A Project Submitted To University of Mumbai For Partial Completion of The Degree of

1
PROJECT REPORT ON
“EFFECT OF GLOBALISATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY''
A Project Submitted To
University of Mumbai for Partial Completion of the degree of
MASTER IN COMMERCE ( CHOICE BASED CREDIT SYSTEM )

Under the Faculty of Commerce
BY:
CHIKANKAR SOMESHWAR BAMA
ROLL NO: 215832
UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF

PROF.MAYURI KAMBLE
JSSP'S COLLEGE OF ARTS COMMERCE AND SCIENCE,GOVELI

2021-22
2
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. CHIKANKAR SOMESHWAR BAMA worked and completed her Project Work for the
degree of MASTER OF COMMERCE in the faculty of COMMERCE in the subject to Impact of Marketing
Research in Achieving Organisational Goal Prof. Mayuri Kamble under my supervision. It is her own work and
facts reported by her person findings and investigation.
Name & Signature of Guide:
Date of Submission:
Name & Signature: principal of the institution

3
DECLARATION OF STUDENT
I the undersigned Mr. Someshwar Bama Chikankar here by, declared that the work embodied in this project
work tittle Effect of globalisation on National Security forms my own contribution to the research work
carried out under the guidance of PROF. MAYURI KAMBLE is a result of my own research work and has not
been previously submitted to any other University for any other Degree / Diploma to this or any other
University.
Whenever, reference has been made to previous works of others, It has been clearly indicates as such and
includes in the bibliography.
( Someshwar Bama Chikankar )

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To list who all have helped me is difficult because they are so numerous and the depth is enormous.
I would like to acknowledge the following as being idealistic channels and fresh dimensions in the completion
of this project.
I take this opportunity to thank the University of Mumbai for giving me chance to do this project.
I would like to thank my principal , Dr. K.B.KORE for providing the necessary facilities required for completion
of this project.
I take this opportunity to thank our co- ordinator – PROF. MAYURI KAMBLE for his moral support and
guidance.
I would also to express my sincere gratitude towards my Project Guide PROF. MAYURI KAMBLE whose
guidance and care made the project successful.
I would like to thank my College Library, for having provided various reference books and magazines related to
my Project.
Lastly , I would like to thank each and every person who directly or indirectly helped me in the completion of
the project especially my Parents and Peers who supported me throughout my project.
5
INDEX
INDEX
Sr.No. TOPIC PAGE
NO.
1. INTRODUCTION
❖ Abstract
❖ Topic
❖ Statement of problems
❖ Rational of study
2. Research Methodology
❖ Objective of study
❖ Scope of the study
❖ Limitations
3. Meaning & Definition
4. National Security versus Global security
5. 5 Threads to national security & How
Government Protects it’s citizens
6. Climate change will Impact national security
7. Dimensions of National Security
8. Issue of National Security
9. India’s National Security Challenges
10. National Security System Definition
11. A National Security Strategy for A New Century
12. Review of literature
13. Data analysis & presentation
14. Conclusion & suggestions
❖ Reference
6
Chapter - 1
INTRODUCTION
The national security issues most impacted upon by globalisation are generally found to fall into three
categories: the nature of security threats in a globalised world, the effects of the phenomenon of
globalisation on the pursuit of national security, and the erosion of the exclusivity of the state as a
provider of national security. In this chapter I examine the security risks associated with ICT, and in
particular the Internet which is not constrained by territorial boundaries traditionally defining states
and their sovereignty. Also, I point out the need for developing and implementing agile security
related ICT policies to remain on the national security research agenda of all states.
There has been much criticism, complaint, argument, and finding fault with national policies of
past and present. That is easy to do. But the past cannot be changed. It can only be taken as
lessons for the future, which can be changed. Innovative, logical, and reasonable ideas for
effective solutions to the world problems posed by global migration and its effects on national
sovereignty, global terrorism, human rights, environmental deterioration, and national and
international security must be sought.
Mistakes have been made in regard to immigration laws and policies. But laws are never written
and formed until something has occurred that requires legal attention. Comparing the present
time with the world 50 or 100 years ago, it is clear that major changes have taken place in world
population, world migration movements, trade, technology, and the membership of the United
Nations. Each of these changing factors has brought us to the world we have today.
National security is not simply securing a nation's borders and maintaining the power of its
military, but also includes protecting and maintaining a nation's infrastructure, the workability of
its foreign policies, investments, economy and technology, the civil rights of its citizens, trade and
work availability, healthful environmental conditions, suitable laws and policies regarding
immigrants, asylum and refugee seekers and, of course, its national sovereignty. The
interrelationship of these factors and others such as human trafficking, terrorism, globalization,
and global poverty entails deep analysis and concentration for scholars and governments in the
21st Century.
Two very strong factors predominate and have global significance to national security in the 21st
Century. The first is the demographic movement of people and the second is the great increase
the global world is experiencing in threats and attacks by various extremists, particularly those
termed "threats from within a nation". The extremists take advantage of large scale
demographic movements and use (abuse) the immigration policies and laws established by the
United Nations and individual nation states. The debate facing the world today is how to counter
terrorism, have a pliable national and international security system, legal and workable
immigration laws and policies, and still protect the rights of the community as well as that of the
immigrants.
7
Unfortunately, measures to enhance national security are indiscriminately decried by politicians,
immigrants, and activists as threats against human rights and civil liberties. Such concerns have
validity and must be discussed. But wrong decisions can have serious consequences. It is clear
from the 9/11 attacks and the worldwide threats that terrorists have imposed that not only the
intelligence system, but also the immigration policies and laws are an integral part of our
national security plans and, in fact, of global security. One of the disturbing things we learned
from 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission report is that there was practically no communication
between the security system and the immigration department nor did either party know
anything substantial about the other's policies and laws. The protection of our civil liberties
requires the communication of information and interaction between not only federal, but also
state and local systems.
1.1 Abstract :-
World migration has been going on for millennia. However, due to the impact of two great
World Wars, numerous colonization struggles, civil wars, and geopolitical and ethnic divisions
during the 20th century, mass global migration has reached an unpreceIidented magnitude,
facilitated by the ease of movement between Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and the
Western nations. This vast movement of immigrants into the more industrialized nations has
caused a great strain on the economy as well as the national security of the host countries. The
composition of the present mass migration involves migrants whose cultures are more disparate
from the host country, even to the extent of imposing a threat to the security of that country. In
order for the national security of a host country to be less jeopardized, its government must
focus much more on the human aspects of the immigrant societies: their language, history,
culture, religious affiliation norms, family and/or tribal affiliations, as well as the international
and internal relations of the country from which the migrants come. The primary purpose of this
paper is the explication of the problems posed by this compositional change in global migration,
particularly on its effects on National Security.
The concept of national security has often been taken to merely connote the preservation of
sovereignty, territorial integrity and internal stability with the focus on the coercive power of the state.
In today’s complex and interdependent world faced with many non traditional threats like pandemics,
climate change, etc it must, however, be seen in a more holistic manner. Such an all encompassing
view of national security demands that the determinant of security is not just the coercive elements
of state power but its comprehensive national power with the latter being a composite of many
factors across all facets of national life. These factors, inclusive of leadership, if quantified, can help
develop a national security index which in comparative terms could serve as an indicator of the
relative security of a country vis a vis its peers. The holistic nature of national security demands that
appropriate structures are in place to manage it. India is fortunate to have such structures which, of
course, need revitalisation.
• Concept of National Security :-

8
National security, or national defence, is the security and defence of a sovereign state,
including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government.
1.2 Topic :-
• Capital Insurance 2021
• Climate change
• The constitution
• FISA
• Foreign policy
• Intelligence
• Military law
• Military veterans
• Secrecy
• Surveillance
• Teaching national security law
• Torture
1.3 Statement of problems :-

Many aspects of globalization now combine to increase the dangers of a variety of transnational
threats from weapons proliferation, cyber attacks, ethnic violence, environmental degradation,
and the spread of infectious diseases. A serious analytic effort is needed to discover how access
to the critical knowledge, materials, and technologies can be denied to those bent on acquiring
weapons of mass destruction. Global technological and economic developments offer
opportunities to promote economic prosperity, eradicate disease, and advance political freedom,
which in turn hold out the possibility of actually ameliorating the transnational threats and
indirectly some of their underlying causes. But success depends critically on stakeholders--
governments, multilateral institutions, private businesses, and NGOs--pursuing them not only
globally but also collectively, and with sufficient means. More-effective collective decision making
processes are needed in the political realm. The decisions of such groups as the G-8 should
involve concrete measures and specific implementing guidance and enforcement mechanisms.
1.4 Rational of study :-

National Security Studies (NSS) program at California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB). We
are one of a few graduate programs in the country that is devoted to the study of U.S. national
security, and the only one in the California State University system. The program was founded in
1986.
Our fully accredited Master’s program (M.A.) provides a comprehensive curriculum with foundations in
strategy and strategic studies for students interested in pursuing careers in service for the U.S.
government (USG). NSS alumni serve in many different career fields, including defenced, security,
intelligence, and counter-terrorism. Federal service includes the various agencies of the U.S.
Intelligence Community such as:
9
• Air Force Intelligence Agency (AFIA),
• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
• Defenced Intelligence Agency (DIA),
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI),
• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA),

• Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), and
• National Security Agency (NSA)
In addition, alumni serve in the Government Accountability Office (GAO), branches of the U.S. Armed
Forces, the Congress, the Department of Defenced (DOD), and the Department of State (DOS).
Other alumni have pursued careers in law enforcement, including federal agencies such as the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA), the FBI, Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), as well as state and local agencies, with some appointed to their area Joint Terrorism Task
Force (JTTF).
Please peruse the site for additional information about our programs, admissions requirements, and
news. Thank you for your time and consideration to learn more about NSS and CSU-ACE.
Chapter – 2
10
Research Methodology
This course aims to develop an understanding of different research approaches and methodologies
for students to prepare for their own research projects. The course will assist students in identifying
their own research questions, select and identify research approaches and methods of inquiry,
develop arguments and present their results.
Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:
Upon successful completion of this course students will be able to:
1. Formulate their own research question and chose a research design to examine that question
2. Undertake critical evaluations of methodological issues and problems
3. Demonstrate a basic knowledge of commonly used methodological tools
4. Understand a variety of approaches to research
National security is the ability of a country's government to protect its citizens, economy, and other
institutions. Today, some non-military levels of national security include economic security, political
security, energy security, homeland security, cybersecurity, human security, and environmental
security. The factors considered essential in order to assess a country's comprehensive national
power are its size and intrinsic resources, human capital, scientific and technological capabilities,
economic strength, military power and leadership quality
1.1 Objective of study :-.
OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE

The objectives of the National Security Service shall be the following:
1) ensuring — within the scope of its competence — sovereignty, inviolability of state borders, territorial
integrity, constitutional order of the Republic of Armenia, rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of
citizens, as well as enhancing defence capacity of the Republic of Armenia;
2) gathering intelligence information for the purpose of ensuring the security of the Republic of Armenia,
enhancing its economic, scientific, technical and defence potential, as well as strengthening the security of
the Republic of Armenia;
3) ensuring the security of military and industrial complex, security in the fields of atomic energy, transport
and communication, economy, finance and industry, as well as of strategic facilities and in the field of primary
research and development of the Republic of Armenia;
4) disclosing, preventing and disrupting intelligence and other subversive activities of special services and
organisations of foreign states, as well as of separate individuals, aimed against the security of the Republic of
Armenia;
5) disclosing, preventing and disrupting other crimes that became known during the exercise of powers
reserved to investigative jurisdiction thereof and powers provided for by law, searching for persons having
committed those crimes or persons suspected of committing those crimes;
6) ensuring — within the scope of its competence — security in state bodies and institutions of the Republic
of Armenia, Armed forces and other troops of the Republic of Armenia;
7) informing the Prime Minister and, upon the assignment thereof, bodies of the state administration system
and territorial administration bodies about dangers posing threat to the security of the Republic of Armenia;
11
8) ensuring the security of diplomatic representations of foreign states in the territory of the Republic of
Armenia;
9) ensuring its own security (including counteraction against technical intelligence means of foreign states in
the system of the National Security Service), implementing measures aimed at the protection of information
of the National Security Bodies, containing state and official secrets, using technical means for the purpose of
preventing and disrupting infiltration of special services and organisations of foreign states, criminal groups
and separate individuals;
10) ensuring the economic security of the Republic of Armenia and fight against economic crimes within the
scope of its competence;
11) carrying out the protection of the state border of the Republic of Armenia, pursuant to the legislation of
the Republic of Armenia;
12) developing and implementing, jointly with the relevant state bodies, measures aimed at fight against
corruption in state and local self-government bodies, illegal trafficking and smuggling of weapons and
narcotic drugs related to foreign states, legalisation of proceeds of crime, armed groups, criminal groups,
persons and organisations that intend violent change of constitutional order of the Republic of Armenia;
13) disclosing, preventing and disrupting acts of terrorism;
14) participating in the development and implementation of measures aimed at the protection of information
containing state and official secrets, controlling the process of protection of state and official secrets in state
bodies, military formations and organisations, implementing, under the prescribed procedure, measures with
regard to granting permission of access to information containing state and official secrets to citizens;
15) implementing measures aimed at ensuring the security of the organisations and citizens of the Republic
of Armenia beyond its borders;
16) registration and centralised record-registration of radioelectronic communication means, radio data and
radio transmissions through radio monitoring, disclosure of radioelectronic means, radio transmissions and
radio waves posing threat to the national security of the Republic of Armenia or used for illegal purposes;
17) designating and allocating radio frequencies, acquiring radio frequency domains from the organisations
in charge, as well as renting communication lines and communication channels from the relevant
organisations of the Republic of Armenia for the exclusive use of government communication and other types
of special communication in the Republic of Armenia and outside its territory;
18) providing the President, Prime Minister, relevant officials of state and local self-government bodies with
means of government communication and other types of special communication, as well as organising
cryptographic and technical security of enciphered and cryptographic communication of representations of
the Republic of Armenia in the Republic of Armenia and foreign states and exercising state control over those
activities;
19) participating in the development of state policy in the fields of protection of state information resources
within information and telecommunication systems of the Republic of Armenia, cryptographic and technical
protection of information, counteraction against technical intelligence, as well as implementing that policy;
20) ensuring operational postal services (except for the diplomatic mail) for the President of the Republic of
Armenia, National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, Government, Prime Minister and ministries,
autonomous bodies, territorial administration bodies, Supreme Judicial Council, courts, Prosecutor’s Office,
Investigation Committee, Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Armenia, Central Bank of the
Republic of Armenia and other state bodies, military units (except for the military units of the Ministry of
Defence of the Republic of Armenia) located in the territory of the Republic of Armenia, as well as diplomatic
12
representations accredited in the Republic of Armenia and diplomatic representations of the Republic of
Armenia in foreign states;
21) transferring correspondence of state and diplomatic bodies, having special significance or containing
secret or top secret, and other official correspondence, as well as ensuring preservation thereof.
The goals of the National Security Service shall be the following:

1) intelligence activities;
2) counter-intelligence activities;
3) military counter-intelligence activities;
4) protection of state border;
5) fight against crime.
1.2 Scope of the study :-

(D) Scope of National Security Versus Insecurity A traditional definition of the State, often
attributed to Max Weber, requires as a necessary condition, the effective monopoly of the use of
violence within a given territory. The security of States was, therefore, threatened by any change
that might threaten that monopoly of violence, whether it was through external invasion or
internal rebellion. National Security was therefore, viewed purely from the military perspective.
Consequently, National Security was, in the past, narrowly understood and insufficiently
conceptualized. From most of the literature available, adopting this narrow view, National Security
concept is given an essentially strategic meaning by equating military defence with security as a
whole. This insufficient, essentially strategic, understanding of the concept is evident in the
definition provided by Michael Louw. According to him, National Security can be defined as the
condition of freedom from external physical attack.61 The same conclusion is advanced by Amos
Jordan and William Taylor who see National Security as a term that signifies protection of the
Nation’s people and territories against physical attack.62 Similarly, Weifrarn Horrieder and Lorry
Bud in their book Words and Arms, defined National Security as the protection of the nation from
all types of external aggression, espionage, hostile reconnaissance,
1.3 Limitations :-
The United States’ National Security Strategy, issued in May 2010, articulates an expansion in U.S.
interests that stems from the end of the Cold War. Departing from a policy of industrial growth
and military containment in response to geopolitical threats, U.S. national security is now defined
in terms of a wide range of potential risks that the country faces. The NSS is not alone in its rather
expansive view—one that significantly departs from the perspective adopted at any point in U.S.
history. It represents the fourth (and most concerning) epoch in the country’s evolution, and it is
beginning to find root in the law, with serious constitutional implications. The article begins by
considering what, exactly, is meant by “national security.” It posits a Hamiltonian definition: laws
and policies directed at protecting the national government in its efforts to aid in the common
defenced, preserve public peace, repel external attacks, regulate commerce, and engage in
foreign relations. It turns then to the Founding and suggests that the first epoch was marked,
primarily, by the drive to Union and, secondarily, by the goals of establishing international
13
independence and building the country’s economic strength. The Civil War represented a
reversion to Union as the core of American security, with recourse to international independence
and economic growth following Confederate defeat. The Spanish-American War brought the first
epoch to a close, leading to the second, in which U.S. national security expanded to include a
formative agenda in the global environment. The country would no longer be content with merely
reacting to international developments; it would seek to shape the international arena.
Domestically, the federal government sought to limit the rapidly expanding power of private
sources of power, particularly corporate entities. Tensions between the goals of the first age and
those of the second resulted in power struggles between the federal branches of government.
During the third epoch, national security became the United States’ overriding interest, rendering
all other concerns subservient. The economy, education, housing, health care, and civil rights
came to be seen through a new lens, gaining for national security a privileged position. This third
epoch began not with World War I or World War II (common markers in studies of U.S. foreign
affairs), but with the rise of totalitarianism in the 1930s. World War II narrowed the focus to one
form of threat—communism, while during the Cold War containment of the Soviet Union became
the overriding goal. Resistance involved a combination of military engagement and humanitarian
aid to countries resisting communist influence and, at a domestic level, the integration of industry,
science, and political institutions. Strides in the domestic civil rights arena also became an
important response to Soviet allegations of democratic injustice. The fourth, and most recent,
epoch emerged with the fall of the Berlin Wall. National security now dominates, making it the
most powerful institutional engine. Risks, broadly defined, have been folded into the framework,
with emphasis now placed on the effects that may result should anticipated risks become
manifest. As a result, areas outside the traditional framework, such as climate change, public
health, drugs, and criminal law, have been drawn into the national security infrastructure.
Executive branch authorities in regard to each of these areas have rapidly expanded, raising a
number of constitutional concerns.
Chapter – 3
Meaning & Definition
Meaning
Robert Longley
Published on September 24, 2021
14
National security is the ability of a country’s government to protect its citizens, economy, and other
institutions. Beyond the obvious protection against military attacks, national security in the 21st
century includes several non-military missions.
Definition of National security
For most of the 20th century, national security was strictly a matter of military power and readiness,
but with the dawn of the nuclear age and the threats of the Cold War, it became clear that defining
national security in a context of conventional military warfare had become a thing of the past. Today,
U.S. government policymakers struggle to balance the demands of several “national securities.”
Among these are economic security, political security, energy security, homeland security,
cybersecurity, human security, and environmental security.
In a political context, this proliferation of “national security” definitions poses difficult challenges. In
some cases, for example, they are simply a repurposing of domestic policy programs, such as
infrastructure improvement, intended to shift funds and resources away from the military. In other
cases, they are needed to respond to the complexities of a rapidly changing international
environment.
The modern world is characterized by perilous state-to-state relationships as well as conflicts within
states caused by ethnic, religious, and nationalistic differences. International and domestic
terrorism, political extremism, drug cartels, and threats created by information-age technology add to
the turmoil. The sense of optimism for lasting peace after the end of the Vietnam War was shattered
on September 11, 2001, by the terrorist attacks on the United States, the “Bush Doctrine,” and the
seemingly perpetual war against international terrorism. The United States’ war against terrorism and
constantly evolving concepts of warfare are politically intermixed with globalization, economic
expansion, homeland security, and demands to extend American values through diplomacy.
During the response to the September 11 attacks, disputes within the national security establishment,
Congress, and the public were temporarily muted. More recently, however, the U.S. involvement in
Iraq and the continuing concerns about Iran and North Korea have magnified the challenges to U.S.
national security policy and have caused a great degree of turmoil in the U.S. political system
and foreign policy. In this environment, U.S. national security policy and priorities have become
complicated—not due to the threat of major conventional war but because of the unpredictable
characteristics of the international arena.
Today’s national security environment is complicated by a proliferation of a diverse range of violent

