Military

At the same time, we have unprecedented opportunities to make our nation safer and more prosperous. Our military might is unparalleled. We now have a truly global economy linked by an instantaneous communications network, which offers increasing opportunities for American jobs and American investment. The community of democratic nations is growing, enhancing the prospects for political stability, peaceful conflict resolution and greater dignity and hope for the people of the world. The international community is beginning to act together to address pressing global environmental needs.

Never has American leadership been more essential -- to navigate the shoals of the world’s new dangers and to capitalize on its opportunities. American assets are unique: our military strength, our dynamic economy, our powerful ideals and, above all, our people. We can and must make the difference through our engagement; but our involvement must be carefully tailored to serve our interests and priorities.

This report, submitted in accordance with Section 603 of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, elaborates a national security strategy that is tailored for this new era and builds upon America’s unmatched strengths. Focusingon new threats and new opportunities, its central goals are:

To enhance our security with military forces that are ready to fight and with effective representation abroad.

To bolster America’s economic revitalization.

To promote democracy abroad.

Over the past three years, my Administration has worked diligently to pursue these goals. This national security strategy report presents the strategy that has guided this effort. It is premised on a belief that the line between our domestic and foreign policies is disappearing -- that we must revitalize our economy if we are to sustain our military forces, foreign initiatives and global influence, and that we must engage actively abroad if we are to open foreign markets and create jobs for our people.

We believe that our goals of enhancing our security, bolstering our economic prosperity and promoting democracy are mutually supportive. Secure nations are more likely to support free trade and maintain democratic structures. Free market nations with growing economies and strong and open trade ties are more likely to feel secure and to work toward freedom. And democratic states are less likely to threaten our interests and more likely to cooperate with the United States to meet security threats and promote free trade and sustainable development. These goals are supported by ensuring America remains engaged in the world and by enlarging the community of secure, free market and democratic nations.

As the boundaries between threats that start outside our borders and the challenges from within are diminishing, the problems others face today can more quickly become ours, tomorrow. This is why U.S. leadership and our engagement have never been more important: if we withdraw from this world today, our citizens will have to pay the price of our neglect. We therefore measure the success of our efforts abroad, as at home, by one simple standard: Have we made the lives of the American people safer, today; have we made tomorrow better and more secure for our children?

Since my Administration began, we have been deeply engaged in efforts to realize this measure of success by meeting the goals of our strategy:

To enhance our security, for example, we have helped achieve peace between Jordan and Israel and an Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East; brokered a comprehensive peace agreement in Bosnia and successfully deterred the spread of conflict to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; established NATO’s Partnership for Peace and initiated a process that will lead to NATO’s enlargement; concluded an agreement with Russia to detarget ICBMs and SLBMs; secured the accession of Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and their agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons from their territory, which in turn opened the door to the ratification and entry into force of the START I Treaty and Senate advice and consent to the ratification of the START II Treaty; led successful international efforts to secure the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT; initiated negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), which we hope to conclude in 1996; participated in an unprecedented regional security gathering of the ASEAN countries and others, including Russia and Vietnam; reached an Agreed Framework with North Korea that halted, and will eventually eliminate, its dangerous nuclear program; and used our diplomatic support and the power of our example to give new impetus to the efforts of the people of Northern Ireland and the British and Irish governments to achieve a just and lasting settlement to the conflict there.

To bolster prosperity at home and around the world, we have secured the enactment of legislation implementing both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); completed over 80 separate trade agreements; actively engaged China on trade issues through extension of its Most Favored Nation status and vigorous pursuit of China’s adherence to the rules-based regime of the World Trade Organization; worked to open Asia-Pacific markets through three leaders meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum; lowered export controls; and held a Western Hemisphere Summit in Miami where the 34 democratic nations of this hemisphere committed themselves to negotiate a free-trade agree ment by 2005.

To promote democracy, we have supported South Africa’s recent transformation; provided aid to a democratizing Russia and other new independent states of the former Soviet Union as well as Central and Eastern European nations; assisted Cambodia; advocated improvements in human rights globally through the UN urging that the rule of law replace the rule of oppressive regimes; and worked with our Western Hemisphere neighbors restoring the democratically elected government in Haiti and hosting the Summit of the Americas, which reaffirmed and strengthened our mutual commitment to democracy.

Our extraordinary diplomatic leverage to reshape existing security and economic structures and create new ones ultimately relies upon American power. Our economic and military might, as well as the power of our ideals, also makes America’s diplomats the irst among equals and enables us to help create the conditions necessary for U.S. interests to thrive. Our economic strength gives us a position of advantage on almost every global issue. For instance, our efforts in South Africa and our negotiations with North Korea demonstrate how the imposition -- or the threat -- of economic sanctions helps us to achieve our objectives as part of our determined diplomacy. That determined diplomacy also is reflected in our consistent effort to engage in productive relations with China across a broad range of issues, including regional security, nonproliferation, human rights and trade. We seek a strategic relationship with China, advancing our own national interests in key areas. It is this steady approach -- asserting America’s core national security interests while keeping in mind longer-term goals -- that is the hallmark of determined diplomacy.

But military force remains an indispensable element of our nation’s power. Our nation must maintain military forces sufficient to deter diverse threats and, when necessary, to fight and win against our adversaries. While many factors ultimately contribute to our nation’s safety and well-being, no single component is more important than the men and women who wear America’s uniform and stand sentry over our security. Their skill, service and dedication constitute the core of our defenses. Today our military is the best-equipped, best-trained and best-prepared fighting force in the world. Time after time in the last three years, our troops demonstrated their continued readiness and strength: moving with lightning speed to head off another Iraqi threat to Kuwait; helping to save hundreds of thousands of lives in Rwanda; giving freedom and democracy back to the people of Haiti; and helping enforce UN mandates in the former Yugoslavia and subsequently deploying forces under NATO command to help implement the peace agreement in Bosnia. I am committed to ensuring that this military capability is not compromised.

The United States recognizes that we have a special responsibility that goes along with being a great power and, at times, our global interests and ideals lead us to oppose those who would endanger the survival or well-being of their peaceful neighbors. At the same time, all nations should be able to expect that their borders and their sovereignty will always be secure; however, this does not mean we or the international community must tolerate gross violations of human rights within those borders.

When our national security interests are threatened, we will, as America always has, use diplomacy when we can, but force if we must. We will act with others when we can, but alone when we must. We recognize, however, that while force can defeat an aggressor, it cannot solve underlying problems. Democracy and economic prosperity can take root in a struggling society only through local solutions carried out by the society itself. We must use military force selectively, recognizing that its use may do no more than provide a window of opportunity for a society -- and diplomacy -- to work.

We therefore will send American troops abroad only when our interests and our values are sufficiently at stake. The courage, loyalty and willingness of our men and women in uniform to put their lives at risk is a national treasure which should never be taken for granted, but neither should we fear to employ U.S. military forces wisely. When we do so, it will be with clear objectives to which we are firmly committed and which -- when combat is likely -- we have the means to achieve decisively. To do otherwise, risks those objectives and endangers our troops. These requirements are as pertinent for humanitarian and other nontraditional interventions today as they were for previous generations during prolonged world wars. Modern media communications may now bring to our homes both the suffering that exists in many parts of the world and the casualties that may accompany interventions to help. But no deployment of American service members is risk-free, and we must remain clear in our purpose and resolute in its execution. And while we must continue to reassess the costs and benefits of any operation as it unfolds, reflexive calls for withdrawal of our forces when casualties are incurred would simply encourage rogue actors to try to force our departure from areas where there are U.S. interests by attacking American troops.

During the past three years, diplomacy backed by American power has produced impressive results: When Iraq moved forces towards Kuwait, we reacted swiftly and dispatched additional, large-scale forces to the region under the authority of the United Nations -- but were prepared to act alone, if necessary.

In Haiti, it was only when the Haitian military learned that the 82nd Airborne Division was en route that we achieved peacefully what we were prepared to do under fire.

In Bosnia, we achieved a breakthrough when U.S. diplomatic leadership was married to appropriate military power. After the fall of Zepa and Srebrenica, the United States secured an agreement from our NATO allies to meet further assaults on the UN safe areas with a decisive military response. American pilots participated in the NATO bombing campaign following the shelling of a Sarajevo marketplace, demonstrating our resolve and helping to bring the parties to the negotiating table.

U.S. leadership then seized the opportunity for peace that these developments created: U.S. diplomats, along with our Contact Group partners, brokered a cease-fire and after intensive U.S.-led negotiations in Dayton, Ohio, a comprehensive peace agreement. U.S. forces are now working as part of a larger NATO force -- joined by forces from members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace -- to help implement the military aspects of the agreement and create the conditions for peace to take hold.

In Rwanda and Somalia, only the American military could have accomplished what it did in these humanitarian missions, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. However, over the longer run our interests were served by turning these operations over to multilateral peacekeeping forces once the immediate humanitarian crisis was addressed. No outside force can create a stable and legitimate domestic order for another society -- that work can only be accomplished by the society itself.

Our national security strategy reflects both America’s interests and our values. Our commitment to freedom, equality and human dignity continues to serve as a beacon of hope to peoples around the world. The vitality, creativity and diversity of American society are important sources of national strength in a global economy increasingly driven by information and ideas.

