DOCSLIB.ORG

Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Page 1 of 12

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Page 1 of 12 Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Page 1 of 12 Home » Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security » From the Under Secretary » 2010 » Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Ellen Tauscher Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Susan E. Rice U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations , U.S. Mission to the United Nations Ambassador Susan F. Burk Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation Washington, DC April 30, 2010 MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Department of State. We are thrilled to have a couple of our guest stars back in the briefing room for the first time in some time. Ambassador Susan Rice, our intrepid force of nature at the UN – (laughter); and Under Secretary Ellen Tauscher; and as you can see, Assistant Secretary Susan Burk in New York. Obviously, we ’re here to pre-brief the Review Conference for the Nonproliferation Treaty next week. We’ll – and this is really about the NPT. It’s about strengthening a core pillar of our nonproliferation strategy. It’s about what all countries in the world do. It’s not about any one country. And you’ll hear from our speakers momentarily. I would just say we’ll stay behind afterwards if there are other subjects that you want to talk to us about. You did hear upstairs the Secretary a short time ago in the press avail with her counterpart from Kuwait indicate that subject to agreement by the Arab League Follow-on Committee tomorrow night, that we will begin proximity talks in the region on Middle East peace next week. But again, we’ll start with Susan Rice and then Ellen Tauscher and then Susan Burk, and we’ll alternate questions between Washington and New York. Ambassador, thank you for being here. http://www.state.gov/t/us/141271.htm 11/8/2010 Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Page 2 of 12 AMBASSADOR RICE: Thanks a lot. Good afternoon, everybody. Last spring in Prague, President Obama stood before the world and set a new direction for the nuclear weapons policy of the United States – to take us out of the Cold War postures and instead meet today’s security threats. He declared America’s commitment to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” The President also spoke of the work that would be required to realize that goal, and the security benefits we would gain as a result. In the year since Prague, President Obama has backed up his words with concrete progress: A United Nations Security Council Summit last September on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament that gained the Council’s unanimous endorsement of many elements of his Prague agenda; a new START Treaty that will bring our stockpile of deployed strategic warheads to its lowest point since the 1950s; a Nuclear Posture Review that reduces the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy, strengthens our negative security assurance for NPT parties in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations, and commits that we will not develop new nuclear warheads or engage in nuclear testing. The President also directed, as part of the NPR, a review of our arms control objectives to achieve future reductions in nuclear weapons. And he reaffirmed our commitment to work toward Senate ratification of the CTBT. On nonproliferation, we have also moved forward. Most recently, President Obama convened a national Security Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders convened by a U.S. president since 1945, to agree on steps we can take collectively to prevent nuclear terrorism and secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. The U.S. has worked with other states to help them adopt and reinforce effective laws prohibiting proliferation consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. In addition, the U.S. has helped lay the foundation for an international agreement to end the production of fissile material. In addition, we have strengthened our commitment to the rights of parties that are in compliance with their NPT obligations to access nuclear energy and technology for peaceful purposes. The United States has enhanced civil nuclear infrastructure cooperation, and in the past two years alone we have led technical cooperation delegations to a dozen countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. Next week in New York, the United States delegation, led by Secretary Clinton, will join nearly all of the 188 other nations that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And they will gather. It is an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the importance of the treaty as a cornerstone of our national, as well as our collective, security. It is an opportunity to undertake a constructive, balanced review of where things stand, and to assess what steps we can take together to strengthen the treaty. As the President said last spring in Prague, the “basic bargain of the treaty is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.” We expect that that the conference will demonstrate the critical role the NPT plays in the international nonproliferation framework and in reinforcing regional and global security and stability. Our goal for the Review Conference is to strengthen the treaty across all three of its pillars: disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But we don’t just come to this conference with the resolute commitment of President Obama to make progress across all these pillars. We come with months of hard work already underway and already bearing