Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 17
Introduction The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181, Title XIII, Section 1306) includes a provision calling for the secretary of defense to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake a study on strengthening and expanding the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (DOD CTR) program. Congress stipulated that the study should include an assessment of new CTR initiatives and identify options and recommendations for strengthening and expanding the CTR pro - gram. Section 1306 identifies regions that should be considered, noting in particular the potential for DOD CTR programs in the Middle East and Asia, and for activities related to the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of korea (DPRk). The legislation also includes a statement of the sense of Congress that new programs should be implemented following several principles. As the committee proceeded with its work engaging both the Con - gress and the executive branch, it became clear that an effective DOD CTR program for the future could only be understood in the context of a compre - hensive and synergistic government-wide CTR effort. Thus, the committee has sought to address the broader issues necessary to fulfill its mandate with respect to the DOD CTR program. In March 2008, the National Research Council (NRC), acting on behalf of the NAS, entered into a contract with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), acting on behalf of DOD, to carry out this study. The resulting report sets forth the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Strengthen - ing and Expanding the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program established by the NRC to undertake the study. (See Appendix B for biographical information on the committee members.) Also included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Section 1308) was a provision calling for an NAS study of how the DOD CTR Biologi - 

OCR for page 17
 GLOBAL SECURITY ENGAGEMENT cal Threat Reduction Program might be applied to developing countries. In response, a separate report has been prepared by the NRC, entitled Countering Biological Threats: The Important Role of the Department of Defense’s Nonpro - liferation Program Beyond the Former Soiet Union. A separate NRC committee was responsible for that report, which was released in February 2009. Although that report focuses specifically on issues in the biological field, there is some overlap with this report. The two reports are intended to be complementary, but each was produced independent of the other. STATEMENT OF TASk This study responds to the task set forth in the legislation and in the subsequent contract between NRC and DTRA (see Appendix A for full legislation): 1. An assessment of new CTR initiatives to include at a minimum • Programs and projects in Asia and the Middle East; and • Activities relating to the denuclearization of the DPRk. 2. An identification of options and recommendations for strengthening and expanding the CTR program. New initiatives should • Be well coordinated with the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and any other relevant U.S. government agency or department; • Include appropriate transparency and accountability mechanisms, and legal frameworks and agreements between the United States and CTR partner countries; • Reflect engagement with nongovernmental experts on possible new options for the CTR program; • Include work with the Russian Federation and other countries to estab - lish strong CTR partnerships that, among other things, • Increase the role of scientists and government officials of CTR part - ner countries in designing CTR programs and projects; and • Increase financial contributions and additional commitments to CTR programs and projects from Russia and other partner countries, as appropriate, as evidence that the programs and projects reflect national priorities and will be sustainable.

OCR for page 17
 INTRODUCTION • Include broader international cooperation and partnerships, and increased international contributions; • Incorporate a strong focus on national programs and sustainability, which includes actions to address concerns raised and recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office, in its report of February 2007 titled “Progress Made in Improving Security at Russian Nuclear Sites, but the Long- Term Sustainability of U.S. Funded Security Upgrades is Uncertain,” which pertain to the Department of Defense; • Continue to focus on the development of CTR programs and projects that secure nuclear weapons; secure and eliminate chemical and biological weapons and weapons-related materials; and eliminate nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons-related delivery vehicles and infrastructure at the source; and • Include efforts to develop new CTR programs and projects in Russia and the former Soviet Union, and in countries and regions outside the former Soviet Union, as appropriate and in the interest of U.S. national security. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT This report has 5 chapters and 10 appendixes. There is a “Chapter Sum- mary of Findings and Recommendations” at the end of each chapter. • Chapter 1 summarizes the evolution of CTR activities, beginning with the programs established to respond to the collapse of the Soviet Union through today’s broad range of U.S. government and international threat reduction efforts. This chapter is not meant to be encyclopedic, but offers an overview of the program and how it evolved, and highlights some of the many accomplish - ments that have been achieved under the DOD CTR program. • Chapter 2 sets out the vision of what CTR 2.0 is and why the program should evolve in that direction. • Chapter 3 describes the form and function of CTR 2.0, indentifying key elements that will characterize this new approach. These elements recognize the need for flexibility and adaptability, the central role played by partnership, and the overarching requirement for clear strategic guidance and leadership from the White House and other senior members of the administration, and new budgetary, legal, and policy tools that are needed. This chapter also pro - vides some examples of the types of activities the committee expects could be undertaken under CTR 2.0. • Chapter 4 discusses the role that the DOD CTR program might have in CTR 2.0 and provides some illustrations of the types of programs that should be considered. The committee did not prescribe activities for a specific group of countries or region, but rather attempted to demonstrate that by thinking more broadly and creatively about global security engagement, and by engaging

OCR for page 17
0 GLOBAL SECURITY ENGAGEMENT a range of partners, it should be possible to identify meaningful activities for almost any environment of security interest to the United States. • Chapter 5 addresses strategic implementation issues for CTR 2.0 and how to move from concept to action. The chapter draws together several actions from the findings and recommendations. • The appendixes provide references and other supporting documenta - tion for the discussions in the report. INFORMATION SOURCES The committee members and staff reviewed many relevant reports, some of which were released around the time this report went into review. To the extent possible, the committee considered the findings and recommendations of these and other relevant studies. key documents are cited in the text, footnotes, and appendixes of the report (see Appendix C). Additionally, the committee held several meetings in Washington, D.C. (see Appendix D), during which it received briefings from officials and representa - tives from DTRA, the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, and Health and Human Services, and nongovernmental organizations engaged in implementing and analyzing CTR programs. In response to initial findings, several committee members and staff visited the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command, Euro- pean Command, and the newly formed African Command. Finally, the commit- tee has collected a large library of open-source, publicly available materials on the CTR program to support its research. Following the close of this project, these resources will be made available to the public via the Internet. The committee and the Department of Defense, as the report sponsor, rec- ognized that discussing options for global security engagement could easily lead to classified issues. Therefore, by mutual agreement, issues such as the role of the intelligence community, the relationship between CTR programs and other security negotiations, and sensitive information on the relationship between the United States and other governments are not explored in this report.