Our prospects in this new era are promising. The specter of nuclear annihilation has dramatically receded. The historic events of the past three years -- including the handshake between Israel and the PLO, the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the transformation of South Africa to a multiracial democracy headed by President Mandela and the peace agreement to end the war in Bosnia -- suggest this era’s possibilities for achieving security, prosperity and democracy.

Our nation can only address this era’s dangers and opportunities if we remain actively engaged in global affairs. We are the world’s greatest power, and we have global interests as well as responsibilities. As our nation learned after World War I, we can find no security for America in isolationism nor prosperity in protectionism. For the American people to be safer and enjoy expanding opportunities, our nation must work to deter would-be aggressors, open foreign markets, promote the spread of democracy a broad, combat transnational dangers of terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime, encourage sustainable development and pursue new opportunities for peace.

Our national security requires the patient application of American will and resources. We can only sustain that necessary investment with the broad, bipartisan support of the American people and their representatives in Congress. The full participation of Congress is essential to the success of our continuing engagement, and I will consult with members of Congress at every step as we formulate and implement American foreign policy.

The need for American leadership abroad remains as strong as ever. I am committed to forging a new public consensus to sustain our active engagement abroad in pursuit of our cherished goal -- a more secure world where democracy and free markets know no borders. This document details that commitment.

The Administration outlined a national security strategy that assessed America’s role in this new international context and described a strategy to advance our interests at home and abroad.

The strategy recognized that the United States was facing a period of great promise but also great uncertainty. We stand as the world’s preeminent power. America’s core value of freedom, as embodied in democratic governance and market economics, has gained ground around the world. Hundreds of millions of people have thrown off communism, dictatorship or apartheid. Former adversaries now work with us in diplomacy and global problem solving. Both the threat of a war among great powers and the specter of nuclear annihilation have receded dramatically. The dynamism of the global economy is transforming commerce, culture and global politics, promising greater prosperity for America and greater cooperation among nations.

At the same time, troubling uncertainties and clear threats remain. The new, independent states that replaced the Soviet Union continue to experience wrenching economic and political transitions, while the progress of the many new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe is still fragile. While our relations with the other great powers are as constructive as at any point in this century, Russia’s historic transformation will face difficult challenges, and China maintains an authoritative regime even as that country assumes a more important economic and political role in global affairs. The spread of weapons of mass destruction poses serious threats, and rogue states still threaten regional aggression. Violent extremists threaten fragile peace processes in many parts of the world. Worldwide, there is a resurgence of militant nationalism as well as ethnic and religious conflict. This has been demonstrated by the upheavals in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia, where the United States has participated in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

The strategy also recognized that a number of transnational problems which once seemed quite distant, like environmental degradation, natural resource depletion, rapid population growth and refugee flows, now pose threats to our prosperity and have security implications for both present and long-term American policy. In addition, the emergence of the information and technology age presents new challenges to U.S. strategy even as it offers extraordinary opportunities to build a better future. This technology revolution brings our world closer together as information, money and ideas move around the globe at record speed; but it also makes possible for the violence of terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking to challenge the security of our borders and that of our citizens in new ways.

It is a world where clear distinctions between threats to our nation’s security from beyond our borders and the challenges to our security from within our borders are being blurred; where the separation between international problems and domestic ones is evaporating; and where the line between domestic and foreign policy is eroding. The demise of communism not only lifted the lid on age-old conflicts but it opened the door to new dangers, such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction to non-state, as well as state, forces. And it did so at a time when these forces can now try to threaten our security from within our borders because of their access to modern technology. We must therefore assess these forces for what they are, with our response based on the nature of their threat, not just where they occur.

Because problems that start beyond our borders can now much more easily become problems within them, American leadership and engagement in the world has never been more important. There is also a simple truth about this new world: the same idea that was under attack three times in this century -- first by imperialism and then by fascism and communism -- remains under attack today, but on many fronts at once. It is an idea that comes under many names -- democracy, liberty, civility, pluralism -- but which together are the values of a society where leaders and governments preserve individual freedoms and ensure opportunity and human dignity. As the President has said, “We face a contest as old as history -- a struggle between freedom and tyranny; between tolerance and isolation. It is a fight between those who would build free societies governed by laws and those who would impose their will by force. Our struggle today, in a world more high-tech, more fast-moving, more chaotically diverse than ever, is the age-old fight between hope and fear.” Just as surely as fascism and communism once did, so, too, are our freedom, democracy, security and prosperity now threatened by regional aggressors and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; ethnic, religious and national rivalries; and the forces of terrorism, drug trafficking and international organized crime. Today, addressing these threats demands American leadership.

The victors of World War I squandered their triumph in this age-old struggle when they turned inward, bringing on a global depression and allowing fascism to rise, and reigniting global war. After World War II, we remembered the lessons of the past. In the face of a new totalitarian threat, this great nation did not walk away from the challenge of the moment. Instead, it chose to reach out, to rebuild international security structures and to lead. This determination of previous generations to prevail over communism by shaping new international structures left us a world stronger, safer and freer. It is this example and its success that now inspire us to continue the difficult task of a new stage in this old struggle: to secure the peace won in the Cold War against those who would still deny people their human rights, terrorists who threaten innocents and pariah states who choose repression and extremism over openness and moderation.

By exerting our leadership abroad, we make America safer and more prosperous -- by deterring aggression, by fostering the peaceful resolution of dangerous conflicts, by opening foreign markets, by helping democratic regimes and by tackling global problems. Without our active leadership and engagement abroad, threats will fester and our opportunities will narrow. We seek to be as creative and constructive -- in the literal sense of that word -- as the generation of the late 1940’s. For all its dangers, his new world presents an immense opportunity -- the chance to adapt and construct global institutions that will help to provide security and increase economic growth for America and the world.

At issue is whether our efforts at this construction can continue to succeed in the face of shifting threats to the ideals and habits of democracy. It is therefore in our interest that democracy be at once the foundation and the purpose of the international structures we build through this constructive diplomacy: the foundation, because the institutions will be a reflection of their shared values and norms; the purpose, because if political and economic institutions are secure, democracy will flourish.

Promoting democracy does more than foster our ideals. It advances our interests because we know that the larger the pool of democracies, the better off we, and the entire community of nations, will be. Democracies create free markets that offer economic opportunity, make for more reliable trading partners and are far less likely to wage war on one another. While democracy will not soon take hold everywhere, it is in our interest to do all that we can to enlarge the community of free and open societies, especially in areas of greatest strategic interest, as in Central and Eastern Europe and the new independent states of the former Soviet Union.

Our national security strategy is therefore based on enlarging the community of market democracies while deterring and limiting a range of threats to our nation, our allies and our interests. The more that democracy and political and economic liberalization take hold in the world, particularly in countries of strategic importance to us, the safer our nation is likely to be and the more our people are likely to prosper.

To that broad end, the three central components of our strategy of engagement and enlargement are: (1) our efforts to enhance our security by maintaining a strong defense capability and employing effective diplomacy to promote cooperative security measures; (2) our work to open foreign markets and spur global economic growth; and (3) our promotion of democracy abroad. It also explains how we are pursuing these elements of our strategy in specific regions by adapting and constructing institutions that will help to provide security and increase economic growth throughout the world.

In a democracy, however, the foreign policy and security strategy of the nation must serve the needs of the people. The preamble of the Constitution sets out the basic objectives: provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

The end of the Cold War does not alter these fundamental purposes. Nor does it reduce the need for active American efforts, here and abroad, to pursue those goals. Our efforts to advance the common good at home depend upon our efforts to advance our interests around the world. Therefore, we must judge the success of our security strategy by its impact on the domestic lives of our citizens: has it made a real difference in the day to day lives of Americans? Consider just a few examples:

Every American today is safer because we are stepping back from the nuclear precipice. Russian missiles are no longer targeted at the United States; we have convinced Ukraine, Kazakstan and Belarus to give up nuclear weapons left on their land when the Soviet Union collapsed. American leadership secured the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty . We also convinced North Korea to freeze its nuclear program. Our strategy continues to ensure the safeguarding of more nuclear materials so they do not fall into the hands of terrorists or international criminals and endanger our citizens.

In a world where the boundaries between threats outside our borders and the challenges from within are diminishing, Americans are safer because our counterterrorism strategy promoted closer cooperation with foreign governments and sanctions against states that sponsor terrorism, while increasing the resources for our own law enforcement agencies.

Large-scale migration from Haiti has been stemmed because we gave democracy another chance in that nation. In the month before we forced the military rulers to step down, 16,000 Haitians fled their country for our shores and elsewhere in the region. Three months after the intervention, the refugee flow was practically zero.

Our strategy to help the nations of Central Europe consolidate democracy, find lasting security and build strong economics makes it much less likely that Americans might have to fight another war on the battlegrounds of Europe. By supporting democratic reform and the transition to free markets in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union and in Central Europe, our strategy promoted stability and prosperity in an area that will become a vast market for the United States, creating jobs in America. In Bosnia, diplomatic determination combined with military muscle to create an opportunity to secure a peace rather than permit instability to undermine this fragile region and U.S. interests.

