > foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows > as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national > security strategy. > > * Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor > countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics > like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be > threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the > developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest > governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective > local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new > global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan > and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for > treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than > twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the > global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more. > > * Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of > democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources > are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States > will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 > percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher > training in Africa. The United States can also bring information > technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been > devastated by AIDS. > > * Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, > including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields > in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. > Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits > to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still > suffer from hunger and malnutrition. > > > VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers > of Global Power > > > "We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th > century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead > of prepare for war." > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions -- as > broad as practicable -- of states able and willing to promote a balance > of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires > clear priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent > consultations among partners with a spirit of humility. > > There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can > accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies > and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the > strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the > North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its > inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European > security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world > trade. > > The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself > recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the > first time. NATO's core mission -- collective defense of the > transatlantic alliance of democracies -- remains, but NATO must develop > new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new > circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, > highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to > respond to a threat against any member of the alliance. > > The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, > creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to > mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must: > > * expand NATO's membership to those democratic nations willing and > able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests; > > * ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate > combat contributions to make in coalition warfare; > > * develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become > effective multinational fighting forces; > > * take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of > scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that > they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities; > > * streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to > meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of > training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; > and > > * maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as > we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces. > > > If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a > partnership as central to the security and interests of its member > states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common > perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to > take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the > same time, we welcome our European allies' efforts to forge a greater > foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to > close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We > cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of > transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come. > > The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances. > Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an > attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the > dispatch of some of the world's finest combat forces for Operation > Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented > levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist > attack. We have deepened cooperation on counter-terrorism with our > alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received > invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand. > > The war against terrorism has proven that America's alliances in Asia > not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and > ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and > friendships, we will: > > > * look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and > global affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our > close defense and diplomatic cooperation; > > * work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while > preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of > the region over the longer-term; > > * build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we > continue working together to resolve regional and global problems -- as > we have so many times from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Tora Bora; > > * maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our > allies, our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic > environment; and > > * build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with > institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation > forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage > change in this dynamic region. > > > We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power > competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of > internal transition -- most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all > three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly > global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape. > > With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based > on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and > Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on > Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a > critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, > long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United > States. Russia's top leaders have a realistic assessment of their > country's current weakness and the policies -- internal and external -- > needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that > Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that > Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. > > United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to > refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and > challenges. We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the > global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia's entry into the > World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to > promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have > created the NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security > cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will > continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the > former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable > neighborhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to integration > into the Euro-Atlantic community. > > At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still > divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to > build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our > motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our > relations. Russia's uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market > democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons > of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia's very > weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those > opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years -- or even > decades. > > The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral > relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests > require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest > democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative > government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We > have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through > the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest > in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia. > > Differences remain, including over the development of India's nuclear > and missile programs, and the pace of India's economic reforms. But > while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about > India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with > which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership > with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic > future. > > The United States relationship with China is an important part of our > strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific > region. We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous > China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. > Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst > features of the Communist legacy, China's leaders have not yet made the > next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. > In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its > neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated > path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national > greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is > the only source of that greatness. > > The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing > China. We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including > the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean > peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan > and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counter-terrorism and > similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, > such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the > welfare of our citizens. > > Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become > more open with information, promote the development of civil society, > and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to > political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting > village-level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national > one-party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly > accountable to its citizen's needs and aspirations, however, much work > remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, > assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential. > > Our important trade relationship will benefit from China's entry into > the World Trade Organization, which will create more export > opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, > and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over > $100 billion in annual two-way trade. The power of market principles and > the WTO's requirements for transparency and accountability will advance > openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic > protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other > areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the > self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human > rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation > commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but > not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree. > > The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for > relations between the United States and other main centers of global > power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long-standing allies > in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we > must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships > become routine and unproductive. > > Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We > can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober > analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices > that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open > the path of progress. > > IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the > Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century > > > "Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch > its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, > and enterprise of our people." > > > > > > President Bush > Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress) > September 20, 2001 > > > > The major institutions of American national security were designed in a > different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be > transformed. > > It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. > We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military's > highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, > our military must: > > * assure our allies and friends; > > * dissuade future military competition; > > * deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and > > * decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails. > > > The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their > forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most > strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must > confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to > deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on > how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might > occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational > challenges. > > The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound > symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our > willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, > the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of > power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the > many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases > and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as > well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment > of U.S. forces. > > Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major > planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate > across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch > of the armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by > developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision > strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. > This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the > ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure > U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. > infrastructure and assets in outer space. > > Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new > approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. > intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and > technology. We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is > run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. > Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight > the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a > wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of > coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends. > > We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from > experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must > and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy -- > whether a state or non-state actor -- to impose its will on the United > States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces > sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces > will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a > military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the > United States. > > Intelligence -- and how we use it -- is our first line of defense > against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed > around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, > fixed object -- the Soviet bloc -- the intelligence community is coping > with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of > targets. > > We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to > keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be > appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems > and coordinated with our allies and friends. We need to protect the > capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the > knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek > the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and > to maximize injury. > > We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide > integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since > the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted > inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of > information between intelligence and law enforcement. > > Initiatives in this area will include: > > * strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence > to lead the development and actions of the Nation's foreign intelligence > capabilities; > > * establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides > seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing > the nation and our allies; > > * continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to > sustain our intelligence advantage; > > * investing in future capabilities while working to protect them > through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence > capabilities; and > > * collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the > government with all-source analysis. > > > As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend > America's interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other > nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding > sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State > Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with > other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must > be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations > and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in > international politics must also extend their reach to understand > complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public > health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy. > > Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil > wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief > requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build > police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial > government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international > cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American > readiness to play our part. > > Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out > to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to > public information efforts that can help people around the world learn > about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of > civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, > a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas > and this is an area where America must excel. > > We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet > our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired > by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the > International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend > to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with > other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and > cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral > agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will > implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose > provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. > personnel and officials. > > We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the > right level and allocation of government spending on national security. > The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this > war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for > the American people. > > Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is > diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America's borders have > a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, > and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish -- > our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life -- are > vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we > bring to justice those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. > As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that > until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This > is a new condition of life. We will adjust to it and thrive -- in spite > of it. > > In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and > interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act > apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require. When we > disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for > our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives. We will not allow > such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with > our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values. > > Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the > skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of > our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, > entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that > energy. That is where our national security begins. >