Guiding Principle of National Security Strategy - Research Paper Example

? OUTLINE OF NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY of Affiliation AN OUTLINE OF NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Introduction and GuidingPrinciple The United States will take the fore-front role to the international order as a nation first among equals to promote stability, to encourage democracy, to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to encourage the pursuant of peaceful negotiations as a way of fostering global peace1. In line with the guidelines specified in the American constitution, it is undeniable fact that the cruxes of America’s actions are informed by the core values and national interests. The guiding principle above should be an indispensable reminder to all citizens and government officers of their duty to adhere to the core values of America’s constitution, while at the same time considering national priorities in making various decisions. The latter part of the 20th century and commencement of the 21st century has radically altered the nature of international order. It is now evident that this change cannot be contained in a dynamic world characterized by globalization, and rapid growth in information and technology. United States of America must therefore brace itself to a multilateral world where, while boosting of the military, economic and cultural prowess, it may face challenges from adversaries and even allies2. This paper gives a detailed account of the current international order and trends in the global affairs that have either a direct or indirect impact on United States. It further shows the manner in which US can chart its way to a peaceful and stable future by being at the forefront of world economy, protecting crucial global strategic interests, and maximizing on the use of military power and strength. In addition, the paper provides an analysis of the emerging threats from terrorist and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It offers strategic plans on how America intends to intervene in global affairs so as to ensure that its national interests are safeguarded. Cooperation with international institutions The main issues that threaten the security of United States and the globe at large emanate from both state and non-state actors that operate in isolation from global community. Most of these actors are responsible for direct acts of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups either financially or through offering them a safe haven. Cases in point are North Korea and Iran. The two nations have totally objected collaborating with international treaties on aspects such as reduction of nuclear weapon capabilities. The eventuality has been constant threats on resources that are meant for the common good such as oil and sea lanes. The policy of United States then is to insist on measures that would compel such non-players to comply with the treaties agreed upon by the international institutions. Among the many strategies employed include application of stringent sanctions on such nations aimed at crippling their economic and coordination power3. Nonetheless, the sanction would be only be enforced on states that blatantly object the efforts of international institutions of preserving global peace and order. For instance, North Korea is clearly moving against the global peace initiative. It has consistently tested its medium range missiles despite warnings from the international community. Furthermore, it has gone on the offensive, through its dictatorial leader, to warn U.S., South Korea and Japan of a possible war if they do not stay away from spying on them. The threats from North Korea warrant for all possible forms of sanctions. On the other hand, United States would capitalize on the strong reform organizations as well as citizens to drive change in nations such as Iran. Through supporting these movements, U.S. can effectively drive both social and political change in such countries. The same case can be applied in China. Essentially, the idea of nations investing on weapons of mass destruction would be discouraged at all costs4. The strategy of United States is to promote the incorporation of new influential parties into multilateral organization. The primary goal of such an action is to reduce the solitary burden that U.S. has borne for close to half a century in a bid to promote peace and democratization of the globe. This would further ensure sustainability of stability initiatives and thus foster prosperity and the spread of democratic ideologies. The move promotes legitimacy in such institutions although it equally raises the need of expeditious political reforms in institutions such as United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO). In the event that progress remains elusive at the WTO, regional trade agreements will keep on growing rapidly. As a result, trade is bound to flourish in regional blocs. However, care should be taken to avoid cases where trading blocs are flooded by regional hegemons. United States can also capitalize on United Nations Security Council to encourage further participation in global institutions. Rising powers can be encouraged to join and take greater responsibility wit in the UN so as to foster regional stability. As a strategy, United States would focus on encouraging reforms and constant dialogue within the Security Council. The aim of this move is to encourage cooperation by altering membership and leadership in the Council so as to be a reflection of current global realities. Cybersecurity, Terrorism, & Nuclear Weapons The proliferation of nuclear weapons stands out as the greatest threat to the security of United States and the