Our strategy’s trade initiatives, from NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of GATT to over 80 separate trade agreements, have created more than two million American jobs. With the Summit of the Americas and the APEC process, U.S. exports -- and jobs -- will continue to grow. Because of our emergency assistance to Mexico during its financial crisis, economic growth -- although fragile -- has returned and exports now exceed pre-NAFTA levels. Mexico has begun repaying its debt to the United States ahead of schedule, protecting the 340,000 American jobs NAFTA has already created because of exports to our partners.

From Iraq to Haiti, South Africa to the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East to Northern Ireland, our strategy has stopped or prevented war and brought former adversaries together in peace because it is in our interest. These efforts, combined with assisting developing nations who are fighting overpopulation, AIDS, drug smuggling and environmental degradation, ensure that future generations of Americans will not have to contend with the consequences of neglecting these threats to our security and prosperity.

Many of these decisions were made in the face of significant disagreement over what needed to be done at the moment. But the alternatives bore unacceptable costs to our citizens: tariffs and barriers would still cripple the world trading system if not for GATT and NAFTA; the Persian Gulf region would be very different today if the rapid response of the United States and its allies had not deterred Iraq’s threatened aggression against Kuwait in 1994; the flood of Haitian refugees at our borders would have continued had we not intervened in that country; Latin America would have seen financial and economic chaos affecting its fragile democracies, and U.S. trade would have been harmed, had we not moved to help stabilize Mexico’s economy; and the dangers to our people from weapons of mass destruction would be much greater had our strategy not reduced the threat of nuclear arms, curbed the spread of chemical and biological weapons around the world and countered the terrorists and criminals who would endanger us if they possessed these weapons. The money we devoted to development, peacekeeping or disaster relief helped to avert future crises whose cost would have been far greater in terms of lives lost and resources spent.

We can continue to engage actively abroad to achieve these results only if the American people and the Congress are willing to bear the costs of that leadership -- in dollars, political energy and, at times, American lives. U.S. security, prosperity and freedom are neither cost- nor risk-free; resources must be spent and casualties may be incurred. One purpose of this report is to help foster the broad, bipartisan understanding and support necessary to sustain our international engagement. A coalition of the center through bipartisan congressional participation is critical to this commitment. Some decisions must be made in the face of opposition; these decisions must ultimately be judged as to whether they benefited the American people by advancing their interests of security, prosperity and democracy in the long run.

During the first three years of this Administration, this strategy has produced the following results with respect to our security requirements:

At the President’s direction, the Pentagon conducted the Bottom Up Review and Nuclear Posture Review, assessing what defense forces and capabilities our nation needs for this new security era. The Administration’s defense strategy, which requires U.S. foces to be able to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression in concert with regional allies in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, has proved realistic. In the late summer of 1994, we faced the very real prospect of near-simultaneous hostilities with North Korea and Iraq. Our rapid reinforcement of U.S. military presence and additional deployments to these theaters deterred potential aggression. Our military’s superb performance in responding quickly and effectively when called upon in the se crises, as well as in those in Haiti and Rwanda that same year, clearly demonstrates their continued readiness to respond as needed and that we have prudently managed the post-Cold War force drawdown.

The President also set forth a defense budget for Fiscal Years 1996-2001 which fully funds the force structure recommended by the Bottom Up and Nuclear Posture Reviews and which is necessary to carry out the national security strategy. He repeatedly stressed that he will draw the line against further cuts that would undermine that force structure or erode U.S. military readiness. The President also requested Congress to enact supplemental appropriations of $1.7 billion for FY 1994 and $ 2.6 billion for FY 1995 to ensure readiness would not be impaired by the costs of unanticipated contingencies. In addition, the President added $25 billion to the Fiscal Year 1996-2001 defense spending plan to provide more funding for readiness, modernization and quality of life improvements for our military personnel and families. The P resident also agreed to extra funding in the FY 1996 Defense appropriations bill in order to pay for the troop deployment in Bosnia.

The United States initiated an intense diplomatic effort that forged a Bosnia-wide cease-fire and then brokered a comprehensive peace agreement among the parties. We contributed a substantial share of the NATO-led peace implementation force to help implement the military aspects of the peace agreement and create the conditions for peace to take hold.

At President Clinton’s initiative, a NATO Summit in January 1994 approved the Partnership For Peace (PFP) program and initiated a process that will lead to NATO’s gradual enlargement to ensure that the alliance is prepared to meet the European and transatlantic security challenges of this era, and to provide the security relationships that will buttress the underpinnings for the democratic and market economic gains in Europe since 1989. Since the Summit, 27 countries, including Russia, agreed to join the Partnership for Peace, and Partner countries are now working with NATO in Bosnia. In 1995, NATO completed work on its enlargement study and presented it to the Partners. This year, in the second phase of the enlargement process, NATO will begin intensive bilateral consultations with all the PFP members who wish to participate, aimed at helping them prepare for possible NATO membership.

The United States, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan exchanged instruments of ratification for the START I Treaty at the December 1994 summit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), culminating two years of intensive U.S. diplomatic efforts to bring the Treaty into force and paving the way for ratification of the 1993 START II Treaty. START I requires the permanent elimination of bombers, ICBM silos and ballistic missile submarine launch tubes that carried over 9,000 of the 21,000 total accountable warheads the United States and the former Soviet Union declared when the Treaty was signed -- a reduction of 40 percent. START II, which the Senate voted 87-4 to give its advice and consent to ratification on January 26, 1996, will eliminate additional U.S. and Russian strategic launchers and will effectively remove an additional 5,000 deployed warheads, leaving each side with no more than 3,500. These actions will reduce the deployed strategic force arsenals of the United States and Russia by two-thirds. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin have agreed that once START II is ratified by both countries, the United States and Russia will begin immediately to deactivate all strategic nuclear delivery systems to be reduced under the Treaty by removing their nuclear warheads or taking other steps to take them out of combat status, thus removing thousands of warheads from alert status years ahead of schedule. The two Presidents also directed an intensification of dialogue regarding the possibility of further reductions of, and limitations on, remaining nuclear forces.

The 30-nation Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty’s reduction period came to an end this past November, resulting in the elimination of over 50,000 pieces of heavy military equipment and capping conventional forces in Europe at their lowest levels in decades. Together with our allies, the Administration will continue to pursue full implementation of this agreement.

The President launched a comprehensive policy to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that deliver them. The United States has secured landmark commitments to eliminate all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan, and in December 1994, Ukraine formally acceded to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state, as Kazakstan and Belarus had done previously. By the end of 1995, all nuclear weapons had been removed from Kazakstan, most were out of Belarus and a significant number had been transferred from Ukraine. The United States led the successful international effort to extend the NPT indefinitely and without conditions by consensus of Treaty parties at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. The President’s August 1995 initiative to support a true zero yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) provided a significant boost to the CTBT negotiations and has opened the door to completing and signing a CTBT in 1996.

We also made significant progress during the past year in negotiations to establish an agreed demarcation between strategic and theater ballistic missiles that will update the ABM Treaty and advance our goal of deploying advanced theater missile defenses. The Administration also submitted the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification and supported the development of new measures to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.

The Administration reached an important Agreed Framework with North Korea that has halted and, when fully implemented, will eventually eliminate that country’s existing, dangerous nuclear program, greatly enhancing regional stability and advancing our nonproliferation goals. The Administration reached agreements with Russia, Ukraine and South Africa to control missile-related technology, brought Russia, Brazil and South Africa into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and secured China’s commitent not to transfer MTCR-controlled, ground-to-ground missiles. The United States has also led international efforts to create the multilateral “Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-use Goods and Technology” -- the successor to the Coordinating Committee for East-West Trade (COCOM) -- to provide a regime for transparency and restraint on dangerous transfers of conventional arms and dual-use technologies.

The President’s efforts helped bring about many historic firsts in the Middle East peace process -- the handshake of peace between Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat on the White House lawn has been followed by the Jordan-Israel peace treaty, the Is rael-Palestinian Interim Agreement, progress on eliminating the Arab boycott of Israel and the establishment of ties between Israel and an increasing number of its Arab neighbors.

In 1995, the President proposed legislation to provide law enforcement officials with increased tools to combat terrorism. These include additional manpower and training, methods to mark and trace explosives, legal mobile wiretaps and the authority to use the unique capability of our military where chemical or biological weapons are involved here at home, just as we can now do in the face of nuclear threats. The President also directed new initiatives against money-laundering, for seizing the assets of drug rings and for new legislation to respond more effectively to organized crime activity. In October, the President also announced at the United Nations an invitation to every country to join in negotiating an international declaration on citizens’ securty that would include: a no-sanctuary pledge for organized criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers and smugglers; a counterterrorism pact; a pledge to end the trafficking of illegal arms and of lethal nuclear, biological and chemical materials; an antinarcotics pledge; and an effective police force partnership to help combat these forces of violence and destruction. Progress has been made, with the apprehension of leaders of the most influential South American drug cartels.

In March 1995, the President obtained Senate advice and consent to ratification of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), which constrains the use of certain weapons, including landmines. The Administration is also pursuing a comprehensive set of initiatives to address the global landmine crisis, such as strengthening the CCW provisions governing landmine use, placing international controls on export, production and stockpiles, and developing new equipment for more effective demining.