fruit. http://www.state.gov/t/us/141271.htm 11/8/2010 Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Page 3 of 12 We will focus on ways to improve compliance with the nonproliferation requirements of the treaty and to strengthen support for the IAEA. The noncompliance of any state with its NPT obligations undermines the nonproliferation regime as The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from a whole. the U.S. State We will emphasize the fundamental importance of IAEA safeguards for assuring parties that their neighbors and others External links to other Internet sites should not be are complying with their NPT obligations. construed as policies contained Without these assurances, insecurity and instability will grow both regionally and globally. NPT violations are corrosive – if one country in a region violates the NPT, other countries are forced to reevaluate their security needs and military decisions. In the end, a single violator can potentially undercut longstanding efforts to achieve universal adherence to the NPT. We also strongly believe that the IAEA must have the resources and the authorities it needs to carry out its mission. At the same time, we will work with others on preventing parties to the NPT from misusing the treaty by seeking key nuclear assistance under the treaty and then withdrawing from it when they wish to violate its terms. Also at the conference, we hope to fortify the “peaceful uses” pillar, by expanding cooperation to help developing countries build their capacities. As President Obama noted at the Nuclear Security Summit, “For nations that uphold their responsibilities, peaceful nuclear energy can unlock new advances in medicine, in agriculture and economic development.” So, as you can see, we have a full agenda for this Review Conference next month. It’s been built on months and years of hard work on all of these issues. There will undoubtedly be challenges, but the United States delegation will focus on areas where we can make concrete, meaningful progress. We’ll seek common ground, and we will be a constructive, flexible, and consensus-building voice during the Review Conference to make the most of this opportunity – and to continue building on that progress in the months and years ahead. Thank you, and now Under Secretary Tauscher. UNDER SECRETARY TAUSCHER: Thank you very much. It’s an honor for me to appear here today with Ambassador Rice and Ambassador Burk, two great colleagues that I really enjoy working with. And good afternoon to all of you. Ambassador Rice has given a very comprehensive view of the Obama Administration’s goals for the Nonproliferation Treaty Review. Ambassador Burk has worked for nearly a year to accomplish many of the goals. I just want to make a couple of points because I think Ambassador Rice did do a very good job of giving a comprehensive briefing of what we’re hoping to do. A couple of simple points. April has been quite a month for the Obama Administration and the delivery of the President’s Prague speech agenda. The Nuclear Posture Review, the new START treaty being signed, and the Nuclear Security Summit, and obviously, at the end of the month, here we go into the Nonproliferation Treaty Review. I just want to make a couple of points about the NPT Review Conference. First is that it’s not a silver bullet. It is not an end to itself. It is not going to, itself, curb proliferation. Our yardstick is that we want to get our points of view out – United States very strong central pillar of the President’s agenda on nonproliferation, the peaceful uses and on disarmament. We believe that the United States and our other countries very much want to move to a consensus. But at the end, if there is http://www.state.gov/t/us/141271.htm 11/8/2010 Briefing on the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference Page 4 of 12 not consensus because of the activities of some outliers, we believe that we still will be able to have great agreement on those three central pillars and moving forward to strengthening the NPT.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Administration Under Trump Daniel A
    Presidential Administration Under Trump Daniel A. Farber1 Anne Joseph O’Connell2 I. Introduction [I would widen the Introduction: focusing on the problem of what kind of president Donald Trump is and what the implications are. The descriptive and normative angles do not seem to have easy answers. There is a considerable literature in political science and law on positive/descriptive theories of the president. Kagan provides just one, but an important one. And there is much ink spilled on the legal dimensions. I propose that after flagging the issue, the Introduction would provide some key aspects of Trump as president, maybe even through a few bullet points conveying examples, raise key normative questions, and then lay out a roadmap for the article. One thing to address is what ways we think Trump is unique for a study of the President and for the study of Administrative Law, if at all.] [We should draft this after we have other sections done.] Though the Presidency has been a perennial topic in the legal literature, Justice Elena Kagan, in her earlier career as an academic, penned an enormously influential 2001 article about the increasingly dominant role of the President in regulation, at the expense of the autonomy of administrative agencies.3 The article’s thesis, simply stated, was that “[w]e live in an era of presidential administration.”, by 1 Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. 2 George Johnson Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. 3 Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 HARV. L. REV. 2245 (2001).
