chapter 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Throughout its history the United States has acted to protect its territories, citizenry, and interests at home and abroad. The terrorist events of September 11, 2001, heightened public interest in national security matters, and the U.S. government has asked all Americans to be watchful, suspicious, and alert to signs of danger or potential security threats. Since September 11, 2001, rarely does a day pass without media attention focused on national security issues.

As new conflicts emerge and power shifts occur worldwide, America's role and responsibilities in terms of ensuring its own and other nations' security is evolving. As a global leader, the United States is challenged to continually revisit its fundamental values and to reset its national security agenda accordingly.

DEFINING NATIONAL SECURITY

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the term national security is used in the United States to describe both the concept and philosophy of protecting and defending the nation and as well as the specific programs and actions undertaken to achieve this important goal. The concept of national security has been defined in different ways throughout the years. However, most definitions of national security center not only on building and supporting the capacity to safeguard U.S. citizens but also on maintaining public confidence in the government's ability to defend against threats to national values, integrity, and property. In 1962 Arnold Wolfers wrote in Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press) that "Security, in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked." More than three decades later, Sam Sarkesian observed in U.S. National Security: Policy Makers, Processes, and Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2nd ed., 1995) that "National security is the confidence held by the great majority of the nation's people that the nation has the military capability and effective policy to prevent its adversaries from effectively using force in preventing the nation's pursuit of its national interests."

In 2002 President George W. Bush described the philosophical underpinning of the U.S. national security strategy as efforts aimed at protecting the fundamental values of freedom and human dignity.

The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity. — President George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT FOCUS ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES

Providing for the national security of the United States is one of the primary duties of the federal government. The Executive Office of the President, U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives act to establish policy and allocate resources to ensure national security. These policies are then carried out by the wide variety of federal agencies and offices that focus on diplomacy, trade, arms control, military intervention, espionage, money laundering, the environment, and immigration.

Executive Office of the President

The president is the highest executive leader of the United States and the commander in chief of all of the armed forces. As such, the president and his deputies are ultimately responsible for most decisions about national security.

Established by the National Security Act of 1947 (and later amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949), the National Security Council (NSC) is a part of the Executive Office of the President. Its primary function is to assist the president on all foreign policy and national security matters. The NSC is headed by the president, and its regular participants include the vice president, secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, secretary of defense, assistant to the president for national security affairs (also called the national security adviser), the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of central intelligence. Other key personnel, such as the president's chief of staff, counsel to the president, attorney general, and the assistant to the president for economic policy, are also invited to attend NSC meetings when necessary. Other branches of the Executive Office of the President that are involved in national security matters include:

• Office of Management and Budget
• National Security and International Affairs Division
• Office of National Drug Control Policy
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

The United States Congress

The U.S. Congress, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate, is crucial to any national security policy. The U.S. Constitution does not assign the executive branch supreme authority—it must have the support of its legislature. All laws and resolutions must be passed through both houses of Congress before the president can act on them. Treaties negotiated by the president must be ratified before the Senate before they are official. Select committees within Congress (such as the Committee on International Relations and the Subcommittee on Intelligence) also serve to oversee policies related to national security and international affairs. Congressional committees and offices related to national security include:

• Congress Budget Office, Defense and International Affairs
• Congressional Research Service
• U.S. Senate Committees: Appropriations; Armed Services; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Finance; Committee on Foreign Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Select Committee on Intelligence
• U.S. House of Representatives Committees: Appropriations; Banking and Financial Services; Budget; Commerce; Economic and Educational Opportunities; International Relations; Judiciary; National Security; Resources; Science; Transportation and Infrastructure; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Government Agencies and Organizations

Key agencies and organizations of the U.S. government are involved in the implementation of national security initiatives and programs that gather tactical military intelligence; respond to transnational threats, terrorism, or cyber warfare; provide border security; and aim to thwart narcotics trafficking, international organized crime, and the covert employment of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps chief among government organizations is the Department of Defense, which includes the U.S. Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. The armed forces all play vital roles in safeguarding the country's national security and are called in to enforce and defend U.S. security policies when needed. Figure 1.1 shows the involvement of these forces in the intelligence community. Additional agencies within the Department of Defense support military and security operations. Other federal entities involved in national security include:

