Global Security Engagement A New Model for Cooperative Threat Reduction (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 The Form and Function of Cooperative Threat Reduction 2.0: Engaging Partners to Enhance Global Security
3 The Form and Function of Cooperative Threat Reduction 2.0: Engaging Partners to Enhance Global Security
Pages 69-98
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 69... ...
Global security engagement assumes that new partners participate not only because they confront or represent some level of threat, but also because they are security partners. This partnership will be reflected in longer-term efforts to build relationships and capacity.
|
From page 70... ...
, the Proliferation Security Initiative, the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT)
|
From page 71... ...
government (USG) CTR programs become global.
|
From page 72... ...
The committee has not seen evidence that a model currently exists for this level of cooperative and collaborative interaction. Finding 3-1: The lack of a government-wide tracking program for USG CTR programs that cross agency budgets impedes the U.S.
|
From page 73... ...
This interagency effort, "United States Bioengagement Strategy," led by the National Security Council−Homeland Security Council (NSC-HSC) and begun in 2008, is a possible model for USG CTR's evolution.
|
From page 74... ...
The Biological Threat Reduction Program of the Department of Defense: From Foreign Assistance to Sustainable Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
|
From page 75... ...
Recommendation 3-1: CTR 2.0 should be directed by the White House through a senior official at the National Security Council and be implemented by the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, and other relevant cabinet secretaries. Having the Right Tools USG CTR currently has a substantial array of programs and resources, but new engagements may require new tools or old tools used in a new way.
|
From page 76... ...
Based on this analysis, the upper right quadrant offers the richest opportunities for engagement, but at least some level of activity can be projected for all quadrants. If the figure is used to map a biosecurity strategy, it shows that disease surveillance activities can be pursued with almost any country, whereas more sensitive areas like the security of biological facilities and pathogen collections and engaging in joint research are reserved to a more select group of partners.
|
From page 77... ...
However, a USG CTR biosecurity engagement program has established a successful program based on a modest science cooperation program started by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
|
From page 78... ...
Finding 3-4: Strategies that employ soft engagement, sometimes facilitated by NGOs, academe, or other nontraditional diplomatic efforts, may be necessary to support or initiate CTR 2.0 engagements. Recommendation 3-1a: Domestically, CTR 2.0 should include a broad group of participants, including government, academe, industry, nongovernment organizations and individuals, and an expanded set of tools, developed and shared across the U.S.
|
From page 79... ...
Another opportunity for CTR 2.0 to support a new international security instrument is the potential for supporting the implementation of UNSCR 1540 and subsequent related resolutions.15 UNSCR 1540 requires states "to refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery."16 The binding obligations of the resolution include a requirement that states "adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws which prohibit any non-State actor to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their means of delivery," and a requirement that states "take and enforce effective measures to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery." It also encourages international cooperation and has a mechanism that allows states to request assistance. The types of assistance under UNSCR 1540 include areas that would be appropriate for CTR 2.0 activities:17 11 Department of State.
|
From page 80... ...
The PPI mission of countering efforts by terrorists to secure WMD and WMD components, materials, and expertise is consistent with UNSCR 1540; and the program goals of improving the security of states' borders, building the capacity of states to investigate WMD-related thefts and smuggling, and securing any WMD materials within their borders are either directly relevant to other environments or could be modified to respond to those environments. Current program activities include providing equipment, logistics support, training, and other support to appropriate partner country government agencies.
|
From page 81... ...
Coast Guard. In addition, the DOD CTR Defense and Military Contacts Program already carries out activities that could be applied easily to a global environment.
|
From page 82... ...
82 TABLE 3.1 UNSCR 1540: Requested CTR-Relevant Assistance by Category and Country Detection Legislation Import/Export Border or Training or Police, Border, and Regulatory Licensing and Customs Detection Customs, Military Generally Assistance Controls Assistance Hardware Training Interested Albania X X X Angola X Armenia X Bahamas X X X X Belize X Benin X X Bolivia X Cambodia X X X Colombia X X X X Guatemala X X Jamaica X Lebanon X X Lithuania X Marshall Islands X X X X Morocco X X X Philippines X X X X ports Serbia X X X X Syria X Thailand X X X X Uzbekistan X X X
|
From page 83... ...
Finding 3-6: In addition to supporting traditional arms control and nonproliferation agreements, CTR 2.0 can be used to advance other multilateral (Proliferation Security Initiative, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism) and various international security instruments such as UNSCR 1540 and related resolutions.
|
From page 84... ...