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of the American Surveillance State
    IN DEFENSE OF THE AMERICAN SURVEILLANCE STATE Dr. Gabriel Schoenfeld* ABSTRACT The term “American surveillance state” is something that has come into use by fierce critics of U.S. government counterterrorism efforts, efforts that necessarily contain surveillance as a critical element. A body of opinion has emerged arguing that thanks to the ubiquitous eyes of the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and thanks also to the widespread distribution of myriad new forms of surveillance technology, privacy in America is being destroyed and George Orwell’s dark vision of Big Brother is on its way to realization. This Article rejects this characterization, and asserts that current counterterrorism efforts are an effective and appropriate response to ongoing threats. While history teaches us the government may at times overstep its bounds, even in today’s current national security climate the U.S. government’s approach is less intrusive than it has been in the past and is critical for protecting the safety of the American people. ARTICLE The term “American surveillance state” is something that has come into use by fierce critics of U.S. government counterterrorism efforts, efforts that necessarily contain surveillance as a critical element.1 A body of opinion has emerged arguing that thanks to the ubiquitous eyes of the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and thanks also to the widespread distribution of myriad new forms of surveillance technology, privacy in America is being destroyed and George Orwell’s dark vision of Big Brother is on its way to realization.2 * Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 12/21/2011 12:08:07 PM U.S
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 12/21/2011 12:08:07 PM OMB NO. 1124-0002; Expires February 28, 2014 u.s. Department of Justice Supplemental Statement Washington, DC 20530 Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended For Six Month Period Ending Nov 2011 (Insert date) I-REGISTRANT 1. (a) Name of Registrant (b) Registration No. Orion Strategies LLC 5437 (c) Business Address(es) of Registrant 918 Pennsylvania Ave SE Washington DC 20003 2. Has there been a change in the information previously furnished in connection with the following? (a) If an individual: (1) Residence address(es) Yes • No • (2) Citizenship Yes • No D (3) Occupation Yes • No D (b) If an organization: (1) Name Yes D No 0 (2) Ownership or control Yes • No H (3) Branch offices Yes • No 0 (c) Explain fully all changes, if any, indicated in Items (a) and (b) above. IF THE REGISTRANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, OMIT RESPONSE TO ITEMS 3, 4, AND 5(a). 3. If you have previously filed Exhibit C1, state whether any changes therein have occurred during this 6 month reporting period. Yes • No D If yes, have you filed an amendment to the Exhibit C? Yes • No • If no, please attach the required amendment. 1 The Exhibit C, for which no printed form is provided, consists of a true copy of the charter, articles of incorporation, association, and by laws of a registrant that is an organization. (A waiver of the requirement to file an Exhibit C may be obtained for good cause upon written application to the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of the Deal for North Korea: the Unexplored Parallel Between Bush and Trump Foreign Policy*
    International Journal of Korean Unification Studies Vol. 26, No. 1, 2017, 53–86. The Art of the Deal for North Korea: The Unexplored Parallel between Bush and Trump Foreign Policy* Soohoon Lee ‘Make America Great Again,’ has been revived while ‘America First’ and ‘peace through strength,’ have been revitalized by the Trump admin­­­ istration. Americans and the rest of the world were shocked by the dramatic transformation in U.S. foreign policy. In the midst of striking changes, this research analyzes the first hundred days of the Trump administration’s foreign policy and aims to forecast its prospects for North Korea. In doing so, the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy creeds, ‘American exceptionalism’ and ‘peace through strength,’ are revisited and compared with that of Trump’s. Beyond the similarities and differences found between the two administrations, the major finding of the analysis is that Trump’s profit­oriented nature, through which he operated the Trump Organization for nearly a half century, has indeed influenced the interest- oriented nature in his operating of U.S. foreign policy. The prospects for Trump’s policies on North Korea will be examined through a business­ sensitive lens. Keywords: Donald Trump, U.S Foreign Policy, North Korea, America First, Peace through Strength Introduction “We are so proud of our military. It was another successful event… If you look at what’s happened over the eight weeks and compare that to what’s happened over the last eight years, you'll see there’s a tremen­ * This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF­2016S1A3A2924968).
