investigative techniques that helps shape international law enforcement priorities. The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies have provided extensive law enforcement training at the International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary and elsewhere around the world. This training has proved to be enormously effective in developing professional law enforcement and security services in emerging democracies.
Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of hazardous chemicals and waste directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens. We have a full diplomatic agenda, working bilaterally and multilaterally to respond aggressively to environmental threats. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is an important instrument for this cooperation. With 161 member nations, the GEF is specifically focused on reducing cross-border environmental damage. Our Environmental Security Initiative joins U.S. agencies with foreign partners to address regional environmental concerns and thereby reduce the risk to U.S. interests abroad. We have also undertaken development of an environmental forecasting system to provide U.S. policymakers advance warning of environmental stress situations which have the potential for significant impact on U.S. interests.
At Kyoto in December 1997, the industrialized nations of the world agreed for the first time to binding limits on greenhouse gases. The agreement is strong and comprehensive, covering the six greenhouse gases whose concentrations are increasing due to human activity. It reflects the commitment of the United States to use the tools of the free market to tackle this problem. It will enhance growth and create new incentives for the rapid development of technologies through a system of joint implementation and emissions trading. The Kyoto agreement was a vital turning point, but we still have a lot of hard work ahead. We must press for meaningful participation by key developing nations. Multilateral negotiations are underway and we will pursue bilateral talks with key developing nations. We will not submit the Kyoto agreement for ratifica-tion until key developing nations have agreed to participate meaningfully in efforts to address global warming.
Additionally, we seek to accomplish the following:
• achieve increased compliance with the Montreal Protocol through domestic and multilateral efforts aimed at curbing illegal trade in ozone depleting substances;
• ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, implement the UN Straddling Stocks Agreement and help to promote sustainable management of fisheries worldwide;
• implement the Program of Action on population growth developed at the 1994 Cairo Conference, lead a renewed global effort to address population problems and promote international consensus for stabilizing world population growth;
• expand bilateral forest assistance programs and promote sustainable management of tropical forests;
• achieve Senate ratification of the Convention to Combat Desertification;
• negotiate an international agreement to ban twelve persistent organic pollutants, including such hazardous chemicals as DDT;
• promote environment-related scientific research in other countries so they can better identify environmental problems and develop indigenous solutions for them;
• increase international cooperation in fighting transboundary environmental crime, including trafficking in protected flora and fauna, hazardous waste and ozone-depleting chemicals;
• ratify the Biodiversity Convention and take steps to prevent biodiversity loss, including support for agricultural research to relieve pressures on forests, working with multilateral development banks and others to prevent biodiversity loss in key regions, and use of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to protect threatened species; and
• continue to work with the Nordic countries and Russia to mitigate nuclear and non-nuclear pollution in the Arctic, and continue to encourage Russia to develop sound management practices for nuclear materials and radioactive waste.
Responding to Threats and Crises
Because our shaping efforts alone cannot guarantee the international security environment we seek, the United States must be able to respond at home and abroad to the full spectrum of threats and crises that may arise. Our resources are finite, so we must be selective in our responses, focusing on challenges that most directly affect our interests and engaging where we can make the most difference. Our response might be diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, or military in nature—or, more likely, some combination of the above. We must use the most appropriate tool or combination of tools—acting in alliance or partnership when our interests are shared by others, but unilaterally when compelling national interests so demand. At home, we must forge an effective partnership of Federal, state and local government agencies, industry and other private sector organizations.
When efforts to deter an adversary—be it a rogue nation, terrorist group or criminal organization—occur in the context of a crisis, they become the leading edge of crisis response. In this sense, deterrence straddles the line between shaping the international environment and responding to crises. Deterrence in crisis generally involves signaling the United States’ commitment to a particular country or interest by enhancing our warfighting capability in the theater. Forces in or near the theater may be moved closer to the crisis and other forces rapidly deployed to the area. The U.S. may also choose to make additional statements to communicate the costs of aggression or coercion to an adversary, and in some cases may choose to employ U.S. forces to underline the message and deter further adventurism.
The American people rightfully play a central role in how the United States wields its power abroad. The United States cannot long sustain a commitment without the support of the public, and close consultations with Congress are important in this effort. When it is judged in America’s interest to intervene, we must remain clear in purpose and resolute in execution.
Today, American diplomats, law enforcement officials, military personnel, members of the intelligence community and others are increasingly called upon to respond to growing transnational threats, particularly terrorism, drug trafficking and international organized crime.
To meet the growing challenge of terrorism, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62 in May 1998. This Directive creates a new and more systematic approach to fighting the terrorist threat of the next century. It reinforces the mission of the many U.S. agencies charged with roles in defeating terrorism; it also codifies and clarifies their activities in the wide range of U.S. counter-terrorism programs, including apprehension and prosecution of terrorists, increasing transportation security, and enhancing incident response capabilities. The Directive will help achieve the President’s goal of ensuring that we meet the threat of terrorism in the 21st century.