On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive establishing ’U.S. Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations.’ This policy represented the first comprehensive framework for U.S. decisionmaking on issues of peacekeeping and peace enforcement suited to the realities of the new international era.

In October 1994, President Clinton transmitted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. This was the culmination of years of negotiations to ensure an equitable balance between the rights of coastal states to control activities in adjacent, offshore areas to protect their economic, security and environmental interests and the rights of maritime states to free and unimpeded navigation and overflight of the oceans of the world. This included an acceptable regime to administer the mineral resources of the deep seabed, thereby protecting U.S. interests. In March 1995, President Clinton ordered a sweeping reexamination of the U.S. Governments approach to putting science and technology to the service of national security and global stability in light of the changed security environment, increasing global economic competition and growing budgetary pressures. The resulting National Security Science and Technology Strategy is the countrys first comprehensive Presidential statement of national security science and technology priorities.

On the economic front, Administration policies have created nearly 7.5 million American jobs and established the foundation for the global economy of the 21st Century:

The President worked with the Congress on effective measures to reduce the federal budget deficit and restore economic growth. These measures help increase our competitiveness and strengthen our position in negotiations with other nations. Two million of the 7.5 million new jobs created in the last three years are a result of our efforts to expand market access for American products overseas. These efforts have also lead to the creation of over 3 million new small businesses and the lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in 25 years. The federal budget deficit has dropped three years in a row, from $290 billion to $164 billion a year.

The President secured approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which creates the world’s largest free trade zone and has already created nearly 310,000 American jobs. The vote for NAFTA marked a decisive U.S. affirmation of its international engagement. Through NAFTA’s environmental and labor side agreements, we are working actively to protect the rights of workers and to reduce air and water pollution that crosses national boundaries. When Mexico came under short-term financial pressures in December 1994, the United States took the lead in marshaling international support to assist the country in meeting this challenge. NAFTA helped to protect and increase U.S. exports to that country -- and the jobs they support -- during the financial crisis and the subsequent adjustment period. We have also begun negotiations with Chile to join NAFTA.

The Administration stood at the forefront of a multilateral effort to achieve history’s most extensive market-opening agreements in the GATT Uruguay-round negotiations on world trade. Working with a bipartisan coalition in the Congress, the President secured approval of this path-breaking agreement and the resulting World Trade Organization, which will add $150 billion annually to the U.S. economy once fully phased in and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The President convened the first meeting of leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and took steps to expand our ties with the economies of the Asia-Pacific region, the fastest growing area in the world. At their second forum, APEC leaders embraced the goal of free trade within the region by 2020, and at their third meeting in Osaka in 1995, they formulated a positive action plan to facilitate and measure progress toward achieving that goal. This past year, we successfully negotiated historic trade agreements with our Asian trading partners, including China, Japan and Korea, all of which promote substantial new access for American products and which will foster new attitudes of openness toward our exports.

The President hosted the Summit of the Americas in December 1994, a historic gathering where the 34 democratic nations of the hemisphere committed themselves to completing negotiations by 2005 on a regional free-trade agreement. In June 1995, the United States hosted the Denver Trade Ministerial and Commerce Forum to promote trade liberalization and business facilitation throughout the Western Hemisphere.

At President Clinton’s initiative, the G-7 Leaders put forth at the Halifax Economic Summit extensive proposals to prepare our international financial institutions for the 21st Century, including institutional reforms to prevent and respond to financial crises, to promote sustainable development and to support the Middle East peace process. At the December 1995 U.S.-European Union Summit in Madrid, the President announced the New Transatlantic Agenda, including a Transatlantic Marketplace that will deepen our cooperation on economic issues.

The President developed a Climate Change Action Plan to help reduce greenhouse emissions at home and launched the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation to help reduce emissions abroad. The United States also takes a leading role at the international level in phasing out ozone-depleting substances.

In June 1993, the U.S. signed the Biodiversity Treaty and one year later, the Desertification Convention. With strong U.S. leadership, the United Nations successfully concluded negotiations on a multilateral agreement designed to reverse the global trend of declining fish stocks. The agreement complements the UN Law of the Sea Convention, giving direction to countries for implementing their obligation under the Convention to cooperate in conserving and managing straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

The Administration has asserted world leadership on population issues. We played a key role during the Cairo Conference on Population and Development in developing a consensus Program of Action, including increased availability of voluntary family planning and reproductive health services, sustainable economic development, strengthening of family ties, the empowerment of women including enhanced educational opportunities and a reduction in infant and child mortality through immunizations and other programs.

Finally, the President has demonstrated a firm commitment to expanding the global realm of democracy to advance the interests of our citizens:

The Administration substantially expanded U.S. support for democratic and market reform in Russia, Ukraine and the other new independent states of the former Soviet Union, including a comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine.

The United States launched a series of initiatives to bolster the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, including the White House Trade and Investment Conference for Central and Eastern Europe held in Cleveland in January 1995. We affirmed our concern for their security and market economic transformation, recognizing that such assurances would play a key role in promoting democratic developments.

Working with the international community under the auspices of the UN, we succeeded in reversing the coup in Haiti and restoring the democratically elected president and government. We are now helping the Haitian people rebuild their country and consolidate their hard-won democracy through free and fair elections at all levels -- local, parliamentary and presidential.

The President’s visit to Northern Ireland in November 1995, the first ever by an American President, drew an unprecedented response from the people of both the Catholic and Protestant communities and sent an unmistakable signal of their support for peace. In 1994, U.S. engagement in Northern Ireland contributed to the establishment of a cease-fire, first by the IRA and subsequently by loyalist paramilitaries. U.S. economic and trade initiatives, including the White House Conference on Trade and Investment in May 1995, are aimed at promoting economic revitalization and job creation in Northern Ireland.

At the Summit of the Americas, the 34 democratic nations of the hemisphere agreed to a detailed plan of cooperative action in such diverse fields as health, education, science and technology, counter-narcotics, counterterrorism, environmental protection, information infrastructure and the strengthening and safeguarding of democratic institutions, in addition to mutual prosperity and sustainable development. The Summit ushered in a new era of hemispheric cooperation that would not have been possible without U.S. leadership and commitment. In the time since the Summit, progress on strengthening democratic institutions, thwarting international criminals and terrorists and preserving natural resources have helped improve the lives of the hemisphere’s residets.

The United States has increased support for South Africa as it conducted elections and became a multiracial democracy. During the state visit of Nelson Mandela in October 1994, we announced formation of a bilateral commission to foster new cooperation between our nations and an assistance package to support housing, health, education, trade and investment.

The United States, working with the Organization of American States, helped reverse an antidemocratic coup in Guatemala.

In Mozambique and Angola, the United States played a leading role in galvanizing the international community to help bring an end to two decades of civil war and to promote national reconciliation. For the first time, there is the prospect that all of southern Africa will enjoy the fruits of peace and prosperity.

At the 1993 UN Conference on Human Rights, the United States successfully argued for improved international mechanisms for the promotion of basic human rights on a global basis. The President signed the international convention on the rights of the child and supports Senate consent to ratification for the convention prohibiting discrimination against women. The United States also played a major role in promoting women’s -- and childen’s -- international rights at the 1995 UN Conference on Women in Beijing.

The national security strategy has reaped significant accomplishments for the betterment of the American people. It continues to take advantage of remarkable opportunities to shape a world conducive to U.S. interests and consistent with American values -- a world of open societies and open markets. Its tangible results were based on the belief that if we withdraw U.S. leadership from the world today, we will have to contend with the consequences of our neglect tomorrow. The progress the strategy has enabled us to make toward increased security, prosperity and advancement of democracy was not inevitable; nor will it proceed easily in an even, uninterrupted way -- there is a price for our leadership. Because of this, we know that there must be limits to America’s involvement in the world -- limits imposed by careful evaluation of our fundamental interests and frank assessment of the costs and benefits of possible actions. We cannot become involved in every problem, but the choices we make must be always guided by our objectives of a more secure, prosperous and free America and remain rooted in the conviction that America cannot walk away from its global interests or responsibilities, or our citizens’ security and prosperity will surely suffer.

As the distinction between domestic problems and international ones is increasingly blurred, we each have a very direct interest in ensuring the future success of this strategy: we cannot solve our own problems at home unless we are also operating in a world that is more peaceful, more democratic and more prosperous. If we can help lead the dozens of nations, the billions of producers and consumers who are trying to adapt to democracy and free markets, we help to create the conditions for the greatest expansion of prosperity and security the world has ever witnessed. This is what this strategy portends by reaffirming America’s leadership in the world.

This report has two major sections. The first part of the report explains our strategy of engagement and enlargement. The second part describes briefly how the Administration continues to apply this strategy to the world’s major regions.

Our leadership must stress preventive diplomacy -- through such means as support for democracy, economic assistance, overseas military presence, interaction between U.S. and foreign militaries and involvement in multilateral negotiations in the Middle East and elsewhere -- in order to help resolve problems, reduce tensions and defuse conflicts before they become crises. These measures are a wise investment in our national security because they offer the prospect of resolving problems with the least human and material cost.