    [Show full text]
  • Who Watches the Watchmen? the Conflict Between National Security and Freedom of the Press
    WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO I see powerful echoes of what I personally experienced as Director of NSA and CIA. I only wish I had access to this fully developed intellectual framework and the courses of action it suggests while still in government. —General Michael V. Hayden (retired) Former Director of the CIA Director of the NSA e problem of secrecy is double edged and places key institutions and values of our democracy into collision. On the one hand, our country operates under a broad consensus that secrecy is antithetical to democratic rule and can encourage a variety of political deformations. But the obvious pitfalls are not the end of the story. A long list of abuses notwithstanding, secrecy, like openness, remains an essential prerequisite of self-governance. Ross’s study is a welcome and timely addition to the small body of literature examining this important subject. —Gabriel Schoenfeld Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law (W.W. Norton, May 2010). ? ? The topic of unauthorized disclosures continues to receive significant attention at the highest levels of government. In his book, Mr. Ross does an excellent job identifying the categories of harm to the intelligence community associated NI PRESS ROSS GARY with these disclosures. A detailed framework for addressing the issue is also proposed. This book is a must read for those concerned about the implications of unauthorized disclosures to U.S. national security. —William A. Parquette Foreign Denial and Deception Committee National Intelligence Council Gary Ross has pulled together in this splendid book all the raw material needed to spark a fresh discussion between the government and the media on how to function under our unique system of government in this ever-evolving information-rich environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Spying on Friends?: the Franklin Case, AIPAC, and Israel
    International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 19: 600–621, 2006 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0885-0607 print=1521-0561 online DOI: 10.1080/08850600600829809 STE´ PHANE LEFEBVRE Spying on Friends?: The Franklin Case, AIPAC, and Israel On 4 August 2005, U.S. Department of Defense official Lawrence Franklin and former American–Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were indicted on one or several of the following counts: conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it; communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it; and conspiracy to communicate classified information to agents of a foreign government, publicly identified as Israel. Franklin pleaded guilty and cooperated with the authorities, and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-year prison term. As of this writing, Rosen’s and Weissman’s trial was scheduled to start in August 2006. When the story of an investigation into Franklin’s communication of classified information to Rosen and Weissman surfaced, the immediate widely held assumption was that Israel was the ultimate beneficiary. This belief was reinforced with the disclosure that the compromised classified information was related to issues of immediate interest to the Jewish state, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the situation in Iraq. But doubts were expressed, to the effect that the cozy relationship between Israel and the United States would hardly necessitate such an intelligence-gathering operation on U.S. soil. Nevertheless, the question of Israel’s precise role in the affair remains unanswered, but for the exception that Franklin told the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Galleries* Rules Governing Press
    PRESS GALLERIES * SENATE PRESS GALLERY The Capitol, Room S–316, phone 224–0241 Director.—S. Joseph Keenan Deputy Director.—Joan McKinney Senior Media Coordinators: Amy H. Gross Kristyn K. Socknat Media Coordinators: James D. Saris Wendy A. Oscarson-Kirchner Elizabeth B. Crowley HOUSE PRESS GALLERY The Capitol, Room H–315, phone 225–3945 Superintendent.—Jerry L. Gallegos Deputy Superintendent.—Justin J. Supon Assistant Superintendents: Ric Anderson Laura Reed Drew Cannon Molly Cain STANDING COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENTS Thomas Burr, The Salt Lake Tribune, Chair Joseph Morton, Omaha World-Herald, Secretary Jim Rowley, Bloomberg News Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Brian Friel, Bloomberg News RULES GOVERNING PRESS GALLERIES 1. Administration of the press galleries shall be vested in a Standing Committee of Cor- respondents elected by accredited members of the galleries. The Committee shall consist of five persons elected to serve for terms of two years. Provided, however, that at the election in January 1951, the three candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall serve for two years and the remaining two for one year. Thereafter, three members shall be elected in odd-numbered years and two in even-numbered years. Elections shall be held in January. The Committee shall elect its own chairman and secretary. Vacancies on the Committee shall be filled by special election to be called by the Standing Committee. 