world in general. Rogue nations, with North Korea at the forefront, have secretly embarked in programs aimed at building nuclear weapons. Unlike in the cold war where United States had to focus deal directly with nuclear threat emanating from Russia, U.S. has is not at a cross-road where expeditious measures need to be pursued to deal with rogue states and terrorists organizations that are in the process of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The recent aggressive nuclear rhetoric from North Korea is a clear justification that nuclear weapons still remain indispensable factor in the national security policy of the United States of America5. Unlike the earlier move by United States to cut down on its investments and the manufacture of nuclear weapons, it is now apparent that this is not the path to pursue. The global security is threatened by rogue nations such as North Korea. The it will be a tragedy for United States to consider eliminating nuclear weapons or even reduces forces to lower levels (for instance, a few of hundred weapons). This is because we need a powerful force that can successfully contain and deter resurgent North Korean nuclear threats. This move equally applies to the rest of rogue nations that are arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction and long-range nuclear as though in preparation for future battle6. Taking into account the destructive ability of nuclear weapons, the dangers can hardly be underestimated – such as national survival and destruction on exceedingly large scale. Therefore, in as much United States would foster efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of sight, it would be indispensable to keep them in mind. The nuclear programs cannot be halted completely in the midst of the modern world characterized by high degree of information and technology. It is at this juncture that most states are realizing that they equally have nuclear weapon capabilities. Such developments, presumably, is what is driving nations such as North Korea to issue threats to United States of America. Strengthening & Defending the Homeland The United States recognizes the dangers that terrorism, natural disasters and unprecedented wars can cause on the citizens. As efforts to prevent these dangers are rolled out, it is undeniable that it is virtually impossible to deter every single threat from occurring. Therefore, effective measures need to be instituted to boost the resilience of the general resilience of the nation. To safeguard the safety of the American populace, the following are the key strategies: Enhance homeland security: security at within the boundaries of U.S. is a product of concerted effort to deter potential attacks through identification of threats, preventing hostile actors the chance to operate within America, protecting critical infrastructure, and safeguarding cyberspace7. This explains the efforts made so far in securing and reducing vulnerabilities in places such as borders, airports, transportation, sport facilities and cyber security. Taking into consideration that it is the global system of transportation that facilitates the movements of dangerous people, goods and data, the government of United States would collaborate with partners to ensure that such people, goods and data are not permitted to move freely. This would be done by ensuring that the various nodes, for instance point of origin, ports, and border crossing, are manned efficiently and effectively to deter such movements8. Dismantle and destroy terrorist grouping that are currently in operation and those that are forming: Terrorism remains as one of the greatest fears of United States of America in this 21st century. Events of September 11 were a clear indication that the problem of terrorism needs to be tackled at the very root and not on the superficial aspect. Al-Qaeda that has been in operational and based in Afghanistan is earmarked as the greatest security threat to America in so far as terrorism is concerned. The killing of Osama Bin Laden, who was the most wanted leader of the organization, was a great step towards total elimination of the group. However, it is not yet a time to burry our heads in the soil and assumes that the threat is no more. Terrorist grouping tend to metamorphose from time to time and operate in total different names and at different places. For instance, America takes great precaution of the Al-Shabaab terrorist organization operating in Somalia. Similarly, the Obama’s administration has labeled Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM); MUJAO and Ansar al Dine groups operating in West Africa under U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The government recognizes that these groups could turn out to be lethal if they are permitted to continue operating in these regions. In as much as they appear not to pause a major direct threat to United States of America at the moment, most of these organizations are known to disrupt peace and stability in their those regions. For example, Al-Shabaab has consistently been linked with piracy activities in east coastline of Africa. In addition, they have been linked with kidnapping and suicide bombings that have affected majorly Kenya. On the other hand, AQIM and MUJAO are linked to the current instability in Mali and cases of kidnappings9. As a strategy of countering the danger that these organization pose to U.S. and the globe in general, the government is partnering and supporting key allies in that are directly affected. By reinforcing regional ability of containing these organizations, it partly serves as a strategy of deterring them from flourishing. For instance, the operational “Linda Nchi” rolled out by Kenyan military to