Recommendation 3-1b: Internationally, CTR 2.0 should include multilateral partnerships that address both country and region-specific security challenges, as well as provide support to the implementation of international treaties and other security instruments aimed at reducing threat, such as the G8 Global Partnership, the Proliferation Security Initiative, UNSCR 1540, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Personal Engagement Professional colleagues -- friend or foe -- throughout the world respect intellect and technical competence.
|
From page 85... ...
CTR 1.0 to CTR 2.0: The Global Security Continuum Congress has done much over the years to amend legislation in ways that allow USG CTR programs to work more broadly and effectively, but some legal and policy underpinnings of the current CTR 1.0 program are cumbersome and dated and often diminish the value of assistance and partnership programs. Although the DOD CTR authorizing legislation has undergone some funda
|
From page 86... ...
government agencies for different durations. One agency involved in USG CTR programs may receive funds that have to be obligated within the fiscal year in which they were appropriated;
|
From page 87... ...
1. Preferred Approach: The executive branch works with Congress to add authorities to the departments whose participation is crucial to the success of global security engagement programs.
|
From page 88... ...
Funding with International Partners The congressional request for this study expressed a particular interest in how USG CTR programs can work more effectively with international partners and how, through those partnerships, the United States can encourage more partner funding. In reviewing this question, the committee determined that the current lack of comingling authority needs to be addressed.
|
From page 89... ...
Comingling authority adds the additional flexibility that may make participation possible in such cases. Recommendation 3-3b: Congress should provide comingling authority to all agencies implementing programs under CTR 2.0 as a way to encourage other partners to contribute funds to global security engagement efforts.
|
From page 90... ...
On June 19, 2006, the United States and Russia signed a protocol to extend for another 7-year period the U.S.-Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction Umbrella Agreement, which entered into force in 1992, and was first extended in 1999. As a result of protracted negotiations over the agreement's liability protections, the 2006 Extension Protocol was signed less than a week before the agreement was due to expire.22 Press reports portrayed the DOD CTR program as nearly derailed by the dispute.23 The DOD CTR agreement's access and taxation exemption provisions have also been the subject of contention.
|
From page 91... ...
However, 5 years after the site was commissioned and 10 years after transparency negotiations began, a transparency agreement has not been concluded. The umbrella agreement issues have been the subject of tensions not only between the United States and Russia but also between U.S.
|
From page 92... ...
DOD should undertake a systematic study of the CTR Umbrella Agreement protection provisions, what purposes they serve in particular circumstances, whether there might be less intrusive means of accomplishing the provisions' goals, and when the provisions are necessary in their present form. In addition, all USG CTR programs should identify legal and policy tools that can promote the sustainability of U.S.-funded CTR work and provide greater implementation flexibility.
|
From page 93... ...
Because of the difficulty of negotiating and extending traditional DOD CTR Umbrella Agreements and NDF's success in operating in their absence, a study that looks at the two models could contribute significantly to enabling DOD CTR to operate more nimbly. DOD (and other U.S.
|
From page 94... ...
2008. Review Panel on Future Directions for Defense Threat Reduction Agency Missions and Capabilities to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.
|
From page 95... ...
Recommendation 3-3d: Congress should grant DOD limited "notwithstanding" authority for the CTR program -- perhaps a maximum of 10 percent of the overall annual appropriation and subject to congressional notification -- to give the program the additional flexibility it will need in future engagements. Summary of Chapter Findings and Recommendations Finding 3-1: The lack of a government-wide tracking program for USG CTR programs that cross agency budgets impedes the U.S.
|
From page 96... ...
Recommendation 3-3b: Congress should provide comingling authority to all agencies implementing programs under CTR 2.0 as a way to encourage other partners to contribute funds to global security engagement efforts. Finding 3-9: Many of the legal and policy underpinnings of the current DOD CTR program that were established for accountability and protection of U.S.
|
From page 97... ...
In addition, all USG CTR programs should identify legal and policy tools that can promote the sustainability of U.S.-funded CTR work and provide greater implementation flexibility. Recommendation 3-3d: Congress should grant DOD limited "notwithstanding" authority for the CTR program―perhaps a maximum of 10 percent of the overall annual appropriation and subject to congressional notification -- to give the program the additional flexibility it will need in future engagements.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.