• The Department of Commerce—Bureau of Industry and Security, International Trade Administration
• The Department of Energy—National Nuclear Security Administration, National Laboratories and Technology Centers
• The Department of Homeland Security—the U.S. Coast Guard, the Citizenship and Immigration Service, the Customs and Border Protection Service, the Office for Domestic Preparedness, the Transportation Security Administration
• The Department of Justice—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Drug Intelligence Center
• The Department of State—Foreign embassies, regional and functional bureaus, the National Foreign Affairs Training Center
• The Department of the Treasury—Office of International Affairs
• Independent Agencies—the Peace Corps, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, U.S. International Trade Commission, Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, U.S. Agency for International Development
• Federally Funded Research and Development Centers—the Center for Naval Analyses, RAND Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses

the intelligence community. Headed by the director of central intelligence (DCI), the U.S. intelligence community includes the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, and aspects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the

FIGURE 1.1

Treasury, Department of Energy, and Department of State. The main goal of the intelligence community is to prevent, detect, and defend against immediate and long-term threats to national security. The DCI is aided by another group, called the National Intelligence Council, which is composed of government intelligence officers as well as members of the public (academic or nonprofit organizations) and private sectors.

The intelligence community also includes national centers to address specific security threats: the Counterterrorist Center, the Crime and Narcotics Center, the Directorate for MASINT (Measurement and Signature Intelligence) and Technical Collection, the El Paso Intelligence Center, Information Analysis Infrastructure Protection, the National Drug Intelligence Center, the National Virtual Translation Center, the Terrorist Screening Center, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, and the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center.

DEFINING THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY

In general, threats to national security are distinguished from other common crimes by their scale and scope of action and because they:

• Have the potential to take more lives or cause much more damage and disruption
• Arise from a source in the international arena, usually as a reaction against a state's foreign policy
• Aim to make a political, ideological, or religious statement
• Are larger, more menacing, and perceived as a greater threats than those normally managed by local law enforcement authorities

National security threats may come from governments (also called "states"), subnational entities (such as terrorist groups, organized-crime networks, or companies practicing industrial espionage), external intelligencegathering agencies (private individuals or agencies hired to gather information), or even U.S. citizens. Prime targets for threats against U.S. national security include:

• U.S. citizens outside the country, including tourists traveling abroad, soldiers on active duty, and the diplomatic community
• U.S. property outside the country, including U.S. embassies, military facilities, naval ships, factories, and offices
• U.S. citizens, transportation centers, landmarks, ports, edifices and other physical structures within American borders

Throughout its history the U.S. government has not hesitated to take action to defend national security. Usually such actions, whether preemptive (to prevent or avert a potential threat) or defensive (in response to a real and present threat), are taken when there are significant risks to national interests. Risks to national interests are classified in response to the urgency and immediacy of the threat and its potential targets. The three broad classes of national security risks are:

1. Vital interests, or issues directly concerning the survival and safety of the country. These threats may involve physical territory, safety of citizens, or even danger to a close ally. A threat to a vital interest may well be met with military force.
2. Important national interests or risks in which national survival is not at stake. Such risks may imperil the world at large and could potentially escalate to threaten vital interests. Military mobilization and resource commitment vary depending on the situation.
3. Humanitarian or other interests, or those where the primary focus is on containing the problem and averting escalation rather than defending national security interests.

POWER AND NATIONAL SECURITY

A state's power, measured in terms of its resources, largely determines its ability to fulfill its national security agenda. Since definitions of the term "power" and the metrics applied to it vary, quantifying a state's power is challenging. In Foundations of National Power (New York: Van Nostrand, 1951), Harold and Margaret Sprout posited that a nation's power can be measured roughly by using the following equation:

National Power = human resources + physical habitat + foodstuffs and raw materials + tools and skills + organization + morale and political behavior + external conditions and circumstances.

Nation-states (a term used to describe a relatively homogenous population or persons of common nationality who inhabit a state) apply power in order to bring about the changes in the political, social economic, or military arenas.

MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY

The Early Twentieth Century

Modern U.S. national security policy and activities had their origins in intelligence gathering, code-breaking, and monitoring of international cables conducted during World War I (1914–18). In the following decade mechanical cipher machines automated encryption (the process of translating a message into an encoded message), and aerial photography enhanced surveillance capabilities.