non-state actors. Often by committing heinous acts of violence against innocent civilians, these groups
utilize subversive means to exploit and disrupt the international system.
Suicide bombers are inspired and trained by al Qaeda and its offshoots in Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria,
and Yemen. Somali pirates disrupt shipping, kidnapping civilians, and extorting governments. As part
of a “blood oil” trade, warlords terrorize the Niger Delta. La Familiar, a quasi-religious drug cartel,
murders its way to control of Mexico’s drug trafficking routes. Such groups are also condemned for
relying heavily on children under the age of 18 as combatants and in other supportive roles.
Conventional national security strategy is ill-equipped to deal with violent non-state actors. According
to global security analysts, flexible arrangements in dealing with non-state armed actors will always be
necessary. In general, three so-called “spoiler management” strategies have been suggested: positive
propositions or inducements to counter demands made by non-state armed actors; socialization in
15
order to change their behavior; and arbitrary measures to weaken armed actors or force them to
accept certain terms.
Beyond spoiler management strategies, international peace-building and state-building efforts

challenge the position of most of these non-state armed actors by attempting to strengthen or rebuild
state structures and institutions. While peacebuilding works towards the establishment of sustainable
peace in general, state-building focuses specifically on the construction of a functional state capable of
maintaining that peace. Accordingly, peace-building is often followed by state-building efforts in a
process of intervention by external actors.
In consideration of the new problems of defining national security, noted scholar of civil-military
relations, the late Sam C. Sarkesian, prominent scholar of civil-military relations and national
security, proposed a definition that includes both objective capability and perception:
“U.S. national security is the ability of national institutions to prevent adversaries from using force to
harm Americans.”
Goals and Priorities
As first stated in “A National Security Strategy for a New Century,” released by the Bill
Clinton administration in 1998, the primary goals of the U.S. national security strategy remain to
protect the lives and safety of Americans; maintain the sovereignty of the United States, with its
values, institutions, and territory intact; and provide for the prosperity of the nation and its people.
Similar to those of previous U.S. presidential administrations since the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, issued by President Joe Biden in March 2021,
established the following fundamental national security goals and priorities:
• Defend and nurture the underlying sources of America’s strength, including its people,
economy, national defenced, and democracy;
• Promote a favourable distribution of power to deter and prevent adversaries from directly
threatening the United States and its allies, inhibiting access to global natural resources, or
dominating key regions; and
• Lead and sustain a stable and open international system, underwritten by strong democratic
alliances, partnerships, multilateral institutions, and rules.
Increasingly, the U.S. national security strategy is required to confront an international environment
characterized by intense geopolitical challenges to the United States—predominately from China and
Russia, but also from Iran, North Korea, and other regional powers and factions.
Even two decades after the event, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the resulting War on Terror continue
to have a significant influence on U.S. security policy. Aside from the devastating human losses, the
9/11 attacks brought a better understanding of the scale and importance of the global nature of the
terrorism threat. America’s defenced and political leaders gained greater will and ability to commit the
resources necessary to fight terrorism most effectively. The War on Terror also ushered in a new
generation of policies like the USA Patriot Act, prioritizing national security and defenced, even at the
expense of some civil liberties
16
expense of some civil libertiesthe
expense of some civil liberties.
Lasting Effects of the War on Terror
Twenty years after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Word trade centre has been rebuilt, Osama bin Laden is
dead at the hands of a U.S. Navy Seal team, and on September 1, 2021, the last U.S. soldiers
left Afghanistan, ending America's longest war while leaving the country in the control of the Taliban.
Today, Americans continue to grapple with the ripple effects of the government’s response to the most
impactful national security crisis since pearl Harbor.
The new powers granted to law enforcement agencies by the USA Patriot Act expanded beyond the
original mission of counterterrorism. In dealing with criminal suspects who had nothing to do with al-
Qaeda, police departments adopted body armorer, military vehicles, and other surplus equipment
from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, blurring the line between warfare abroad and law enforcement
at home.
As the U.S. Congress voted to pour trillions of dollars into nation-building projects, particularly the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the unprecedented level of support for bolstering military power
crossed into the realm of domestic policy as politicians attached what might be unpopular policy goals
to the military and its role in national security. This often dumbed down debate on the issues, with the
public—and politicians—blindly supporting what was presented as being “good for the military,” even
when it often was not.
While almost 3,000 people died on 9/11, those deaths were only the beginning of the human costs of
the attacks. The attacks led the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq while sending troops to
dozens of other countries as part of the “Global War on Terror.” Nearly 7,000 U.S. military personnel
died in those conflicts, along with about 7,500 U.S. contractors, with many thousands more wounded
from the all-volunteer military. Unlike previous wars like WWI, WWII, and Vietnam, the “War on
Terror” never involved the use of the military draft.
Even greater has been the toll on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 170,000 people, including
over 47,000 civilians, have been killed in Afghanistan as a direct result of the military conflicts; when
indirect causes, such as destroyed infrastructure, are taken into account, that number reaches well
over 350,000. In Iraq, estimates are between 185,000 and 209,000 civilian deaths; this number may
be much lower than the actual death toll, given the difficulty of reporting and confirming deaths. On
top of these casualties, hundreds of thousands of people have become refugees due to the violence and
upheaval in their homelands.
17
National and Global Security
Since the War on Terror became a multinational effort there has been an attempt to establish a
dividing line between national security and global security. Professor of Security Studies Samuel
Makinda has defined security as “the preservation of the norms, rules, institutions, and values of
society.” National security has been described as the ability of a country to provide for the protection
and defenced of its citizenry. Thus, Melinda’s definition of security would seem to fit within the
confines of national security. Global security, on the other hand, involves security demands such as
nature—in the form of climate change, for example—and globalization, which have been placed on
countries and entire regions. These are demands for which no single country’s national security
apparatus can handle on its own and, as such, require multinational cooperation. The global
interconnection and interdependence among countries experience since the end of the Cold War
makes it necessary for countries to cooperate more closely.
The strategies of global security include military and diplomatic measures taken by nations
individually and cooperatively through international organizations such as the United
Nations and NATO to ensure mutual safety and security.
Since the War on Terror became a multinational effort there has been an attempt to establish a
dividing line between national security and global security. Professor of Security Studies Samuel
Makinda has defined security as “the preservation of the norms, rules, institutions, and values of
society.” National security has been described as the ability of a country to provide for the protection
and defense of its citizenry. Thus, Makinda’s definition of security would seem to fit within the
confines of national security. Global security, on the other hand, involves security demands such as
nature—in the form of climate change, for example—and globalization, which have been placed on
countries and entire regions. These are demands for which no single country’s national security
apparatus can handle on its own and, as such, require multinational cooperation. The global
interconnection and interdependence among countries experience since the end of the Cold War
makes it necessary for countries to cooperate more closely.
The strategies of global security include military and diplomatic measures taken by nations
individually and cooperatively through international organizations such as the United
Nations and NATO to ensure mutual safety and security.
Tactics
In safeguarding national security, governments rely on a range of tactics, including political,

economic, and military power, along with diplomatic efforts. In addition, governments attempt to
build regional and international security by reducing transnational causes of insecurity, such
as climate change, terrorism, organized crime, economic inequality, political instability, and nuclear
weapons proliferation.
In the United States, national security strategies pertain to the U.S. government as a whole and are
issued by the president with the consultation of the Department of Defense (DOD). Current federal
law requires the president to periodically deliver to Congress a comprehensive National Defense
Strategy.
18
Along with stating the DODs approach to contending with current and emerging national security
challenges, the National Defense Strategy is intended to explain the strategic rationale for programs
and priorities to be funded in the DOD’s annual budget requests.
Issued in 2018, the most recent U.S. National Defense Strategy the DOD recommends that due to an
unprecedented erosion of international political order, the U.S. should increase its military advantage
relative to the threats posed by China and Russia. The Defense Strategy further maintains that “inter-
state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”
Successful implementation of any national security strategy must be conducted on two levels: physical
and psychological. The physical level is an objective, quantifiable measure based on the capacity of the
country’s military to challenge its adversaries, including going to war if necessary. It further
anticipates a more prominent security role for nonmilitary factors, such as intelligence, economics,
and diplomacy, and the ability to use them as political-military levers in dealings with other
countries. For example, to help bolster its energy security, U.S. foreign policy employs economic and
diplomatic tactics to reduce its dependence on oil imported from politically unstable regions such as
the Middle East. The psychological level, by contrast, is a far more subjective measurement of the
people’s willingness to support the government’s efforts to achieve national security goals. It requires
that a majority of people have both the knowledge and political will to support clear strategies
intended to achieve clear national security goals.
Sources
• Romm, Joseph J. “Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects.” Council on Foreign
Relations, April 1, 1993, ISBN-10: 0876091354.
• Sarkesian, Sam C. (2008) “US National Security: Policymakers, Processes & Politics.” Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc., October 19, 2012, ISBN-10: 158826856X.
• McSweeney, Bill. “Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International
Relations.” Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN: 9780511491559.
• Osisanya, Segun. “National Security versus Global Security.” United Nations,
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/national-security-versus-global-security.
• Mattis, James. “Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy.” U.S. Department of Defense,
2018, https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-
Summary.pdf.
• Biden, Joseph R. “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” The White House, March
2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf.
• Makinda, Samuel M. “Sovereignty and Global Security, Security Dialogue.” Sage Publications,
1998, ISSN: 0967-0106.
Chapter – 4
National security Versus Global Security