Our engagement must be selective, focusing on the challenges that are most important our own interests and focusing our resources where we can make the most difference. We must also use the right tools -- being willing to act unilaterally when our direct national interests are most at stake; in alliance and partnership when our interests are shared by others; and multilaterally when our interests are more general and the problems are best addressed by the international community.

In all cases, the nature of our response must depend on what best serves our own long-term national interests. Those interests are ultimately defined by our security requirements. Such requirements start with our physical defense and economic well-being. They also include environmental security as well as the security of our values achieved through expansion of the community of democratic nations.

Our national security strategy draws upon a range of political, military and economic instruments, and focuses on the primary objectives that President Clinton has stressed throughout his Administration:

Enhancing Our Security. Taking account of the realities of the new international era with its array of new threats, a military capability appropriately sized and postured to meet the diverse needs of our strategy, including the ability, in concert with regional allies, to win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. We will continue to pursue a combination of diplomatic, economic and defense efforts, including arms control agreements, to reduce the danger of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional conflict and to promote stability.

Promoting Prosperity at Home. A vigorous and integrated economic policy designed to put our own economic house in order, work toward free and open markets abroad and promote sustainable development.

Promoting Democracy. A framework of democratic enlargement that increases our security by protecting, consolidating and enlarging the community of free market democracies. Our efforts focus on strengthening democratic processes in key emerging democratic states including Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine and other new independent states of the former Soviet Union.

In order to advance these objectives, we must remain engaged in the world through U.S. leadership, with our national security strategy based on enlarging the world community of secure, democratic and free market nations. Overall, this makes the world a safer and more prosperous place and in so doing directly advances our interests. Nations that feel secure due to our engagement overseas are more likely to support free trade and democratic institutions, thereby enhancing U.S. security and prosperity; nations with growing and open economies and strong ties to the United States are more likely to feel secure and to be unafraid of freedom, thereby not threatening us or others; and democratic states with similar values are less likely to threaten one anothers’ interests, and are more likely to cooperate in confronting mutual security threats and in promoting free and open trade and economic development.

The three basic objectives of our national security strategy will also guide the allocation of our limited national security resources. Because deficit reduction is also central to the long-term health and competitiveness of the American economy, we have made it, along with efficient and environmentally sound use of our resources, a major priority. Under the Clinton economic plan, the federal budget deficit has been lowered as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product from 4.9 percent in Fiscal Year 1992 to 2.4 percent in Fiscal Year 1995 -- the lowest since 1979.

Enhancing our Security

An important element of our security preparedness depends on durable relationships with allies and other friendly nations. Accordingly, a central thrust of our strategy of engagement is to sustain and adapt the security relationships we have with key nations around the world. These ties constitute an important part of an international framework that will be essential to ensuring cooperation across a broad range of issues. Within the realm of security issues, our cooperation with allies and friendly nations includes such activities as: conducting combined training and exercises, coordinating military plans and preparations, sharing intelligence -- particularly in support of multilateral peacekeeping efforts or initiatives to contain the inimical behavior of rogue states -- jointly developing new systems to include cooperative research and development programs and controlling exports of sensitive technologies according to common standards.

The new era presents a different set of threats to our security. In this new period, enhancing American security requires, first and foremost, developing and maintaining a strong defense capability of forces ready to fight. We are developing integrated approaches for dealing with threats arising from the development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction by other nations. Our security also requires a vigorous arms control effort and a strong intelligence capability. We have implemented a strategy for multilateral peace operations. We have clarified rigorous guidelines for when and how to use military force in this era.

We also face security risks that are not solely military in nature. An emerging class of transnational environmental and natural resource issues, and rapid population growth and refugee flows, are increasingly affecting international stability and consequently will present new challenges to U.S. strategy. Other increasingly interconnected, transnational phenomena such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking and organized crime also have security implications both for present and long-term American policy: the destructive forces we face inside our borders often have their origins overseas in rogue nations that breed and harbor terrorists, in countries where drugs are produced and in international organized crime cartels, which are principally headquartered outside our borders; and free and open societies, in a world brought closer together by a technology revolution where information, money and people can move rapidly and easily, are inherently more challenged by these kinds of forces.

We cannot protect ourselves against drug-related crime, track down terrorists, seize international criminals or stop the flow of illegal arms or weapons-related materials without both cooperation among the agencies within our government and the help of countries that are the origin of these forces and whose peace and freedoms are also jeopardized. That is why the President proposed new legislation and initiatives for the U.S. government last year, while also unveiling a new international proposal to work more closely with foreign governments in order to respond more effectively in fighting these forces that challenge our security from within and without.

Finally, the threat of intrusions to our military and commercial information systems poses a significant risk to national security and is being addressed.

Maintaining a Strong Defense Capability

To protect and advance U.S. interests in the face of the dangers and opportunities outlined earlier, the United States must deploy robust and flexible military forces that can accomplish a variety of tasks:

Deterring and Defeating Aggression in Major Regional Conflicts. Our forces must be able to help offset the military power of regional states with interests opposed to those of the United States and its allies. To do this, we must be able to credibly deter and defeat aggression by projecting and sustaining U.S. power in more than one region if necessary.

Providing a Credible Overseas Presence. U.S. forces must also be forward deployed or stationed in key overseas regions in peacetime to deter aggression and advance U.S. strategic interests. Such overseas presence demonstrates our commitment to allies and friends, underwrites regional stability, ensures familiarity with overseas operating environments, promotes combined training among the forces of friendly countries and provides timely initial response capabilities.

Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction. We are devoting greater efforts to stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means, limiting the spread of weapons-related materials and technology, and strengthening accounting and security procedures for global stocks of fissile materials. At the same time, we must improve our capabilities to deter, defend against and prevent the use of such weapons and protect ourselves against their effects.

Contributing to Multilateral Peace Operations. When our interests call for it, the United States must also be prepared to participate in multilateral efforts to resolve regional conflicts and bolster new democratic governments. Thus, our forces must be ready to participate in peacekeeping, peace enforcement and other operations in support of these objectives.

Supporting Counterterrorism Efforts, Fighting Drug Trafficking and Other National Security Objectives. A number of other tasks remain that U.S. forces have typically carried out with both general purpose and specialized units. These missions include: counterterrorism, noncombatant evacuation, counter-narcotics operations, special forces assistance to nations and humanitarian and disaster relief operations.

To meet all of these requirements successfully, our forces must be capable of responding quickly and operating effectively as a joint team. That is, they must be ready to fight and win. This imperative demands highly qualified and motivated people; modern, well-maintained equipment; realistic training; strategic mobility; sufficient support and sustainment capabilities; timely intelligence; and a healthy investment in science and technology.

Major Regional Contingencies

The forces the Administration fields today are sufficient, in concert with regional allies, to defeat aggression in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Programmed enhancements will sustain and strengthen that capability to meet future threats. As a nation with global interests, it is important that the United States maintain forces with aggregate capabilities on this scale. Obviously, we seek to avoid a situation in which an aggressor in one region might be tempted to take advantage when U.S. forces are heavily committed elsewhere. More basically, maintaining a ’two war’ force helps ensure that the United States will have sufficient military capabilities to deter or defeat aggression by a coalition of hostile powers or by a larger, more capable adversary than we foresee today. The need to deter or defeat aggression in two theaters was demonstrated by the real prospect of near simultaneous hostilities with Iraq and North Korea in the late summer of 1994. The threat of such near simultaneous hostilities and our rapid response in reinforcing our presence and deploying additional forces showed we have a correct and realistic defense strategy. And because tomorrow’s threats are less clear, a strategy for deterring and defeating aggression in more than one theater ensures we maintain the flexibility to meet unknown future threats, while our continued engagement represented by that strategy helps preclude such threats from developing in the first place.

We will never know with certainty how an enemy might fight or precisely what demands might be placed on our own forces in the future. The contributions of allies or coalition partners will vary from place to place and over time. Thus, balanced U.S. forces are needed in order to provide a wide range of complementary capabilities and to cope with the unpredictable and unexpected. Our forces must remain ready and modern to meet future, as well as present, threats or challenges. Integral to these efforts is the development of new systems and capabilities, incorporating state-of-the-art technology and new and more effective combat organizations.

Overseas Presence

• Give form and substance to our bilateral and multilateral security commitments.

• Demonstrate our determination to defend U.S. and allied interests in critical regions, deterring hostile nations from acting contrary to those interests.

• Provide forward elements for rapid response in crises as well as the bases, ports and other infrastructure essential for deployment of U.S.-based forces by air, sea and land.

• Enhance the effectiveness of coalition operations, including peace operations, by improving our ability to operate with other nations.

• Allow the United States to use its position of trust to prevent the development of power vacuums and dangerous arms races, thereby underwriting regional stability by precluding threats to regional security.

• Facilitate regional integration, since nations that may not be willing to work together in our absence may be willing to coalesce around us in a crisis.

• Promote an international security environment of trust, cooperation, peace and stability, which is fundamental to the vitality of developing democracies and free-market economies for America’s own economic well-being and security.