During World War II (1939–45) U.S. military intelligence activities intensified. Cryptographers triumphed when they deciphered Japanese codes, and radar emerged as yet another means of surveillance. At the close of World War II, the United States emerged as the most powerful nation in the world. Still much of the world was ideologically and politically divided between the capitalist camp, headed by the United States, and the communist bloc (a group of nations), led by the Soviet Union. The fear and distrust that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union prompted the cold war (1946–90), a period of suspicion and rivalry that rapidly progressed to overt hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union. Cold war policies, particularly the emphasis on military readiness, laid the foundation for national security policy for decades to come.

The cold war standoff led to a massive arms expansion on both sides. Although the Soviet Union had a stronger military land force, America's naval superiority and its sole possession of the atomic bomb until 1949 gave it unrivaled power. An evaluation conducted by a joint Department of State/Department of Defense committee, which delivered its findings to the National Security Council in 1950 in a document labeled NSC 68, also spurred the U.S. military buildup. The document called for a massive buildup and increased funding for the armed forces in an effort to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence. This "containment" policy shaped U.S. national security thinking for decades.

U.S. policies for containing the Soviet Union were further supported by the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. The 1947 Truman Doctrine was a response to a growing communist threat in Greece and Turkey and marked the beginning of U.S. intervention around the world in the name of anticommunism. President Truman stressed the duty of the United States to combat totalitarian regimes (governments that seek total control of economic and political matters as well as the attitudes, values, and beliefs of the populace) worldwide. In an address before a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, he stated: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes."

The Marshall Plan, named for its author, Secretary of State George C. Marshall, was an economic aid package intended to help restore the economies of Europe (including West Germany) following the end of World War II. The plan served to re-establish stability in Europe and promote American interests.

In July 1947 the National Security Act created the National Military Establishment (Department of Defense), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), an independent Air Force (the Air Force had formerly been a division of the Army), and a cabinet-level Secretary of Defense. In 1948 the Armed Forces Security Agency was created to oversee the military intelligence agencies—Army Security Agency, Naval Security Group, and Air Force Security Service. One year later, in 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb.

The 1950s

During the 1950s the Korean War (1950–52) and advances in Soviet nuclear technology led the United States to reassess its strategic national security policies. Enormous military buildup and nuclear weapons made both the Soviets and Americans virtually impenetrable. In the mid-1950s President Dwight Eisenhower sought to achieve a balance between military spending and the health of the domestic economy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (the chairman, vice chairman, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps) examined U.S. strategic forces and made several recommendations:

• Withdrawal of some U.S. troops from abroad
• Creation of a mobile strategic reserve (a well-prepared, well-trained, and well-equipped military unit on reserve—as opposed to active duty—that could be mobilized quickly in the event of a threat to national security)
• Strengthening alliances while allowing allied forces to rely primarily on their own defenses
• Further investment in U.S. air defenses

In 1954 President Eisenhower introduced his "New Look" policy, which implemented these recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It also articulated the threat of massive retaliation as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. "Massive retaliation" involved instantaneous reaction to any Soviet threat using any means necessary, including nuclear weapons. U.S. officials reasoned that the Soviet Union would not attack the United States, even if it knew it could do major damage, if it knew that the inevitable result of such an attack would be severe damage to itself.

Also during the 1950s science and technology began to play an increasing role in American intelligence gathering and strategy. In March 1950 the United States Communications Intelligence Board was created, and in 1952 President Truman created the National Security Agency (NSA) under the authority of the Secretary of Defense. The NSA replaced the Armed Forces Security Agency and initially focused on code-breaking and other intelligence activities.

"Vulnerability of U.S. Strategic Air Power," a RAND report issued in April 1953, asserted that the United States was at risk of attack by Russian bombers because the country lacked a warning system. The report also assailed U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities and along with the perceived intelligence failures during the Korean War, it prompted the NSA to establish the first worldwide network of listening posts to intercept and monitor communications. Initially equipped with radio receivers, the stations quickly employed more sophisticated technology, including radar, computers, and satellites to obtain information.

The 1960s

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated the utility of the U.S. intelligence community's increasing ability to collect and analyze information. NSA listening posts detected communications between Russian ground controllers and Cuban pilots that revealed the Soviet Union's intention to move missiles into Cuba. U.S. surveillance flights over Cuba detected the Cuban missile sites, and enhanced intelligence capabilities proved to be pivotal in assisting the U.S. strategic management of the crisis.