19
security, like peace, identity and other terminologies in that fold of international political theory has
attracted many definitions. Unfortunately, many contributors approach these concepts from their own
ideologies. Hence, broad areas of description of the term “security” exist. If defining security is that elusive,
there is little wonder why operating within its coverage is so fluid. In the name of security, people and
governments have taken actions where intended and unintended outcomes have become difficult to
handle. Because of its seeming lack of conceptual boundary, security, as a concept, is used to entice and
whip up patronage for many political projects both at the state and international levels of politicking.
Hence, Paul D. Williams argued that “security is therefore a powerful political tool in claiming attention for
priority items in the competition for government attention”.1
In the context of this article, Samuel Makinda’s definition of security as “the preservation of the norms,
rules, institutions and values of society”2 appears to be useful. He further argues that all the institutions,
principles and structures associated with society, including its people are to be protected from “military
and non-military threats”.3 The term “preservation”, as an important component of this definition,
presupposes conscious, deliberate and definite steps and actions. Hence, the perception of the leadership
of a society determines its actions and guides its efforts, which becomes evident in the width and depth of
the security agenda of that society.
In many forums on the topic of security, there has been an attempt to establish a divide between national
and global security. Although, in theory, a boundary exists between these two conceptual frameworks,
such a boundary is not sufficient to maintain a clear-cut delimitation between them. Rather, they have a
symbiotic relationship, although limited to the local security sphere, which states lack the capacity to
handle unilaterally. Equivalently, there are issues at the international sphere that will require a domestic
security apparatus to deal with.
This article is aimed at articulating reasons for more collaboration, cooperation and synergy between
national and global security apparatus and mechanisms.
National security has been described as the ability of a state to cater for the protection and defence of its
citizenry. Makinda’s definition of security fits into this confine of national security. Global security, on the
other hand, evolved from the necessity that nature and many other activities, particularly globalization,
have placed on states. These are demands that no national security apparatus has the capacity to handle
on its own and, as such, call for the cooperation of states. The global interconnection and interdependence
among states that the world has experienced and continues to experience since the end of the cold war,
makes it necessary for states to cooperate more and work together.
One of the major challenges that the field of global security has to contend with is the concept of security
complex,4 a situation in which the security concerns of states are deeply interconnected to the point that
one state’s security needs cannot be realistically considered without taking into consideration the security
needs of the other states.5 The fear or threat content of security complex breeds rivalry among states. The
remedy for such rivalry lies in cooperation which can only be found in global security initiatives among
states.
With the advocacy of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
human security elements have acquired a wider dimension, for they go beyond military protection and
engage threats to human dignity. Accordingly, it has become necessary for states to make conscious
efforts towards building links with other states and to consciously engage in global security initiatives.
OCHA’s expanded definition of security calls for a wide range of security areas:
20
1. Economic: creation of employment and measures against poverty.
2. Food: measures against hunger and famine.
3. Health: measures against disease, unsafe food, malnutrition and lack of access to basic health care.
4. Environmental: measures against environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural disasters