Through training programs, combined exercises, military contacts, interoperability and shared defense with potential coalition partners, as well as security assistance programs that include judicious foreign military sales, we can strengthen the local self-defense capabilities of our friends and allies. Through active participation in regional security dialogues, we can reduce regional tensions, increase transparency in armaments and improve our bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

By improving the defense capabilities of our friends and demonstrating our commitment to defend common interests, these activities enhance deterrence, encourage responsibility-sharing on the part of friends and allies, decrease the likelihood that U.S. forces will be necessary if conflict arises and raise the odds that U.S. forces will find a relatively favorable situation should a U.S. response be required. U.S. overseas presence visibly supports our strategy of engagement, and we must continually assess the best approaches to achieving its objectives.

Counterterrorism, Fighting Drug
Trafficking and Other Missions

At the same time, the challenges to the security of our citizens, our borders and our democratic institutions from destructive forces such as terrorists and drug traffickers is greater today because of access to modern technology. Cooperation, both within our government and with other nations, is vital in combating these groups that traffic in organized violence.

In October 1995, the President announced a new initiative to work more closely with foreign governments to fight these forces that threaten our security from without and within. Along with other provisions, it includes an invitation to join in the negotiation and endorsement of a declaration on citizen security, which would include a no-sanctuary pledge to terrorists and drug traffickers; a counterterrorism pact; an antinarcotics offensive; and a pledge to end the trafficking of illegal arms and of lethal nuclear, biological and chemical materials. We will continue to share intelligence in anticorruption and money-laundering programs to fight drug trafficking at its source; seek legislation that would prevent arms traders from fueling regional conflicts and subverting international embargoes; and provide increased manpower and funding, strengthened legislation and additional sanctions on states that sponsor terrorism to help protect our citizens.

Combating Terrorism

Our policy in countering international terrorists is to make no concessions to terrorists, continue to pressure state sponsors of terrorism, fully exploit all available legal mechanisms to punish international terrorists and help other governments improve their capabilities to combat terrorism.

Countering terrorism effectively requires close, day-to-day coordination among Executive Branch agencies. Under the Clinton Administration, the efforts of the Departments of State, Justice and Defense, the FBI and CIA have been coordinated, with increased funding and manpower focused on the problem. Positive results will come from integration of intelligence, diplomatic and rule-of-law activities, and through close cooperation with other governments and international counterterrorist organizations.

Improving U.S. intelligence capabilities is a significant part of the U.S. response, as the evolving nature of the threat presents new challenges to the intelligence community. Terrorists, whether from well-organized groups or the kind of more loosely organized group responsible for the World Trade Center bombing, have the advantage of being able to take the initiative in the timing and choice of targets. Terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction represents a particularly dangerous potential threat that must be countered.

The United States has made concerted efforts to punish and deter terrorists. On June 26, 1993, following a determination that Iraq had plotted an assassination attempt against former President Bush, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against the headquarters of Iraq’s intelligence service in order to send a firm response and deter further threats. Similarly, the United States obtained convictions against defendants in the bombing of the World Trade Center. In the last three years, more terrorists have been arrested and extradited to the United States than during the totality of the previous three Administrations. We are still determined to apprehend many others, including the suspected perpetrators of the Pan Am 103 bombing who are being sheltered in Libya, and those involved in the deadly attack on U.S. Government employees at CIA Headquarters in 1994.

A growing number of nations have responded to the Administrations message urging international cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Our success in hunting down terrorists is in large measure due to a growth of international intelligence sharing and increased international law enforcement efforts. At the Halifax Summit in 1995, the heads of state from the G-7 and Russia agreed to work more closely in combating terrorism. This led to the December 1995 ministerial in Ottawa, which announced a P-8 pledge to adopt all current counterterrorism treaties by the year 2000, to cooperate more closely in detecting forged documents and strengthening border surveillance, to share information more fully and effectively and to work together in preventing the use by terrorists of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Iran’s support of terrorism is a primary threat to peace in the Middle East and a major threat to innocent citizens everywhere. The President is determined to step up U.S. efforts bringing international pressure to bear on Iran for its support of terrorism. President Clinton imposed an embargo against Iran, depriving it of the benefits of trade and investment with the United States. The embargo’s immediate effect was to further disrupt an Iranian economy already reeling from mismanagement, corruption and stagnant oil prices. The United States also has sought the support of our friends and allies to adopt policies to limit Teheran’s threatening behavior. The G-7 has joined us in condemning Iran’s support for terrorism, and we have secured commitments fromRussia and other members of the post-COCOM “Wassenaar Arrangement” export control regime not to sell weapons to Iran that have sensitive, dual-use technologies with military end-uses.

U.S. leadership and close coordination with other governments and international bodies will continue, as also demonstrated by the UN Security Council sanctions against Libya for the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 bombings, an international convention dealing with detecting and controlling plastic explosives, and two important counterterrorism treaties -- the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Aviation and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Attacks Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

Fighting Drug Trafficking

The U.S. shift in strategy from the past emphasis on transit interdiction to a more evenly balanced effort with source countries to build institutions, destroy trafficking organizations and stop supplies of illicit drugs is showing positive results. The leaders of the most influential South American drug mafias, the Medellin and Cali Cartels, have been apprehended. The President also has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to undercut their financial underpinnings, freezing their assets in the United States and barring U.S. persons from doing business with them. He has announced a major initiative to combat money laundering throughout the globe, and at his direction, the government has identified the front companies and frozen the assets of the Cali Cartel to cut off its economic lifelines and to stop people from dealing unknowingly with its companies.

In addition, the United States, in cooperation with key producing countries, has undertaken initiatives to reinforce its interdiction activities near the source of production. To help root out the corruption in which narcotics trafficking thrives, we are working to support and strengthen democratic institutions abroad. We are also cooperating with governments that demonstrate political will to confront the narcotics threat.

Two comprehensive strategies have been developed, one to deal with the problem of cocaine and another to address the growing threat from high-purity heroin entering this country. We will engage more aggressively with international organizations, financial institutions and nongovernmental organizations in counternarcotics cooperation.

At home and in the international arena, prevention, treatment and economic alternatives must work hand-in-hand with law enforcement and interdiction activities. Long-term efforts will be maintained to help nations develop healthy economies with fewer market incentives for producing narcotics. The United States has increased efforts abroad to foster public awareness and support for governmental cooperation on a broad range of activities to reduce the incidence of drug abuse. Public awareness of a demand problem in producing or trafficking countries can be converted into public support and increased governmental law enforcement to reduce trafficking and production. There has been a significant attitudinal change and awareness in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly as producer and transit nations themselves become plagued with the ill effects of consumption.

Other Missions

U.S. forces also provide invaluable training and advice to friendly governments threatened by subversion, lawlessness or insurgency. At any given time, we have small teams of military experts deployed in roughly 25 countries helping host governments cope with such challenges.

U.S. military forces and assets are frequently called upon to provide assistance to victims of floods, storms, drought and other humanitarian disasters. Both at home and abroad, U.S. forces provide emergency food, shelter, medical care and security to those in need.

Finally, the United States will continue as a world leader in space through its technical expertise and innovation. Over the past 30 years, as more and more nations have ventured into space, the United States has steadfastly recognized space as an international region. Since all nations are immediately accessible from space, the maintenance of an international legal regime for space, similar to the concept of freedom of the high seas, is especially important. Numerous attempts have been made in the past to impose legal limitations on access to space by countries that are unable, either technologically or economically, to join space-faring nations. As the commercial importance of space is developed, the United States can expect further pressure from nonparticipants to redefine the status of space, similar to what has been attempted with exclusive economic zones constraining the high seas.

Retaining the current international character of space will remain critical to achieving U.S. national security goals. Our main objectives in this area include:

• Continued freedom of access to and use of space;

• Maintaining the U.S. position as the major economic, political, military and technological power in space;

• Deterring threats to U.S. interests in space and defeating aggressive or hostile acts against U.S. space assets if deterrence fails;

• Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to space;

• Enhancing global partnerships with other space-faring nations across the spectrum of economic, political and security issues.

Deciding When and How to Employ U.S. Forces

Although there may be many demands for U.S. involvement, the need to husband scarce resources requires that we must carefully select the means and level of our participation in particular military operations. And while it is unwise to specify in advance all the limitations we will place on our use of force, we must be as clear as possible about when and how we will use it.

There are three basic categories of national interests that can merit the use of our armed forces. The first involves America’s vital interests, that is, interests that are of broad, overriding importance to the survival, security and vitality of our national entity -- the defense of U.S. territory, citizens, allies and our economic well-being. We will do whatever it takes to defend these interests, including -- when necessary -- the unilateral and decisive use of military power. This was demonstrated clearly in the Persian Gulf through Desert Storm and, more recently, Vigilant Warrior, when Iraq threatened aggression against Kuwait in October 1994.

The second category includes cases in which important, but not vital, U.S. interests are threatened. That is, the interests at stake do not affect our national survival, but they do affect importantly our national well-being and the character of the world in which we live. In such cases, military forces should only be used if they advance U.S. interests, they are likely to be able to accomplish their objectives, the costs and risks of their employment are commensurate with the interests at stake and other means have been tried and have failed to achieve our objectives. Such uses of force should also be selective and limited, reflecting the relative saliency of the interests we have at stake. Haiti and Bosnia are the most recent examples in this category.