The rapid nuclear arms buildup by both the Soviets and the Americans prompted the United States to reconsider its heavy reliance on nuclear weapons and to explore other policy options. Under the administration of President John F. Kennedy, the 1960s witnessed the beginning of yet another national security doctrine, called "flexible response." It was developed as the United States began to reexamine its diminishing reliance on conventional weapons and the increasing role played by tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Many U.S. policy makers and military leaders believed that if tensions heightened considerabably little would prevent an escalation from use of tactical nuclear weapons (small-scale nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield) to strategic nuclear weapons (more powerful weapons used to strike an enemy's military, economic, or political power sources). Policy makers speculated not only that the doctrine of massive retaliation would be ineffective when dealing with lower-level conflicts, such as clashes with Soviet proxies in smaller countries, but also that a real possibility existed that the world might become engaged in an all-out nuclear war.

Flexible response policy gave the president the ability to choose the appropriate level of force needed to deal with a wide range of challenges. The president could opt for a massive nuclear retaliation or a limited counterforce (attacking only the opponent's force structure) or countervalue (attacking the opponent's cities and populace) nuclear strike. Conventional forces were also strengthened and improved under this doctrine in order to shift away from heavy reliance on nuclear weapons. The military reserves and National Guard were expanded, the number of navy warships and army divisions was increased, and counterinsurgency (antirevolution or antirevolt) forces were enlarged. These conventional military forces were put to use in fighting the Soviet-backed North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War (1959–75).

Flexible response did not mean the end of the buildup of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons. By the late 1960s both the Soviet Union and the United States had acquired second-strike nuclear capability, meaning that each country was able to mount a serious retaliation against a nuclear strike on its territory.

The close of the decade saw the intensified efforts to gather domestic and foreign intelligence. The Intelligence Evaluation Committee (IEC) was established, the CIA ordered installation of monitoring devices in foreign embassies, and the NSA initiated a program that monitored the communications of some six hundred American citizens.

The 1970s

By the 1970s serious questions about U.S. national security policy arising from the unsuccessful American intervention in the Vietnam conflict prompted another reevaluation. The need for U.S. involvement to counter communism and contain the Soviet threat was coming under increasing scrutiny by both U.S. critics and the world at large. During this period U.S. policy makers developed the idea of "strategic sufficiency" (maintaining enough military might to deter the enemy from coercing a country or its allies) in order to preserve the doctrine of flexible response while simultaneously ensuring enough retaliatory power to guarantee mutually assured destruction (MAD) in case of a war. To reduce tensions and the possibility of a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, the administration of President Richard M. Nixon introduced the concept of "détente." As part of this approach, representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union met in 1969 for the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT I), in hopes of limiting the number of missiles each country deployed. In May 1972 Richard Nixon became the first American president to visit the Soviet Union, and he signed the SALT I Treaty, freezing the number of missiles at current levels for five years. President Nixon also pledged to increase trade and scientific cooperation between the two countries in such areas as space exploration.

In 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized the creation of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—eleven judges with the authority to issue warrants to the FBI and NSA for domestic surveillance. The following year the Special Collection Service (SCS)—a joint organization of CIA and NSA—began deploying trained agents on intelligence gathering missions.

The End of the Cold War

The cooperation of the détente period ended with the election of President Ronald W. Reagan in 1980. Reagan believed the Soviet Union had benefited disproportionately under détente and that the United States was held to fewer nuclear missiles than the Soviet Union. In addition Reagan believed that a renewed arms race would bankrupt the economically unsound communist regime and hasten its collapse. During the Reagan administration, spending on the U.S. military increased sharply. While some observers claim the collapse of the Soviet Union was the result in part of the heavy losses the Soviet army suffered in its invasion of Afghanistan (1979–88), others credit Reagan's defense spending as driving the weak Soviet economy to the breaking point. What is undeniable is that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Soviet Union fell apart. Eastern European states previously dominated by the Soviets overthrew their communist governments, and in 1991 the Soviet Union itself broke down into over a dozen different nations, of which Russia was by far the largest.

THE GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREAKUP OF THE SOVIET UNION

The 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union into independent states and its gradual conversion to a capitalist economy brought an end to the bipolar global structure in which most world power rested in the hands of the U.S. and Soviet blocs. What has happened to the balance of power in the world since then is a matter of debate. One theory is that the world has primarily followed an unrivaled U.S. leadership, or "unipolar hegemony." This notion of unipolarity was strongly validated when the United States led a forceful alliance against Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991.