and pollution.
5. Personal: measures against physical violence, crime, terrorism, domestic violence and child labour.
6. Community: measures against inter-ethnic, religious and other identity tensions.
7. Political: measures against political repression and human rights abuses.6
A critical examination of these OCHA human security measures makes global security an important
exercise to analyse. For instance, there are many states where the capacity to deal with issues of
unemployment are grossly lacking. The same applies to food provision and other areas.
Health care poses a challenge in varying dimensions at different levels in many states. As a result of
globalization, people from different parts of the world crisscross between geographical boundaries. As
much as this has claimed to bring economic prosperity, it is also replete with challenges, particularly in
regard to the spread of communicable diseases, crime and terrorism.
Aside from spillouts resulting from deliberate human activities, another area of concern is the
consequences of internal conflicts, which include refugee problems and which transcend geographical
contiguity. Environmental and climate change issues are other areas that call for more cooperation among
states, especially when dealing with the aftermath of an earthquake or a tsunami.
Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are other areas that make global
collaboration and cooperation necessary. The acquisition of nuclear weapons and similar armaments,
which started as a national security option, has become today a major threat to national and global
security. The seemingly hard-line posture of many state actors towards disarmament requires the
development of a moral consciousness that can only be reinforced by cooperation and collaboration at the
international level.
It might be true that states are in competition, as argued by Jabeen Musarrat.7 To a great extent, there
seems to be distrust at the global level, even after the end of the cold war. This leads one to think that
perhaps the cold war did not actually come to an end but merely changed its nature.
Louis Beres’ observation over 40 years ago that “world leaders continue to act as if security of their
respective states is based upon national military power”8 remains valid even today. His advice that states
need to embrace a new spirit of oneness is crucial for all. There is, therefore, an urgent need to re-evaluate
Beres’ argument that states “continue to misunderstand that their only safe course is one in which the
well-being and security of each is determined from the standpoint of what is best for the system as a
whole”.9 Here lies the attraction in global security—“what is best for all”.
The global community stands to benefit from greater intra-states collaboration and cooperation, for
greater interaction will help build trust and confidence. National and regional security breakdowns are a
21
global security problem. Therefore, it is in the interest of all that no national security challenge be allowed
to escalate into a global problem.
Chapter – 5
5 Threats to National Security & How Government Protects it’s Citizens
Every nation faces threats. These threats can be social, such as aggression from a neigh boring country,
infiltration from a terrorist group or global economic trends that compromise the nation’s welfare. In other
cases, threats can be natural, such as hurricanes or viral pandemics. Any threat challenges a nation’s power
and disrupts its well-being.
The field of national security safeguards against such threats. National security protects not only citizens
but also the economic stability of national institutions. In the U.S., national defense has been a guiding
principle of the government at least since 1947, when then-President Harry S. Truman signed into law the
National Security Act. Among other things, this legislation created the secretary of defense cabinet position,
under whose leadership all branches of the military operated.
22
Crucially, national security and global security aren’t the same thing. National security involves a national
government working autonomously to protect its citizens from threats. Global security involves a coalition
of nations working together to ensure that each of them may enjoy peace and stability; this is a guiding
principle of organizations like the United Nations.
One of the core responsibilities of national security is identifying potential dangers and readying the right
response. This article will highlight five of the most consequential national security threats and provide
insight into how governments respond to them.
What is National Security Theatre?
Anything that threatens the physical well-being of the population or jeopardizes the stability of a nation’s
economy or institutions is considered a national security threat. National security threats can be further
broken down into groups.
Hostile Government
Some national security threats come from foreign governments with hostile intentions. These threats may
include direct acts of war and aggression. but they can also be subtler and harder to detect. Examples
include espionage and election interference.
Terrorism
Countries also face threats from groups who don’t formally represent a foreign government but may be
sponsored or tolerated by foreign powers. Terrorist groups may seek to cause chaos and disruption through
physical violence or, in some cases, cybercrime.
Proliferation
An enemy state doesn’t have to take direct aggressive action for it to register as a potential threat to
national security. The idea of proliferation, specifically with regard to advanced weaponry, may also be
taken into account. If a hostile state is known to be stockpiling chemical weapons, developing nuclear
capabilities or otherwise escalating its capacity for destruction, it qualifies as a national security threat, even
without using those weapons in a direct attack.
Cybercrime
Online criminals pose a danger to national security, including those not associated with hostile
governments or terrorist groups. Cybercriminals may hack economic institutions, government websites or
power infrastructures as a way of stealing or extorting money. They may also commit cybercrimes to
advance an ideological agenda.
Natural Disasters and Diseases
Not all threats to national security involve the malignant influence of bad actors. Hurricanes, earthquakes
and other natural disasters can pose serious damage to a nation’s people and physical infrastructure.
Pandemics like COVID-19 weaken health care systems and economies.
1. Pandemic Threads
23
For a recent example of a national security threat, look no further than the COVID-19 pandemic. While
pandemics can unfold on a global scale, different countries face them in different ways, often to varying
levels of success.
This still-unfolding global health crisis demonstrates how widespread disease endangers not only the
physical wellness of citizens but also socioeconomic structures. Meanwhile, global responses to COVID-19
have highlighted how governments can protect against such crises.
How Disease Disrupts
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted almost every country in the world. In addition to causing alarming
and tragic death tolls, the virus has shown the widespread social and economic havoc that a pandemic can
yield.
• The highly infectious nature of the disease has forced many businesses to close their doors, either
temporarily or permanently. This has resulted in significant revenue losses.
• As businesses have closed or limited their services, it’s resulted in layoffs and reduced work hours. In
the U.S. alone, COVID-19 has sent the joblessness rate from under 4% to over 10%.
• The effects of the pandemic have impacted different industries at disproportionate levels, with some
industries hit especially hard. Examples include the travel and hospitality industries.
• The cumulative impact of lost revenues and rising unemployment has put many nations on the brink
of recession and resulted in turbulent stock market activity that has impacted many U.S. investors.
Protecting Against Disease
COVID-19 is a reminder that the threat of a global pandemic is ever-present. It’s a call for national
governments to be prepared. Governments have a number of ways to safeguard their citizenry from
diseases and viral threats.
Connecting Laboratories
By connecting research laboratories, governments can create an infrastructure for easy, collaborative work
toward vaccines and other treatments.
Government Communication
Government communication can also play an important role; for example, through clear communication
about the importance of hand-washing, social distancing and mask-wearing, governments can educate
citizens on how to keep themselves safe.
Economic Intervention
Governments may also offer intervention in the economy, whether through widespread payments to
citizens or with a more targeted stimulus to industries hit hardest by shutdowns.
Emergency Management
Emergency management systems may be put into place, ensuring that governments have all the right tools
to decisively communicate with citizens in the event of an emergency.
2. Biological warfare
24
Some diseases occur naturally and not through any act of malignancy or hostility. However, history also
provides many examples of biological weapons being harnessed to cause widespread terror. Biological
warfare poses a significant threat to national security, yet governments can put into place important
safeguards to minimize this risk.
Botulinum Toxin
Botulinum toxin, classified by scientists as a neurotoxic protein, has a number of commercial uses, both in
food processing and in the manufacturing of cosmetic products. However, when weaponized and deployed,
it can cause significant health effects, including the disease botulism.
The use of botulinum toxin as a weapon originated in World War II. Since then, it’s been widely classified as a
potential agent of biological warfare. In the 1990s, a Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, deployed this toxin on
the streets of Tokyo, causing panic but thankfully resulting in no fatalities.
Anthrax
Another potential agent of biological warfare is anthrax. Anthrax is a highly infectious, potentially lethal
disease that’s caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracic. This naturally occurring bacterium has been
around for centuries, but was first harnessed and weaponized in World War I. During World War II, the U.S.,
Great Britain and Japan all experimented with anthrax as a weapon.
In the modern era, anthrax is a common agent of biological warfare. This is because the bacteria is easily
found in nature or synthesized in a laboratory and because it can be released quickly and securely.
The U.S. Canters for Disease Control and Prevention notes that anthrax has been weaponized in the past. “In
2001, powdered anthrax spores were deliberately put into letters that were mailed through the U.S. postal
system,” the agency reports. “Twenty-two people, including 12 mail handlers, got anthrax, and five of these
22 people died.”
Protecting Against Biological Warfare
These are just two bioterror threats nations face. Crucially, governments can prepare for such attacks with
approaches like the following:
• Governments can train public health workers on how to deploy rapid responses.
• Governments can direct funding to help public health departments stockpile medications and
treatments.
• Laws can regulate the possession and transfer of hazardous ingredients that may be used to create
biological weapons.
• Laboratories can be kept at the ready, prepared to conduct testing at the first sign of biological
warfare.
3. Cyber terrorism
Cyberterrorism provides another national security threat. The Center for Strategic and International Studies,
a global think tank, reports dozens of incidents of cyberterrorism in 2020 alone. In India, a group of human
rights activists was targeted by terrorists who infected their computers with malware. Suspected North
Korean hackers compromised two prominent European defense firms, sending them fake job offers as a way
to infiltrate their systems and retrieve classified information. These are just two of the countless examples of
criminals using hacking and other nefarious digital schemes to cause disruption and chaos.
25
Types of Cyberterrorism
Experts place cyberterrorist attacks into three distinct categories: simple-unstructured, advanced-
structured and complex-coordinated.
• Simple-unstructured attack. A terrorist deploys basic hacking tools against a single target; usually,
the tools used were made by someone else.
• Advanced-structured attack. A terrorist conducts a more sophisticated and targeted attack against
multiple targets.
• Complex-coordinated attack. A terrorist employs highly advanced hacking tools to cause mass
disruption, targeting an entire business, state or nation.
Threat of Cyberterrorism
Cyberterrorist activity poses a threat to national security for a number of reasons:
• Because banking and financial systems are increasingly digitized and connected to the internet,
many cybersecurity experts fear that hackers could cause widespread economic instability,
potentially causing a recession or depression.
• There are also fears that illicitly acquired information could be publicized. In other words, hackers
could breach government agencies as well as the privacy of citizens.
• Still another fear regarding cyberterrorism is that by hacking into power or utility infrastructures,
terrorists could cause chaos throughout major metropolitan areas.
Cyberthreats are alarming because they can be deployed remotely, anonymously and cheaply.
Protecting Against Cyberterrorism
Governments may take multiple precautions against cyberterrorist activity. In the U.S., for example, the
Department of Defense monitors U.S. interests in cyberspace and maintains a list of those who’ve been
assessed as potential threats. Former President Barack Obama signed an executive order allowing U.S
officials to impose sanctions on those suspected of participation in cyberterrorism against the country.
Additionally, governments may provide guidance to businesses and local municipalities, equipping them
with best practices for enforcing strong encryption and cybersecurity measures.
4. Climate change and national security
Climate change may also be considered a national security threat as its long-term effects may bring
disastrous ecological consequences. However, because this is a threat that all nations face, and because
much of the work done to fight climate change is done through international coalitions, climate change is
more often regarded as a global security issue.
Impact of Climate Change
Climate change adversely impacts national economies in many ways. Some examples include the following:
• Rising sea levels result in flooding, which does significant damage to real estate and infrastructure in
coastal areas.
26
• Droughts and irregular rain patterns have both been linked to climate change and could cause
disruption to agricultural practices and supply chains.
• Climate change may also result in extreme storms and natural disasters, which cause widespread
property damage and claim human lives.
Specific Threats to the United States
Climate change is a threat facing the entire world; at the same time, some of its implications have a unique
impact on the U.S.
For example, a Pentagon report noted that climate change threatens the stability of a number of mission-
critical U.S. military bases. The report focused on 79 military installations across the globe and found that 53
of them currently face peril due to flooding; 43, due to drought; and 36, due to wildfires.
Combating Climate Change
Climate change presents serious risks. Governments can take meaningful steps to protect national security
interests against climate change and its ravages.
• Governments can set local emissions goals, reducing the prevalence of air pollution.
• Governments can encourage the use of electric or hybrid vehicles, such as through tax incentives.
• Governments can invest in public transport infrastructures, reducing the need for cars on the road.
• Government science agencies can raise public awareness about the threat of climate change and
about the actions individuals can take to minimize this threat.
• Governments can incentivize carbon farming and other ecologically neutral practices.
• Governments can also impose penalties on businesses that don’t meet environmental standards.
5. Transnational crimes
An important additional national security threat is a transnational crime. The FBI defines transnational
crime groups as groups that seek their own power, influence, or financial gains through illegal activity,
regardless of physical geography.
Examples of Transnational Crime
Transnational crime groups work across geographic boundaries and violate the laws of multiple nations;
because of this, they pose a threat to many countries at the same time. Stopping this activity may require
separate national security agencies to work together — a challenging task given questions of jurisdiction as
well as friction points between nations.
Transnational crime may take a number of forms, including the following:
• The procurement of illegal goods, including drug trafficking

• Illicit services, such as human trafficking
• Business infiltration and racketeering
27
Precautions Against Transnational Crime
Different countries respond to transnational crime in different ways. In the U.S, the FBI has a transnational
crime program devoted to eliminating any criminal activity that poses a threat to U.S. interests.
Specifically, the FBI uses laws such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which
provides them with legal avenues to disrupt and dismantle entire criminal enterprises, rather than targeting
individual criminal actors one at a time.
According to the FBI, the agency uses “a multifaceted approach” to locate transnational crime groups and to
disable their infrastructures for criminal activity.
Keeping the country & it’s people safe
Wide-ranging threats imperil every nation. It’s vital for governments to put national security and emergency
response efforts in place, allowing them to identify and thwart any natural or human-made disruptions to
peace, safety and stability.
If you’re passionate about these goals, and if you want to pursue a career keeping nations safe, you can
begin by finding out more about opportunities to prepare yourself. Enrollment in an academic program
devoted to national security and emergency response can help you develop the skills required for success in
this field.
Chapter -6
28
climate change will impact national security
How climate change will impact national security
Arizona's Lake Powell, the second biggest reservoir in the United States, dropped to record low water levels when drought hit the region this past summer.
Photo by Bill Clark via AP