The third category involves primarily humanitarian interests. Here, our decisions focus on the resources we can bring to bear by using unique capabilities of our military rather than on the combat power of military force. Generally, the military is not the best tool to address humanitarian concerns. But under certain conditions, the use of our armed forces may be appropriate: when a humanitarian catastrophe dwarfs the ability of civilian relief agencies to respond; when the need for relief is urgent and only the military has the ability to jump-start the longer-term response to the disaster; when the response requires resources unique to the military; and when the risk to American troops is minimal. The relief operation in Rwanda is a good case in point. U.S. military forces performed unique and essential roles, stabilized the situation and then got out, turning the operation over to the international relief community.

The decision on whether and when to use force is therefore dictated first and foremost by our national interests. In those specific areas where our vital or survival interests are at stake, our use of force will be decisive and, if necessary, unilateral.

In other situations posing a less immediate threat, our military engagement must be targeted selectively on those areas that most affect our national interests -- for instance, areas where we have a sizable economic stake or commitments to allies and are as where there is a potential to generate substantial refugee flows into our nation or our allies’.

Second, in all cases, the costs and risks of U.S. military involvement must be judged to be commensurate with the stakes involved. We will be more inclined to act where there is reason to believe that our action will bring lasting improvement. On the other hand, our involvement will be more circumscribed when other regional or multilateral actors are better positioned to act than we are. Even in these cases, however, the United States will be actively engaged at the diplomatic level. But in every case, we will consider several critical questions before committing military force: Have we considered nonmilitary means that offer a reasonable chance of success? Is there a clearly defined, achievable mission? What is the environment of risk we are entering? What is needed to achieve our goals? What are the potential costs -- both human and financial -- of the engagement? Do we have a reasonable likelihood of support from the American people and their elected representatives? Do we have timelines and milestones that will reveal the extent of success or failure, and in either case, do we have an exit strategy?

The decision on how we use force has a similar set of derived guidelines:

First, when we send American troops abroad, we will send them with a clear mission and, for those operations that are likely to involve combat, the means to achieve their objectives decisively, having answered the questions: What types of U.S. military capabilities should be brought to bear, and is the use of military force carefully matched to our political objectives?

Second, as much as possible, we will seek the help of our allies and friends or of relevant international institutions. If our most important national interests are at stake, we are prepared to act alone. But especially on those matters touching directly the interests of our allies, there should be a proportionate commitment from them. Working together increases the effectiveness of each nation’s actions, and sharing the responsibilities lessens everyone’s load.

These, then, are the calculations of interest and cost that have influenced our past uses of military power and will guide us in the future. Every time this Administration has used force, it has balanced interests against costs. And in each case, the use of our military has put power behind our diplomacy, allowing us to make progress we would not otherwise have achieved.

One final consideration regards the central role the American people rightfully play in how the United States wields its power abroad: the United States cannot long sustain a fight without the support of the public, and close consultations with Congress are important to this effort. This is true for humanitarian and other nontraditional interventions, as well as war. Modern media communications confront every American with images that both stir the impulse to intervene and raise the question of an operation’s costs and risks. When it is judged in America’s interest to intervene, we must use force with an unwavering commitment to our objective. While we must continue to reassess any operation’s costs and benefits as it unfolds and the full range of or options, reflexive calls for early withdrawal of our forces as soon as casualties arise endangers our objectives as well as our troops. Doing so invites any rogue actor to attack our troops to try to force our departure from areas where our interests lie.

Combating the Spread and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles Weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological and chemical -- along with their associated delivery systems, pose a major threat to our security and that of our allies and other friendly nations. Thus, a key part of our strategy is to seek to stem the proliferation of such weapons and to develop an effective capability to deal with these threats. We also need to maintain robust strategic nuclear forces and to implement existing strategic arms agreements.

Nonproliferation and Counterproliferation

Through programs such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction effort and other denuclearization initiatives, important progress has been made to build a more secure international environment by combating the threat posed by the possible theft or diversion of nuclear warheads or their components. One striking example was the successful transfer in 1994 of nearly six hundred kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material from Kazakstan to safe storage in the United States. Kazakstan was concerned about the security of the material and requested U.S. assistance in removing it to safe storage. The Departments of Defense and Energy undertook a joint mission to retrieve the uranium. At the direction of the President, the two Departments have intensified their cooperative programs with Russia and other new independent states to enhance the security of nuclear material. These programs encompass both efforts to improve overall systems for nuclear material protection, control and accounting and targeted efforts to address specific proliferation risks. Under an agreement we secured with Russia, it is converting tons of highly enriched uranium from dismantled weapons into commercial reactor fuel and has begun delivering that fuel to the United States. With the United States and Russia, Ukraine is implementing the Trilateral Statement, which provides for the transfer of all nuclear warheads from Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement in return for fair compensation. Three-quarters of the nuclear weapons located in Ukraine at the beginning of 1994 have now been transferred to Russia for dismantlement. All the nuclear warheads in Kazakstan have been removed, and most are out of Belarus.

A key objective of our nonproliferation strategy was realized in May 1995 when a consensus of the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) extended the Treaty indefinitely and without conditions. That result ensured that all Americans today, as well as all succeeding generations, can count on the continuation of the Treaty that serves as the bedrock of all global efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

Achieving a zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as soon as possible, achieving a cut-off of fissile material production for nuclear weapons purposes and strengthening the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are important goals. They complement our comprehensive efforts to discourage the accumulation of fissile materials, to seek to strengthen controls and constraints on those materials, and over time, to reduce worldwide stocks.

To combat missile proliferation, the United States seeks prudently to broaden membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The Administration supports the earliest possible ratification and entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) as well as new measures to deter violations of and enhance compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). We also support improved export controls for nonproliferation purposes both domestically and multilaterally.

The proliferation problem is global, but we must tailor our approaches to specific regional contexts. We have concluded an Agreed Framework to bring North Korea into full compliance with its nonproliferation obligations, including the NPT and IAEA safeguards. The agreement also requires North Korea to freeze and eventually dismantle its indigenous nuclear program under IAEA monitoring. We will continue efforts to prevent Iran from advancing its weapons of mass destruction objectives and to thwart Iraq from reconstituting its previous programs. The United States seeks to cap, reduce and, ultimately, eliminate the nuclear and missile capabilities of India and Pakistan. In the Middle East and elsewhere, we encourage regional arms control agreements that address the legitimate security concerns of all parties. These tasks are being pursued with other states that share our concern for the enormous challenge of stemming the proliferation of such weapons.

The United States has signed bilateral agreements with Russia, Ukraine and South Africa, which commit these countries to adhere to the guidelines of the MTCR. We also secured China’s commitment to observe the MTCR guidelines and its agreement not to transfer MTCR-controlled, ground-to-ground missiles. Russia has agreed not to transfer space-launch vehicle technology with potential military applications to India. South Africa has agreed to dismantle its Category I (500 kilogram payload, 300 kilometer range) missile systems and has joined the NPT and accepted full-scope safeguards. Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovakia Republic, Poland and Romania have joined the Australia Group (which controls the transfer of items that could be used to make chemical or biological weapons). Hungary, Argentina, Russia, Brazil and South Africa have joined the MTCR. Argentina, Brazil and Chile have brought the Treaty of Tlatelolco into force. There has been major progress on the dismantlement and removal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) located in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan. Our Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program has made a significant contribution to this effort.

Thus, the United States seeks to prevent additional countries from acquiring chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and will use the full range of its intelligence capabilities to detect such activities. However, should such efforts fail, U.S. forces must be prepared to deter, prevent and defend against their use. As agreed at the January 1994 NATO Summit, we are working with our Allies to develop a policy framework to consider how to reinforce ongoing prevention efforts and to reduce the proliferation threat and protect against it.

The United States will retain the capacity to retaliate against those who might contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction so that the costs of such use will be seen as outweighing the gains. However, to minimize the impact of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on our interests, we will need the capability not only to deter their use against either ourselves or our allies and friends but also, where necessary and feasible, to prevent it.

This will require improved defensive and offensive capabilities. To minimize the vulnerability of our forces abroad to weapons of mass destruction, we are placing a high priority on improving our ability to locate, identify and disable arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, production and storage facilities for such weapons and their delivery systems. We also have vigorous and highly effective theater missile defense development programs designed to protect against conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Although the intelligence community does not believe that an intercontinental-range missile threat to our homeland is likely to emerge from rogue states in the foreseeable future, we are developing a national missile defense deployable readiness program so we can respond quickly (within 2-3 years) should a sooner-than-expected threat materialize.

Nuclear Forces

Arms Control

In the area of strategic arms control, prescribed reductions in strategic offensive arms and the steady shift toward less destabilizing systems remain indispensable. Ukraine’s December 1994 accession to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty -- joining Belarus and Kazakstan’s decision to be non-nuclear weapon states -- was followed immediately by the exchange of instruments of ratification and brought the START I treaty into force at the December 1994 CSCE summit, paving the way for the Senate’s advice andconsent for ratification of the 1993 START II Treaty on January 26, 1996. Under START II, the United States and Russia will each be left with between 3,000 and 3,500 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, which is a two-thirds reduction from the Cold War peak. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin have agreed that once START II is ratified by both countries, both nations will immediately begin to deactivate or otherwise remove from combat status, those systems whose elimination will be required by that treaty, rather than waiting for the treaty to run its course through the year 2003. START II ratification will also open the door to the next round of strategic arms control, in which we will consider what further reductions in, or limitations on, remaining U.S. and Russian nuclear forces should be carried out. We will also explore strategic confidence-building measures and mutual understandings that reduce the risk of accidental war.