flush out Al-Shabaab was greatly supported by United States. Similarly, the French military intervention in the Malian crisis is under the full support of United States. This is achieved through financial, advisory, and technical support10. Military Intervention United States would be the happiest nation if it could be able to cut down on its military budget on foreign missions. In other words, the government prefers if it could have all, if possible, of its military back in America. The policy of isolationism is the most welcome by most of the Americans. Unfortunately, this plan may not be feasible considering the current state of global affairs. As suggested by Simons et al (2007) in The Sovereignty Solution, United States of America will be forced to retain its policy of military interventionism as long as some countries remain adamant in making the world a better place11. Non-interventionism could be the best alternative. Nonetheless, it is apparent that there are some nations that have insisted in forming safe havens for terrorist organizations as well as propagate activities that jeopardize the security of the whole world. For instance, the Al-Qaeda have been operational in Afghanistan for quite some time but there was no Afghanistan’s government will power to flush out and contain the activities of this organization. Similarly, Osama Bin Laden was comfortably housed in Pakistan. Were it not for U.S. government’s solitary intelligence and intervention, then the most wanted criminal could still be widely at large12. In addition, in as much as interventionism is not the first priority in America foreign policy, it cannot be downplayed. This is in recognition of the fact that U.S. possesses one of the most sophisticated, well-trained, and well-equipped military power13. Choosing to stay back and watch nations such as North Korea threaten the security of Japan and South Korea would be akin to allowing an adversary to test its weapons on one’s neighbour in preparation of full attack. In this view, America would not hesitate to intervene or support an intervention in situation where its input is required. Conflict management United States acknowledges the fact that the current state of global affairs has increased general competitiveness of resources and power. Nonetheless, being a nation first among equals, U.S. intends to ensure that global competitiveness do not drug the world back into the era of World Wars and Cold War. Banking on this duty of promoting peace, stability and contain nations from fighting for political and economic powers, United States of America advocates for cooperation among the Group 8 nations. Under such an agreement, no single nation can take up an unwarranted choice of threatening the global security of the rest of the world. This explains the recent move by the G8 to warn North Korea of further sanction in the event they make their threat real of launching a missile14. In addition to G8 forums, United States of America support global institutions such as United Nations in their goals of uniting the entire globe. In so doing, UN nations has managed to mediate several conflicts that have been happening between different countries. Essentially, United States hopes to capitalize on the presence of such institution to foster peaceful resolutions through dialogue. In as much as globalization and advancements in information and technology have enhanced nations capabilities of manufacturing sophisticated weapons, the American government wishes to pass a message that every nation has enough weapons to defend them and not attack each other. As such, dialogue should always be given the first priority before contemplating other measures15. References Avenhaus, R. (2006). Verifying Treaty Compliance: Limiting Weapons of Mass Destruction and Monitoring Kyoto Protocol Provisions. New York, NY: Springer. BBC World News. (2013, April 11). Retrieved April 12, 2013, from G8 ministers condemn North Korea nuclear moves: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22103753 Bahadur, J. (2012, January 18). Linda Nchi: First Quarter Review. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from Somalia Report: http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/2562 Bercovitch, J. and Jackson, R.D. (2009). Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. New York, NY: University of Michigan Press. Garcia, M.J. (2011). Congressional Oversight and Related Issues Concerning International Security Agreements Concluded by the United States. Texas, TX: DIANE Publishing. Gates, R.M. (2008). National Defense Strategy, (Washington, DC: The Pentagon, June 2008), 18. Kent, A.E. (2009). Beyond compliance: China, international organizations, and global security. London: NUS Press. Laurent, J. (2008). Homeland Security: Enhanced National Guard Readiness for Civil Support Missions May Depend on DoD's Implementation of the 2008 Nat. Defense Authorization Act. Texas, TX: DIANE Publishing. Lusted, M.A. (2011). The Capture and Killing of Osama Bin Laden. New York, NY: ABDO. Office of Homeland Security. (2004). Homeland security: US national security strategy. Chicago: Pavilion Press. Simons, A. et al. (2007). The Sovereignty Solution; a commonsense approach to global security. New York, NY: Naval Press. United States of America. (2013). National Security Strategy. Washington, DC: Government Press. United States. Congress. House. Select Committee on Homeland Security. Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security. (2005). The Transportation Security Administration's progress in enhancing homeland security: hearing before the Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, May 12, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O. Read More