29
Rising temperatures and intensifying weather due to climate change, along with the unlikelihood of
meeting the 2030 emissions goals of the Paris Agreement, will exacerbate geopolitical tensions, social
instability, and the need for humanitarian aid, according to a joint report by the U.S intelligence
community last month. The National Intelligence Estimate lays out the likely security implications over
the next two decades of the mounting climate crisis. Calder Walton is assistant director for research at
the Belfer Center’s Intelligence Project, which organized Harvard Kennedy School’s first conference on
climate change and national security last spring. He spoke to the Gazette about the report and the
important role the intelligence community should play in addressing the crisis. Interview is edited for
clarity and length.
Q&A
Calder Walton
GAZETTE: We hear about the threats posed by climate change from an environmental standpoint, but
rarely about the risks and threats it poses to national security. How does the U.S. intelligence community
view climate change, and is this a new domain?
WALTON: The purpose of the U.S. intelligence community, established after the Second World War in
the wake of Pearl Harbor, was to provide policymakers with decision advantage and forewarning of
threats to national security. If the primary purpose is to give decision advantages about national security
threats, obviously, by definition, the U.S. intelligence community has to have a role giving key decision-
makers their assessments about the greatest existential threat in human civilization: climate change.
What is going to be the impact of changing climate on national security, economic society, civil society?
And this isn’t just national security; this is international, globalized security. If we look at it like that,
clearly, the U.S. intelligence community has to have a role. And they’re very, very late to the game.
GAZETTE: How are other intelligence services responding to climate change? Is any country leading the
way?
WALTON: I don’t think anyone is a shining star in terms of taking this seriously. I have yet to find an
example of a country that has an intelligence bureaucracy set up to really deal with this and to provide
assessments about the national security implications of climate change to policy leaders in a sufficient
way.
The overwhelming focus of intelligence communities across the globe is still on post-Cold War structures
— stealing other people’s secrets. And we are now in an age of globalized challenges, the primary one
being climate change, but also the bio revolution and biosecurity, cyber, and disinformation. Climate
change and pandemics are linked; climate change will, scientists tell us, create more new disease
outbreaks. And then, add in synthesized biology; we have cyber, artificial intelligence, and machine
learning. These are globalized challenges that will affect societies across the world.
We are really at an inflection point in terms of the way that we understand intelligence and national
security. U.S. national security and intelligence were built up to deal with blocs of states, first the fascist
states and then Soviet communism. Nine-eleven was the first wake-up call about non-state actors, but the
U.S. intelligence community still used the same framework of established bureaucracies built up in
postwar years to deal with non-state actors. And now, with a pandemic and climate change, we’re seeing
truly globalized challenges. It seems to me that we need to rethink how we understand intelligence to
deal with it, geared to sharing global intelligence to deal with global challenges we face.
“Scarce resources leading to political violence, terrorism — that’s the kind of secondary threat
progression that the U.S. intelligence community will be looking at.”
— Calder Walton
30
GAZETTE: What are the most important takeaways from this report?
WALTON: Let’s start with the basics: that climate change does pose a threat to U.S. national security. The
National Intelligence Estimate is a joint assessment produced by the entire U.S. intelligence community,
18 agencies. That’s significant. There are no naysayers; there’s no doubt. So that’s a breakthrough. In this
extraordinarily polarized and politicized environment, that is a big milestone itself.
There is a series of direct and indirect security threats that the report lays out. First and foremost, it says
that it is likely that the temperature will rise by 1.5 degrees by 2030, which is the Paris Agreement target.
So, we are unlikely to stop that from happening. And then, the report reveals the direct and indirect
consequences of climate change: raising temperature and the inability of, as they see it, our
decarbonization efforts to prevent that temperature rise in the U.S. Direct consequences relate to
territorial integrity. The U.S. military’s been talking about rising sea levels on bases since the 1970s, if not
earlier. Rising sea level, which is affecting how we’re undertaking military operations. And then, the
secondary knock-on effects of population displacement, of civil disorder as key essentials become scarce,
damage to crops, and economic realignment. Also, refugee crises or population displacement, and
radicalization of people angry with their own government or willing to take action against countries that
they regard as the big polluters. Scarce resources leading to political violence, terrorism — that’s the kind
of secondary threat progression that the U.S. intelligence community will be looking at.
GAZETTE: China accounts for 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, followed by the U.S. Are the
risks from climate change multiplying the existing concerns U.S. intelligence has about China, and does it
change their approach?
WALTON: It is. What we’re witnessing is the combination of these global challenges to international
security — biosecurity, natural and synthesized biology and pandemics, climate change, disinformation
— being fused with great power, geopolitical conflicts. There’s this idea that we can either deal with the
international security threats of climate change or China. But in reality, they are not mutually exclusive;
they’re all interwoven. Climate change is now fused with geopolitics.
How is the U.S. intelligence community thinking about China and these issues? This is an area firmly
within the traditional wheelhouse of what the U.S. intelligence community can do. The absolutely
important information will be verification and attribution: whether China is adhering to its public
statements about its carbon reduction. Is it being truthful or is it not being truthful? That’s where
intelligence collection — human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery intelligence from satellite,
overhead reconnaissance, and open-source intelligence — is going to be absolutely key. Senior
policymakers in Washington will say, “I need to know whether China is adhering to what they profess to
be doing in terms of decarbonization.” So that will be a requirement set to the U.S. Intelligence
Committee, to steal those secrets. That is not that different from what we’ve done in the past, and will be
increasingly important.
There is a significant role the U.S. intelligence community could play and really, in my view, must play
going forward. It’s disseminating its assessments, particularly from overhead satellite mapping, what the
U.S. intelligence community is observing both on the territorial integrity of countries and population
displacement. During the Ebola crisis, the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence agency, through its
satellite platforms, collected and then publicly disseminated via its website information about the spread
of Ebola in West Africa. That is exactly the direction that we need to go in with climate change.
GAZETTE: What comes after this report? Is there a next step?

WALTON: The next step is for the U.S. intelligence community to say, “This is what we can deliver. We
know what we need; we know what policymakers need to know; we know what the public needs to
know; and this is how we can contribute to assessments and messaging and help shape public policy.”
The worst thing they could do would be to set up a new bureaucracy within a particular agency and say,
“We’re now doing climate change.” It’s time for some bold thinking. This is a profound existential crisis
for the way we live our lives, and it’s time for profound thinking about intelligence to inform decision-
31
making. Instead of the traditional focus of intelligence agencies to retain information because it is
classified, it seems to me that when it comes to climate change the emphasis should be about publicly
disseminating that intelligence. In other words, a reversal of tradition.
It’s incumbent for assessments to be as widely read as possible so that we understand this, so that
members of the public can hold policymakers’ feet to the coals about making changes. There’s no good if
we find out in 50 years’ time, they were being briefed on this. The stakes are too high for that.
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
Climate change's anticipated impacts such as sea level rise and forced migration can have multiplier
effects, accelerating traditional security threats, conclude 11 retired flag officers in a new report from the
CNA Corporation.
Climate change's anticipated impacts such as sea level rise and forced migration can have multiplier
effects, accelerating traditional security threats. This concern is the conclusion of 11 retired flag officers
in a new report from the CNA Corporation, National security & the threat of climate change. The report
recommends defining climate change as a national security threat, and integrating the consequences of
such a threat into military planning. At an event sponsored by the Environmental Change and Security
Program on May 14, 2007, three of the retired generals joined representatives from CNA and the British
Embassy to discuss the report's findings and recommendations.
"[I]f there is one thing the military does well, it is plan," said retired General Paul J. Kern of the U.S. Army.
"When we plan, we look at the extremes of operations…[and] create different alternatives for how
you can solve them, from the very worst-case scenario to the best case." Retired
Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr. of the U.S. Air Force agreed: "The planning we do that goes into
32
organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the
risks we see right now is climate change."
Findings and Recommendations
In September 2006, the CAN corporation convened 11 retired three- and four-star U.S. military generals
and admirals—comprising a Military advisors board—to study the threats posed by climate change and
propose ways in which the United States could address the consequences of climatic shifts. After eight
months of deliberation, the board outlined four findings:
• Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security;
• Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the
world;
• Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world; and
• Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.
According to Sherri Goodman, general counsel for the CNA Corporation and executive
director of the Military Advisory Board, the deliberation period helped solidify the group's perspective:
"Our bottom line is that climate change is a threat to national security and now is the time to take sensible
action, to integrate it into national security frameworks, and to build the necessary capacity and
resilience to address it responsibly in the future." Out of their bottom line stemmed the board's five
recommendations:
33
• The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national
security and national defense strategies;
• The United States should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize
climate changes to avoid disruption to global security and stability;
• The United States should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build
capacity and resiliency to climate impacts;
• The Department of Defense (DoD) should adopt innovate processes and technologies to improve
U.S. combat power through energy efficiency; and
• DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising
sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible impacts of climate change over the next 30
to 40 years.
Drawing the security community into the climate change discussion has a number of
advantages, said David Thomas, first secretary of energy and environment at the British Embassy:
"Security is seen as an imperative, not an option. And when it comes to security, you prepare for the
worst case scenario—you don't sit around and hope for the best. If we wait to act on climate change,
something bad is going to happen indeed."
In April, the UN Security Council for the first time debated climate change and its security implications.
Guided by the British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, whose country then held the UN Security
Council's rotating chair, the debate drew skepticism from developing nations who questioned whether
the issue was germane to the council's mandate. But despite some criticism, the discussion earned climate
34
change much-needed international prominence, said Thomas: "[The UN Security Council] debate along
with [the CNA] report has successfully drawn attention to this issue." He went on to quote Beckett: "While
an unstable climate has obvious hard security implications, the traditional tools of hard security—bombs
and bullets—are not going to be able to solve that problem. Instead we are going to have to think a lot
more imaginatively and a lot more broadly about how we can act together to guarantee that kind of
security. We are going to have to get a lot more hard-headed about soft-power."
Climate as Threat Multiplier
During his military service, Kern witnessed the connections between security and the availability of
energy, water, environment, and food, especially in areas of high vulnerability: "You often saw instability
resulting when disruption occurred in one or more of these factors." Climate change can add stress by
disrupting access to these basic needs. In addition, extreme weather and other natural phenomena had a
big impact on his operational decision-making, he said: "Climate shifts, sea state, and hurricanes were
playing into military operations. The degree to which they became intensified certainly changed the way
we behaved in our operations."
In 2003, retired General Charles F. Wald of the U.S. Air Force, then deputy commander
of U.S. European Command (USEUCOM), was instructed to conduct a strategic evaluation of threats to the
command. USEUCOM includes 43 of the 54 countries in Africa where climate shifts could disrupt
livelihoods and stability. Using examples from Darfur and Mozambique, his evaluation concluded that
climate change poses a serious risk, if ignored. In Darfur, the loss of arable land due to prolonged drought
35
forced farmers to migrate into areas traditionally used by herders, sparking conflict that continues today,
albeit under significantly new dynamics. In 1996, Mozambique experienced consistent flooding that
placed most of the country under water. "The U.S. military was the only group that had the capacity to
deal with [the Mozambique] humanitarian crisis," he said.
Kern also observed creeping desertification of the Sahara: "Each year the desert was expanding, causing
more refugees…. If you don't have water and you don't have food and the environment becomes too hot
or too cold, then you move." The resulting migration became a security concern: "When you have these
great instabilities which push people out of the places…then you have a multiplying effect on the
consequences."
New Threats and Engagement Strategies
Contemplating new threats to national security serves dual purposes, said Wald. It helps guide training
exercises and operations, and also prepares troops for the phases of military engagement:
• Phase One: planning;
• Phase Two: deployment;
• Phase Three: employment; and
• Phase Four: redeployment.
Two other important areas of military engagement fall outside this four-phase rubric, he said: post-
conflict reconstruction ("Phase Five"); and conflict prevention and capacity building ("Phase Zero"). "In
Africa there is a significant opportunity for engaging in Phase Zero operations," he said. In this early
phase—essentially a conflict prevention strategy—the military engages its counterparts to build capacity,
36
good governance, and infrastructure, thereby providing countries with the necessary tools to address
their own problems.
Climate Change's Unknown Quantities
If climate change can disrupt weak and vulnerable governments, Farrell said, then the security
community must consider what effect—by extension—it will have on extremism and terrorism: "Where
do terrorists go? They go to weak places where governance is weak and society is weak. If the stress of
climate change on these weak societies causes some of them to collapse, it opens a window for terrorists."
Population change is another important factor in sparking instability, Farrell continued. World population
is projected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, with growth largely occurring in Asia and Africa. In these
regions, the combination of climate change and population growth could produce a potent—and
potentially lethal—mix. According to the three retired generals at the meeting, the military should be
mindful of these situations when planning its strategies. "We believe the smart thing to do is to plan now:
look at the extremes of what can happen and be prepared for those extremes," said Kern, who argued that
the military should "take advantage of this time that is available to us to reduce…extremes to
something…manageable."
37
Chapter – 7
Dimensions of National Security
Potential causes of national insecurity include actions by other states