The full and faithful implementation of other existing arms control agreements, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction Talks I (START I), Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, several nuclear testing agreements, the 1994 Vienna Document on Confidence and Security-Building Measures (CSBMs), Open Skies, the Environmental Modification Convention (EnMod), Incidents at Sea and many others will remain an important element of national security policy. The ongoing negotiation initiated by the United States to clarify the ABM Treaty by establishing an agreed demarcation between strategic and theater ballistic missiles, and updating the Treaty to reflect the break-up of the Soviet Union as well as the Administration’s efforts to resolve the CFE flank issue on the basis of a map realignment, reflects the Administration’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of crucial arms control agreements.

Future arms control efforts may become more regional and multilateral. Regional arrangements can add predictability and openness to security relations, advance the rule of international law and promote cooperation among participants. They help maintain deterrence and a stable military balance at regional levels. The U.S. is prepared to promote, help negotiate, monitor and participate in regional arms control undertakings compatible with American national security interests. We will generally support such undertakings but will not seek to impose regional arms control accords against the wishes of affected states. In this regard, the United States, United Kingdom and France announced they would sign the protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone in the first half of 1996.

As arms control, whether regional or global, becomes increasingly multilateral, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva will play an even more important role. The United States will support measures to increase the effectiveness and relevance of the CD. Arms control agreements can head off potential arms races in certain weapons categories or in some environments. We will continue to seek greater transparency, responsibility and, where appropriate, restraint in the transfer of conventional weapons and global military spending. The UN register of conventional arms transfers is a start in promoting greater transparency of weapons transfers and buildups, but more needs to be done.

In February 1995, the President approved a comprehensive policy on transfers of conventional arms that balances legitimate arms sales to support the national security of U.S. allies and friends and the need for multilateral restraint in transferring arms that would undermine stability. The United States has also led international efforts to create the multilateral “Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-use Goods and Technology” -- the successor to the Coordinating Committee for East-West Trade (COCOM) -- to provide a regime for transparency and restraint on dangerous transfers of conventional arms and dual-use technologies. Measures to reduce over-sized defense industrial establishments, especially those parts involved with weapons of mass destruction, will also contribute to stability in the post-Cold War world. The Administration has pursued defense conversion agreements with the former Soviet Union states, and defense conversion is also on the agenda with China. The United States has also proposed a regime to reduce the number and availability of the world’s long-lived antipersonnel mines whose indiscriminate and irresponsible use has reached crisis proportions. In addition, the Administration is leading the international effort to strengthen the laws governing landmine use in the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. The Administration obtained Senate consent to ratification of this Convention in March 1995.

Peace Operations

Multilateral peace operations are an important component of our strategy. From traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement, multilateral peace operations are sometimes the best way to prevent, contain or resolve conflicts that could otherwise be far more costly and deadly.

Peace operations often have served, and continue to serve, important U.S. national interests. In some cases, they have helped preserve peace between nations, as in Cyprus and the Golan Heights. In others, peacekeepers have provided breathing room for fledgling democracies, as in Cambodia, El Salvador and Namibia. And in Latin America, the United States, along with fellow Guarantors of the 1942 Rio Protocol Argentina, Brazil and Chile, has contributed to a border monitoring effort to stop fighting between Peru and Ecuador and help achieve a lasting resolution of their border dispute.

At the same time, however, we must recognize that some types of peace operations make demands on the UN that exceed the organization’s capabilities. The United States is working with the UN headquarters and other member states to ensure that the UN embarks only on peace operations that make political and military sense and that the UN is able to manage effectively those peace operations it does undertake. We support the creation of a professional UN peace operations headquarters with a planning staff, access to timely intelligence, a logistics unit that can be rapidly deployed and a modern operations center with global communications. The United States has reduced our peacekeeping payments to 25 percent while working to ensure that other nations pay their fair share. We are also working to ensure that peacekeeping operations by appropriate regional organizations such as NATO and the OSCE can be carried out effectively.

In order to maximize the benefits of UN peace operations, the United States must make highly disciplined choices about when and under what circumstances to support or participate in them. The need to exercise such discipline is at the heart of President Clinton’s policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations. The President’s policy review on peace operations -- the most thorough ever undertaken by an Administration -- requires the United States to undertake a rigorous analysis of requirements and capabilities before voting to support or participate in peace operations. The United States has not hesitated to use its position on the Security Council to ensure that the UN authorizes only those peace operations that meet these standards.

Most UN peacekeeping operations do not involve U.S. forces. On those occasions when we consider contributing U.S. forces to a UN peace operation, we will employ rigorous criteria, including the same principles that would guide any decision to employ U.S. forces. In addition, we will ensure that the risks to U.S. personnel and the command and control arrangements governing the participation of American and foreign forces are acceptable to the United States.

The question of command and control is particularly critical. There may be times when it is in our interest to place U.S. troops under the temporary operational control of a competent UN or allied commander. The United States has done so many times in the past -- from the siege of Yorktown in the Revolutionary War to the battles of Desert Storm. However, under no circumstances will the President ever relinquish his command authority over U.S. forces.

Improving the ways the United States and the UN decide upon and conduct peace operations will not make the decision to engage any easier. The lesson we must take away from our first ventures in peace operations is not that we should forswear such operations but that we should employ this tool selectively and more effectively. In short, the United States views peace operations as a means to support our national security strategy, not as a strategy unto itself.

The President is firmly committed to securing the active support of the Congress for U.S. participation in peace operations. The Administration has set forth a detailed blueprint to guide consultations with Congress. With respect to particular operations, the Administration will undertake consultations on questions such as the nature of expected U.S. military participation, the mission parameters of the operation, the expected duration and budgetary implications. In addition to such operation-specific consultations, the Administration has also conducted regular monthly briefings for congressional staff and will deliver an Annual Comprehensive Report to Congress on Peace Operations. Congress is critical to the institutional development of a successful U.S. policy on peace operations, including the resolution of funding issues that have an impact on military readiness.

Two other points deserve emphasis. First, the primary mission of our Armed Forces is not peace operations; it is to deter and, if necessary, to fight and win conflicts in which our most important interests are threatened. Second, while the international community can create conditions for peace, the responsibility for peace ultimately rests with the people of the country in question.

Strong Intelligence Capabilities

Because of the change in the security environment since the end of the Cold War, intelligence must address a wider range of threats and policy needs. In this demanding environment, the intelligence community must maintain its global reach, refine and further focus its collection efforts and work even more closely with the policy departments. Moreover, its analytic effort must provide a coherent framework to help senior U.S. officials manage a complex range of military, political and economic issues. Intelligence emphasis must be placed on preserving and enhancing those collection and analytic capabilities that provide unique information against those states and groups that pose the most serious threats to U.S. security.

To build greater focus, direction and responsiveness into these intelligence activities, the President last year signed a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) on intelligence priorities. This Directive established for the first time a series of categories of intelligence needs. This PDD is a flexible document designed to accommodate shifting priorities within the categories. Current Presidential priorities include:

• Warning and management of threats that pose a direct or immediate threat to U.S. interests.

• "Rogue states" whose policies are consistently hostile to the United States.

• Countries that possess strategic nuclear forces that can pose a threat to the United States and its allies.

• Command and control of nuclear weapons and control of nuclear fissile materials.

• Transnational threats such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international narcotics trafficking, international terrorism and international organized crime.

• Ongoing or potential major regional conflicts where the United States has national security interests.

• Intensified counterintelligence against hostile foreign intelligence services.

U.S. intelligence must not only monitor traditional threats but also assist the policy community to forestall new and emerging threats, especially those of a transnational nature. In carrying out these responsibilities, the intelligence community must:

• Support U.S. military operations worldwide. Whenever U.S. forces are deployed, the highest priority is to ensure that our military commanders receive the timely information required to execute successfully their mission while minimizing the loss of American lives.

• Support diplomatic efforts in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing policymakers and diplomats timely intelligence on political developments in key areas such as the Middle East, the Balkans and North Korea.

• Provide worldwide capabilities to detect, identify and deter efforts of foreign nations to develop weapons of mass destruction and ancillary delivery systems.

• Gather information on terrorist activities aimed at U.S. persons or interests and help thwart such activities whether conducted by well-organized groups or loose associations of disaffected individuals intent on striking at the United States.

• Provide worldwide capabilities to gather timely intelligence on current and emerging information technologies or infrastructure that may potentially threaten U.S. interests at home or abroad.

• Contribute where appropriate to policy efforts aimed at bolstering our economic prosperity.

• Provide the timely information necessary to monitor treaties, promote democracy and free markets, forge alliances and track emerging threats.

The collection and analysis of economic intelligence will play an increasingly important role in helping policymakers understand economic trends. Economic intellige