Other international analysts contend that this theory grossly overstates American dominance and that, in fact, the world is much more "multipolar" in nature. A multipolar global order relies on international interdependence, in which each region finds its own optimal power structure. Power, in a multipolar world—whether military, economic, or political—varies from nation to nation, and each uses its strength to fight for survival and dominance.

Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a prominent theorist on international relations, developed yet another model—that of "multilateral interdependence," in which the world power structure can be compared to a three-layer cake. The top military layer is mainly unipolar, since not many states can rival the military might of the United States. The middle economic layer is tripolar, consisting primarily of the strong U.S., western European, and Japanese economies. The bottom layer is made up of transnational interdependence among a number of states. As the idea of interdependence grows, states realize that cooperation is essential to carrying out their policies, especially in the realm of national security.

For the United States this notion is evidenced by the country's participation in various international organizations and regional alliances under the umbrella of "collective security." Collective security is the idea that a group of states sharing common interests should join together against any potential aggression or opposition. A threat to one means a threat to all. This is not a recent phenomenon and can be traced back centuries to ancient times. In the early twenty-first century, the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are the primary bodies through which the United States engages in collective security. Bilateral military alliances (between the United States and one other country) or multilateral alliances (involving several countries) are other avenues for collective security.

CHANGING GLOBAL DYNAMICS: THE UNITED STATES AS A GLOBAL LEADER

To understand national security, it is necessary to consider a country's policies within the context of its history, ideology, and existing political governance. As societies and states continue to evolve, so do the relationships between them. Each generation sees a new set of global conflicts and political alliances, as well as shifts in interstate dynamics.

The twentieth century witnessed a host of political phenomena, such as the fall of colonialism, the rise of capitalist economies, the growth of industry, growing concern for human rights, and the spread of nuclear weapons. All countries, including the United States, were challenged to adapt and modify their policies in response to shifts in global power. Until 1991 much of the globe was involved in the cold war, which divided the world along ideological lines. Many countries found themselves allying with either the Soviet or U.S.-led blocs, though others remained nonaligned.

The world in the early twenty-first century is very different from what it was even just a few decades ago. The United States is a leading superpower both in economic and military might. The economic, social, cultural, and military trends that accompany globalization (the increasing integration of world markets for goods, services, and capital that transcend national borders) have influenced the United States to adopt policies that strengthen its position as a global leader. This global presence and preeminence is a double-edged sword—it creates opportunities for the U.S. domestically and abroad and also incites conflicts, threatening national security by rendering the United States and its allies targets. It also pressures the United States to stretch, and possibly even overextend, its military forces.

UNDERSTANDING THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY

All states seek self-preservation, and ultimately it is up to each country to craft a security framework to ensure its own survival. Although the strategies have varied, the goals of American national security programs have always been to protect the sovereignty of the United States and to protect U.S. interests. The country's political leaders, military, and intelligence community establish and execute a national security policy. To enact policy, they employ such actions and strategies as diplomacy, military intervention, trade agreements, and alliances to advance the U.S. national security agenda.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, preventing and defending against international terrorism and strengthening U.S. homeland security have dominated the national security agenda; however, other international concerns continue to influence America's national security policies:

• The United States depends on oil and gas imports from the Persian Gulf. The unpredictable prices of these imports, combined with declining U.S. oil production, present problems for the United States. In addition, U.S. and UN sanctions against Iran, first imposed in October 1987 because of that country's continuing support of international terrorism and its aggressive actions against shipping in the Persian Gulf (Iran: What You Need to Know about U.S. Economic Sanctions, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 2003), do not allow it to increase its oil output and have generated hostility toward the nations and organizations imposing the sanctions.
• Several nations, including North Korea and Iran, have aggressive programs to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
• The United States and other countries, including U.S. allies, have significant political and ideological differences about policies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
• The United States is concerned about the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.
• There is rising anti-U.S. sentiment around the world, ranging from sharp disapproval of U.S. foreign policy to extreme anti-Americanism.
• WMD and small arms threaten to proliferate worldwide.
• Combating the illegal drug trade drains millions of dollars each year and commits national resources and personnel to a fight that has no foreseeable conclusion.
• Various "transition states" and "states of concern," two types of geopolitical entities, may be either potential allies or may work overtly or covertly to undermine U.S. national security. Transition states and states of concern are explained in greater detail in the next two sections.