(e.g. military or cyber), violent (e.g. terristit attract), organized criminal group such as narcotic castles, and
also the effects of natural disaster (e.g. flooding, earthquakes(3)v, 1–8 (8)(9) Systemic drivers of
insecurity, which may be translation, include climate change, economic and moralization, political,
and ministration(8)(9)
In view of the wide range of risks, the security of a nation state has several dimensions,
including economic security, energy security, physical security, environmental security, food security, border
security, and cyber security. These dimensions correlate closely with elements of national power.
Increasingly, governments organise their security policies into a national security strategy (NSS); as of
2017, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States are among the states to have done
so. Some states also appoint a National Security Council and/or a National Security Advisor which is
an executive government agency, it feeds the head of the state on topics concerning national security
and strategic interest. The national security council/advisor strategies long term, short term,
38
contingency national security plans. India holds one such system in current, which was established on
19 November 1998.
Although states differ in their approach, with some beginning to prioritise non-military action to
tackle systemic drivers of insecurity, various forms of coercive power predominate, particularly Military
Capabilities. The scope of these capabilities has developed. Traditionally, military capabilities were
mainly land- or sea-based, and in smaller countries, they still are. Elsewhere, the domains of potential
warfare now include the air, space, cyberspace, and psychological operations Military capabilities
designed for these domains may be used for national security, or equally for offensive purposes, for
example to conquer and annex territory and resources.
See also: Elements of national security and Elements of national power
Physical SecurityEdit
Main article: Military security
In practice, national security is associated primarily with managing physical threats and with
the military capabilities used for doing so. That is, national security is often understood as the
capacity of a nation to mobilise military forces to guarantee its borders and to deter or successfully
defend against physical threats including military aggression and attacks by non-state actors, such
as terrorism. Most states, such as South Africa and Sweden, configure their military forces mainly for
territorial defence; others, such as France, Russia, the UK and the US, invest in higher-
cost expeditionary capabilities, which allow their armed forces to project power and sustain military
operations abroad.
See also: Terrorism, Border guard, and Military aggression
Infrastructure securityEdit
The SUPO headquarters in Punavuori, Helsinki
Infrastructure security is the security provided to protect infrastructure, especially critical

infrastructure, such as airports, highways rail transport, hospitals, bridges, transport hubs, network
communications, media, the electricity grid, dams, power plants, seaports, oil refineries, and water
systems. Infrastructure security seeks to limit vulnerability of these structures and systems
to sabotage, terrorism, and contamination.
Many countries have established government agencies to directly manage the security of critical
infrastructure, usually, through the Ministry of Interior/Home Affairs, dedicated security agencies to
protect facilities such as United States Federal Protective Service, and also dedicated transport police
such as the British Transport Police. There are also commercial transportation security units such as
the Amtrak Police in the United States. Critical infrastructure is vital for the essential functioning of a
39
country. Incidental or deliberate damage can have a serious impact on the economy and essential
services. Some of the threats to infrastructure include:
• Terrorism: person or groups deliberately targeting critical infrastructure for political gain. In
the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Mumbai central station and hospital were deliberately
targeted.
• Sabotage: person or groups such as ex-employees, anti-government groups, environmental groups.
Refer to Bangkok's International Airport Seized by Protestors.
• Information warfare: private person hacking for private gain or countries initiating attacks to
glean information and damage a country's cyberinfrastructure. Cyberattacks on
Estonia and cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war are examples.
• Natural disaster: hurricane or other natural events that damage critical infrastructures such as oil
pipelines, water, and power grids. See Hurricane Ike and Economic effects of Hurricane Katrina for
examples.
Computer security
Computer security, also known as cybersecurity or IT security, refers to the security of computing
devices such as computers and smartphones, as well as computer networks such as private and public
networks, and the Internet. It concerns the protection of hardware, software, data, people, and also
the procedures by which systems are accessed, and the field has growing importance due to the
increasing reliance on computer systems in most societies Since unauthorized access to critical civil
and military infrastructure is now considered a major threat, cyberspace is now recognised as a
domain of warfare. One such example is the use of Stuxnet by the USA and Israel against the Iranian
nuclear programe[15]
Political securityEdit
Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, Jaap de Wilde and others have argued that national security depends
on political security: the stability of the social order Others, such as Paul Rogers, have added that the
equitability of the international order is equally vital. Hence, political security depends on the rule
of international law (including the laws of war), the effectiveness of international political institutions,
as well as diplomacy and negotiation between nations and other security actors It also depends on,
among other factors, effective political inclusion of disaffected groups and the human security of the
citizenry.
Economic SecurityEdit
Main article: Economic security
Economic security, in the context of international relations, is the ability of a nation state to maintain
and develop the national economy, without which other dimensions of national security cannot be
managed. Economic capability largely determines the defence capability of a nation, and thus a sound
economic security directly influences the national security of a nation. That is why we see countries
with sound economy, happen to have sound security setup too, such as The United
States, China, India among others. In larger countries, strategies for economic security expect to access
resources and markets in other countries and to protect their own markets at home. Developing
countries may be less secure than economically advanced states due to high rates of unemployment
and underpaid work.[citation needed]
Ecological securityEdit
Ecological security, also known as environmental security, refers to the integrity of ecosystems and
the biosphere, particularly in relation to their capacity to sustain a diversity of life-forms (including human life).
The security of ecosystems has attracted greater attention as the impact of ecological damage by humans has
40
grown The degradation of ecosystems, including topsoil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate
change, affect economic security and can precipitate mass migration, leading to increased pressure on resources
elsewhere. Ecological security is also important since most of the countries in the world are developing and
dependent on agriculture and agriculture gets affected largely due to climate change. This effect affects the
economy of the nation, which in turn affects national security.
The scope and nature of environmental threats to national security and strategies to engage them are
a subject of debate29–33 Romm (1993) classifies the major impacts of ecological changes on national
security as15
• Transnational environmental problems. These include global environmental problems such
as climate change due to global warming, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity15
• Local environmental or resource pressures. These include resource scarcities leading to local
conflict, such as disputes over water scarcity in the Middle East; migration into the United States
caused by the failure of agriculture in Mexico; 15 and the impact on the conflict in Syria of erosion
of productive land Environmental insecurity in Rwanda following a rise in population and
dwindling availability of farmland, may also have contributed to the genocide there
• Environmentally threatening outcomes of warfare. These include acts of war that degrade or
destroy ecosystems. Examples are the Roman destruction of agriculture in Carthage; Saddam
Hussein's burning of oil wells in the Gulf War15–16 the use of Agent Orange by the UK in the and
the USA in the Vietnam War for defoliating forests; and the high greenhouse gas
emissions of military forces.
Climate change is affecting global agriculture and food security

adequate natural resources is important for a nation to develop its industry and economic power. For example,
in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, Iraq captured Kuwait partly in order to secure access to its oil wells, and one
reason for the US counter-invasion was the value of the same wells to its own economy. [citation needed] Water
resources are subject to disputes between many nations, including India and Pakistan, and in the Middle East.
Refugees fleeing war and insecurity in Iraq and Syria arrive at Lesbos Island, supported by Spanish
volunteers, 2015
41
Security of energy and natural resourcesEdit
The dimensions of national security outlined above are frequently in tension with one another. For
example:
• The high cost of maintaining large military forces can place a burden on the economic security of a nation
And annual defence spending as percent of GDP varies significantly by country Conversely, economic
constraints can limit the scale of expenditure on military capabilities.
• Unilateral security action by states can undermine political security at an international level if it erodes
the rule of law and undermines the authority of international institutions. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and
the annexation of Crimea in 2014 have been cited as examples.
• The pursuit of economic security in competition with other nation states can undermine the ecological
security of all when the impact includes widespread topsoil erosion, biodiversity loss, and climate
change Conversely, expenditure on mitigating or adapting to ecological change places a burden on the
national economy.
If tensions such as these are not managed effectively, national security policies and actions may be
ineffective or counterproductive.
National versus transnational Security