2. Persons desiring admission to the press galleries of Congress shall make application in accordance with Rule VI of the House of Representatives, subject to the direction and control of the Speaker and Rule 33 of the Senate, which rules shall be interpreted and administered by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, subject to the review and an approval by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • The US and the Debate Over Arming Ukraine
    POLICY ANALYSIS The US and the Debate over Arming Ukraine Osama Abu Arshid | Mar 2015 The US and the Debate over Arming Ukraine* Series: Policy Analysis Osama Abu Arshid | Mar 2015 Copyright © 2015 Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. All Rights Reserved. ____________________________ The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies is an independent research institute and think tank for the study of history and social sciences, with particular emphasis on the applied social sciences. The Center’s paramount concern is the advancement of Arab societies and states, their cooperation with one another and issues concerning the Arab nation in general. To that end, it seeks to examine and diagnose the situation in the Arab world - states and communities- to analyze social, economic and cultural policies and to provide political analysis, from an Arab perspective. The Center publishes in both Arabic and English in order to make its work accessible to both Arab and non-Arab researchers. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies PO Box 10277 Street No. 826, Zone 66 Doha, Qatar Tel.: +974 44199777 | Fax: +974 44831651 www.dohainstitute.org * This paper is an edited translation from the original text in Arabic. Table of Contents THE DEBATE OVER ARMING UKRAINE Introduction The latest developments in eastern Ukraine have constituted a clear dilemma for the United States, as seen in sharp internal American debate on whether to arm the Ukrainian army, after more than a year of growing Russian intervention in support of separatists in the country. Amidst this controversy, US President Barack Obama's administration finds itself in a quandary.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of US Foreign Policy
    Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and are not an official policy nor position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense nor the U.S. Government. Editors: Pat Paterson and Dr. David Spencer Layout Design: Viviana Edwards Origins of U.S. Foreign Policy Pat Paterson William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies Perry Center Occasional Paper February 2018 Origins of U.S. Foreign Policy Pat Paterson, National Defense University1 Introduction The back-and-forth election oscillations in the United States leave a lot of observers bewildered about U.S. foreign policy. U.S. citizens and foreigners alike struggle to understand U.S. diplomatic, econom- ic, and military policies. Recent foreign policy announcements from the Trump Administration, drastic shifts on international priorities from previous presidencies, has generated additional scrutiny on the topic. It has also raised foreign policy questions about federalism, U.S. unilateralism, foreign aid, and the separation of powers system enshrined in the Constitution. This article provides a broad summary of U.S. foreign policy by examining its historical philo- sophical beginnings and how those have evolved over the 241 years of the nation’s history. It exam- ines the Founders’ intentions and concerns for their new system of government. Included in that is the important sense of “exceptionalism” that guides national strategy and “manifest destiny” that justified U.S. continental expansion in the 19th century. The article describes four schools of thought on gov- ernance developed during the early decades of the Republic. It briefly describes how foreign policy is developed and which branches of government participate in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Galleries* Rules Governing Press