Transition States

A transition state is a country that is slowly becoming more like a traditional Western capitalist society. Examples of transition states include Eastern European countries, China, and India. To encourage these countries to make the transition to capitalism, the United States promotes (a) the growth of market democracy in the country and (b) increases in the country's per capita gross domestic product (GDP), or the total value of the goods and services it produces. This policy often involves the United States in interventions in unstable parts of the world. Often, American involvement and intervention in these countries is viewed as evidence of increasing Western interference with indigenous cultures and ways of life. For example, U.S. support for the dismantling of state-owned industries, water, and electrical power often causes sharp price increases. As a result, poor people cannot afford these vital resources. However, the private utility companies that provide and purchase these resources benefit.

russia, china, and india. The three large transitional states on the Eurasian landmass—Russia, China, and India—present the United States with opportunities in terms of economics and strategic alliances. However, the United States also prefers to maintain a balance of power and prevent the regional dominance, or hegemony, of any one of these countries. Following established national security policy guidelines, America strives to counter the spread of conventional weapons and WMD in and from these countries.

Russia, China, and India are not strong U.S. allies like some western European nations, and their transition to free-market economies is far from complete. Among these transition states, China may have the best chance to fulfill the promise of its potential. Between 1978 and 2003, China's gross domestic product (GDP) quadrupled, according to the The World Factbook (Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2004), rising to $6.45 trillion. India's 2003 GDP was $3.03 trillion, while Russia's was $1.28 trillion. India has averaged an annual growth in GDP of 6% since 1990. China was, from 1979 through 1999, the world's fastest-growing economy.

With a population of nearly 1.3 billion people (according to the CIA's World Factbook) and an expanding role in Asia, China is a rising power. The Soviet Union's collapse permitted China to reduce its military forces in the north and devote more military resources to the south and southeast. China has also expanded its participation in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the ASEAN Regional Forum. In the late 1990s its economic success allowed it to provide a $1 billion loan to Thailand through the International Monetary Fund. It is one of the five powers (along with Russia, North Korea, South Korea, and the United States) negotiating the future of the Korean Peninsula.

China's defense spending has risen steadily, from $14.6 billion in 2000 to $20.4 billion in 2002. (See Table 1.1.) The estimate for 2003 is $60 billion, according to the World Factbook. In addition, the amount China spends on defense as a percentage of its GDP has also risen, from 1.2% in 1998 to 1.5% in 2001. (See Figure 1.2.)

China has also become more assertive regionally. It claims the Senakaku Islands, which Japan also claims, and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, which are also claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Taiwan. To reinforce the latter claim, China seized Mischief Reef in the Spratlys in 1995. In May 1996 China formally expanded its claimed sea area from 370,000 to 3,000,000 square kilometers (from 142,858 to 1,158,307 square miles).

Perhaps most important, China claims that the island of Taiwan is part of China because it was considered Chinese territory until the end of World War II, when military leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to the island to form a separate noncommunist state. Taiwan, which is richer, more confident, and more democratic than China, but much smaller, challenges the assertion that it should be considered part of mainland China.

The world got a glimpse of China's threatening ambitions in 1996, when it fired ballistic missiles into the waters around Taiwan. The Taiwan issue is a flashpoint in Chinese-American relations. Officially, the United States calls for a "one-China" policy, which recognizes the rights of the mainland government, based in the capital of Beijing. However, the United States also pledges to defend Taiwan at all costs if an attempt is made to militarily force the island to unify with mainland China. For

TABLE 1.1

American policy makers, the ultimate goal is to seek a peaceful reunification between the two countries.

In the late 1990s the administration of President Bill Clinton called for a strategy of "engagement" in U.S.-China relations that would reflect the principles of "taming the dragon." In a speech presented at the National Geographic Society in June 1998, President Clinton stated that "bringing China into the community of nations, rather than trying to shut it out, is plainly the best way to advance both our interests and our values."

Russia, China, and India are major military powers in Asia in terms of both conventional and nuclear weapons. Russia is India's leading arms supplier, although Britain, France, Germany, and Israel have contributed to the development of its weapons arsenal as well. In the decades since India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1948, the two countries have continued to dispute ownership of the region of Kashmir. Each nation blames the other for the consequent arms buildup, which includes nuclear weapons. Both countries have tested nuclear weapons, creating further tensions and animosity. Pakistan continues to engage in significant weapons transactions with China and North Korea.