    PRESS GALLERIES * SENATE PRESS GALLERY The Capitol, Room S–316, phone 224–0241 www.dailypress.senate.gov Director.—Laura Lytle Deputy Director.—Christopher Bois Senior Media Relations Coordinators: Amy H. Gross Kristyn K. Socknat John E. Mulligan III Media Relations Coordinators: Laura E. Reed Samantha J. Yeider HOUSE PRESS GALLERY The Capitol, Room H–315, phone 225–3945 https://pressgallery.house.gov Superintendent.—Annie Tin Deputy Superintendent.—Justin J. Supon Assistant Superintendents: Ric Anderson Kristine Michalson Edward Kachinske STANDING COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENTS Billy House, Bloomberg, Chair Joseph Morton, Omaha World Herald, Secretary Karoun Demirjian, Washington Post Tamar Hallerman, Atlanta Journal Constitution Deirdre Shesgreen, Gannett RULES GOVERNING PRESS GALLERIES 1. Administration of the press galleries shall be vested in a Standing Committee of Cor- respondents elected by accredited members of the Galleries. The Committee shall consist of five persons elected to serve for terms of two years. Provided, however, that at the election in January 1951, the three candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall serve for two years and the remaining two for one year. Thereafter, three members shall be elected in odd-numbered years and two in even-numbered years. Elections shall be held in January. The Committee shall elect its own chairman and secretary. Vacancies on the Committee shall be filled by special election to be called by the Standing Committee. 2. Persons desiring admission to the press galleries of Congress shall make application in accordance with Rule VI of the House of Representatives, subject to the direction and *Information is based on data furnished and edited by each respective Gallery.
    [Show full text]
  • ID - PCLOB-2014-0001-0005] August 29, 2014
    STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT to THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD [ID - PCLOB-2014-0001-0005] August 29, 2014 In response to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s (“PCLOB” or “Board”) formal request1 for “the views of non-governmental organizations, the business community and the general public on [the Board’s] mid-term and long-term agenda,” we are writing to you today to encourage you to recommend that the Board become a legally-authorized recipient of disclosures by intelligence community (IC) whistleblowers and to review the efficacy of existing IC whistleblowing channels. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a whistleblower defense and advocacy organization established in 1976. GAP has provided legal advice to thousands of whistleblowers, including IC whistleblowers with concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties, employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). NSA whistleblowers and GAP clients Thomas Drake, J. Kirk Wiebe, and William Binney have submitted written comments to PCLOB in connection with PCLOB’s investigation of NSA surveillance programs.2 Statement as to the Board’s Statutory Power to Review Whistleblower Protection By statute, the Board’s purpose is to “analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties” and to “ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism.”3 To achieve these objectives, the Board has authority to – 1 Sunshine Act Notice of Meeting, 79 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress
    U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress Updated January 19, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44891 SUMMARY R44891 U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues January 19, 2021 for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The U.S. role in the world refers to the overall character, purpose, or direction of U.S. Specialist in Naval Affairs participation in international affairs and the country’s overall relationship to the rest of the world. The U.S. role in the world can be viewed as establishing the overall context or framework for U.S. policymakers for developing, implementing, and measuring the success of U.S. policies and actions on specific international issues, and for foreign countries or other observers for interpreting and understanding U.S. actions on the world stage. While descriptions of the traditional U.S. role in the world since the end of World War II vary in their specifics, it can be described in general terms as consisting of four key elements: global leadership; defense and promotion of the liberal international order; defense and promotion of freedom, democracy, and human rights; and prevention of the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia. The issue for Congress is whether the U.S. role in the world has changed, and if so, what implications this might have for the United States and the world. A change in the U.S. role could have significant and even profound effects on U.S. security, freedom, and prosperity. It could significantly affect U.S. policy in areas such as relations with allies and other countries, defense plans and programs, trade and international finance, foreign assistance, and human rights.
    [Show full text]