India exercises regional influence over such surrounding states as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. China, however, like Pakistan, presents a serious obstacle to India and is a serious strategic rival. In late 1996 Chinese president Jiang Zemin's visit to India led to a significant thaw in India-China relations. The two sides agreed to set aside border disputes, but the relationship between the two countries continues to be one of serious rivalry over regional influence, global status, energy access, foreign investment, and trade. Senior Indian officials identified China, not Pakistan, as the key reason for their May 1998 nuclear tests.

Relations between India and China are of strategic concern to the United States because both countries have nuclear weapons and both possess ambitions to regional domination. Good relations between India and China are perceived as

FIGURE 1.2

necessary by the United States in order to maintain regional stability for both economic and political purposes.

All three transition states—Russia, India, and China—have the military potential to greatly upset their regions of the world. According to Global Security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org), Russia has 1.2 million troops in Eurasia and plans to reduce that number to 800,000 by 2006. Its offensive forces no longer menace Europe, but it is still far stronger than its immediate neighbors. In South Asia, India has twice as many troops as its rival, Pakistan, but both are equipped with nuclear weapons, and in recent years the two countries' animosity over disputed Kashmir has intensified.

Cooperation with and among these states greatly improves U.S. national security in and around Eurasia. Although the United States cannot dictate policies to sovereign nations, it can offer diplomatic channels and mediation opportunities to try to enhance the countries' transitions to free-market economies and democratic societies.

States of Concern

States of concern (also known as "rogue states") are countries perceived as dangerous to the United States and its allies. Such states as Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and Cuba, which have demonstrated hostility toward the United States, are considered states of concern. Iraq was considered a rogue state until the U.S. invasion in 2003 overthrew that country's leader, Saddam Hussein. Libya, too, changed its policies toward the United States. In 2003 Libya took responsibility for its role in the terrorist bombing of Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, and agreed to pay restitution. In December 2003 it agreed to end its programs to develop WMD.

The U.S. Department of State claims that rogue countries have established links to terrorist networks. The Clinton administration defined such states as "recalcitrant and outlaw states that not only choose to remain outside the family of democracies, but also that assault democratic values" (Strategic Assessment 1999: Priorities for a Turbulent World, Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 1999). This definition applies to countries that threaten U.S. interests by unconventional and violent means. It is generally agreed that such states can swiftly destabilize their respective regions and other regimes in surrounding areas, and also threaten vital U.S. interests and national security.

As of 2004 many states of concern were ruled by longstanding leaders who were not democratically elected.

• Cuba's leader, Fidel Castro, seized power in 1959 and has led the communist-controlled government ever since.
• Communist leader Kim Jong-il appeared to have consolidated power in North Korea after the death of his father, Kim Il-sung (who led the country from 1948 until his death in 1994).
• Libya's Muammar Qadhafi, who took control in a military coup in 1969, did not face any organized opposition, nor was there a more moderate leadership capable of replacing him.
• Syria's leader, Bashar al-Assad, inherited control of the country after his father, President Hafez al-Assad, who had ruled for thirty years, died in 2000.
• Iran's Muslim cleric leadership, which came to power in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, remained in power, with its chief of state (supreme leader), Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the helm since 1989. Though the more liberal government of Iran's elected president, Mohammad Khatami, had made overtures toward reform and had been seeking more democracy in the Islamic republic, Khamenei and his allies opposed many of the changes.

These states seek to gain military strength to support their regimes by buying weapons and materials from sympathetic states manufacturing conventional weapons or WMD. This makes U.S. efforts to isolate such countries by imposing sanctions on weapons and other imports and exports ineffective. Some transition states, as well as some of America's closest allies, do not support U.S. policies such as sanctions to isolate states of concern. For example, most of America's European allies reject U.S. efforts to punish companies doing business with Cuba, Libya, or Iran. France's oil consortium openly challenged such U.S. sanctions by investing in Iranian oil fields, and Canadian companies regularly invest in Cuban businesses. Other countries continue to sell weapons to states considered "rogues" by the United States.

States of concern to the United States are capable of using violence to alter the regional status quo. Both Iran and Iraq competed to control the Persian Gulf region, with Iraq having attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. North Korea seeks control of the entire Korean Peninsula, which is also claimed by South Korea. Syria seeks to intimidate Israel and to control its part of the Middle East. States of concern may threaten neighboring nations—including U.S. allies—or control local resources, such as petroleum, that are of vital interest to the West.