Increasingly, national security strategies have begun to recognise that nations cannot provide for their
own security without also developing the security of their regional and international context. For
example, Sweden's national security strategy of 2017 declared:
"Wider security measures must also now encompass protection against epidemics and infectious
diseases, combating terrorism and organised crime, ensuring safe transport and reliable food
supplies, protecting against energy supply interruptions, countering devastating climate change,
initiatives for peace and global development, and much more."
A US fighter jet over a burning oil well in Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War, 1991
The extent to which this matters, and how it should be done, is the subject of debate. Some argue that
the principal beneficiary of national security policy should be the nation state itself, which should
centre its strategy on protective and coercive capabilities in order to safeguard itself in a hostile
environment (and potentially to project that power into its environment, and dominate it to the point
of strategic supremacy). Others argue that security depends principally on building the conditions in
which equitable relationships between nations can develop, partly by reducing antagonism between
actors, ensuring that fundamental needs can be met, and also that differences of interest can be
negotiated effectively. In the UK, for example, Malcolm Chalmers argued in 2015 that the heart of the
UK's approach should be support for the Western strategic military alliance led through NATO by the
42
United States, as "the key anchor around which international order is maintained The Ammerdown
Group argued in 2016 that the UK should shift its primary focus to building international cooperation
to tackle the systemic drivers of insecurity, including climate change, economic
inequality, militarisation and the political exclusion of the world's poorest people
Impact on civil liberties and human
Approaches to national security can have a complex impact on human rights and civil liberties. For
example, the rights and liberties of citizens are affected by the use of military
personnel and militarised police forces to control public behaviour; the use of surveillance,
including mass surveillance in cyberspace, which has implications for privacy; military
recruitment and conscription practices; and the effects of warfare on civilians and civil infrastructure.
This has led to a dialectical struggle, particularly in liberal democracies, between
government authority and the rights and freedoms of the general public.
The National Security Agency harvests personal data across the internet.
Even where the exercise of national security is subject to good governance, and the rule of law, a risk
remains that the term national security may become a pretext for suppressing unfavorable political and
social views. In the US, for example, the controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the revelation
by Edward Snowden in 2013 that the National Security Agency harvests the personal data of the general
public, brought these issues to wide public attention. Among the questions raised are whether and
how national security considerations at times of war should lead to the suppression of individual
rights and freedoms, and whether such restrictions are necessary when a state is not at war.
In the US, for example, the military has installed solar photovoltaic microgrids on their bases in case
of power outage.
43
Chapter – 8
Issue of National Security
Consistency of approach
The dimensions of national security outlined above are frequently in tension with one another. For
example:
• The high cost of maintaining large military forces can place a burden on the economic security of a
nation And annual defence spending as percent of GDP varies significantly by country Conversely,
economic constraints can limit the scale of expenditure on military capabilities.
• Unilateral security action by states can undermine political security at an international level if it
erodes the rule of law and undermines the authority of international institutions. The invasion of
Iraq in 2003 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 have been cited as examples
• The pursuit of economic security in competition with other nation states can undermine the
ecological security of all when the impact includes widespread topsoil erosion, biodiversity loss,
and climate change Conversely, expenditure on mitigating or adapting to ecological change places
a burden on the national economy.
If tensions such as these are not managed effectively, national security policies and actions may be
ineffective or counterproductive.
National versus transnational security.

Increasingly, national security strategies have begun to recognise that nations cannot provide for their
own security without also developing the security of their regional and international context. For
example, Sweden's national security strategy of 2017 declared:
"Wider security measures must also now encompass protection against epidemics and infectious
diseases, combating terrorism and organised crime, ensuring safe transport and reliable food supplies,
protecting against energy supply interruptions, countering devastating climate change, initiatives for
peace and global development, and much more
44
A US fighter jet over a burning oil well in Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War, 1991
The extent to which this matters, and how it should be done, is the subject of debate. Some argue that
the principal beneficiary of national security policy should be the nation state itself, which should
centre its strategy on protective and coercive capabilities in order to safeguard itself in a hostile
environment (and potentially to project that power into its environment, and dominate it to the point
of strategic supremacy). Others argue that security depends principally on building the conditions in
which equitable relationships between nations can develop, partly by reducing antagonism between
actors, ensuring that fundamental needs can be met, and also that differences of interest can be
negotiated effectively. In the UK, for example, Malcolm Chalmers argued in 2015 that the heart of the
UK's approach should be support for the Western strategic military alliance led through NATO by the
United States, as "the key anchor around which international order is maintained The Ammerdown
Group argued in 2016 that the UK should shift its primary focus to building international cooperation
to tackle the systemic drivers of insecurity, including climate change, economic
inequality, militarisation and the political exclusion of the world's poorest people
Impact on civil liberties and human rigtsEditApproaches to national security can have a complex
impact on human rights and civil liberties. For example, the rights and liberties of citizens are affected
by the use of military personnel and militarised police forces to control public behaviour; the use
of surveillance, including mass surveillance in cyberspace, which has implications for privacy; military
recruitment and conscription practices; and the effects of warfare on civilians and civil infrastructure.
This has led to a dialectical struggle, particularly in liberal democracies, between
government authority and the rights and freedoms of the general public.
The National Security Agency harvests personal data across the internet.
Even where the exercise of national security is subject to good governance, and the rule of law, a risk
remains that the term national security may become a pretext for suppressing unfavorable political and
social views. In the US, for example, the controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the revelation
by Edward Snowden in 2013 that the National Security Agency harvests the personal data of the general
public, brought these issues to wide public attention. Among the questions raised are whether and
45
how national security considerations at times of war should lead to the suppression of individual
rights and freedoms, and whether such restrictions are necessary when a state is not at war.
Chapter – 9
India's National Security Challenges
The controversial text of the Naval chief's address where his remarks on 'Coping with China' -- specifically that
'it would be foolhardy to compare India and China as equals' -- have attracted a lot of media attention and
criticism.
1 Admiral Arum Prakash (Chairman National Maritime Foundation), Chief of the Air Staff (Air Chief Marshal PV
Naik), Mr Raj Liberians (Chairman India Habitat Centre), Cmde Uday Bashar (Director National Maritime
Foundation), Members of the NMF and Habitat Centre, Distinguished Guests, Senior Officers of the Armed
Forces, Friends from the Media, Ladies and Gentlemen…
2 I am indeed very delighted to be here this evening at the invitation of the National Maritime Foundation,
to share a few thoughts on our country’s national security challenges. The India Habitat Centre and the
NMF deserve our unqualified appreciation for periodically conducting lectures and brain-storming sessions
that focus our thinking on core national security issues. It is also a great pleasure to see so many friends
and erstwhile colleagues as well as distinguished professionals from many walks of life in the audience,
whose thoughts and actions significantly impact our national security outlook. Therefore, more than what
I have to say, I look forward with much anticipation, to hearing your comments and observations at the
end of my talk. I am confident that by the time we are through, there would be valuable ‘takeaways’ for all
of us.
3 Since the subject of National Security is immense in its scope and expanse, to even attempt a complete
treatment of all issues involved would be decidedly unwise. Therefore, I propose to speak for about 45
minutes on certain key aspects of national security that impact the functioning of the Armed Forces and
leave social, economic and environmental dimensions out of the ambit of today’s discourse
4 Let me first make some very brief comments about the concept of ‘Security’. The traditional view of
security focussed on the application of force at the state level and was therefore a fairly narrow view,
hinging on military security. It is now widely acknowledged that there is more to security than purely
46
military factors. Today’s definition of security acknowledges political, economic, environmental, social and
human among other strands that impact the concept of security. In the most basic terms, the concern for
security of the lowest common denominator of every society, namely the ‘human being’, has resulted in
the development of the concept of ‘human security’, which focuses on the individual. Therefore, the
definition of security is definitely broad – and is related to the ability of the state to perform the function
of protecting the well-being of its people. This formulation harks back to the days of Chanukah and
Arthashastra.
5 However, the problem with such a broad definition of security is that anything that generates anxiety or
threatens the quality of life gets labelled as a ‘security problem’, with a consequent loss of focus. In a
democracy, it is for the elected government to provide this priority and focus, as only after this, a coherent
National Security Strategy can be articulated. I am glad to learn that this exercise has commenced, and is
being steered by the NSAB.
6 We often hear that our rise to global prominence is inevitable. It is an incontestable fact that the
significance of India as a rising power is being widely acknowledged, as has been witnessed by several
events in the recent past, the most defining of which has perhaps been the inking of the Agreement on
Civil Nuclear Cooperation with the United States. Our growing economic status fuelled by a 300 million
strong middle class, the demographic advantage of a burgeoning ‘young population’, our increasing
ventures into high-technology areas such as Space, and future projections of national growth peg us
amongst the world’s top 5 economies by 2020. That is just 11 years away.
7 The professionalism and military might of the Armed Forces of India are respected the world over. The
very recent launch of our very own nuclear submarine ‘Arihant’ has also sent out a strong signal of our
desire to acquire the appropriate strategic military technology and capability. Despite our several internal
challenges and diversities, we are ‘rock solid’ as a democratic country, surrounded by an extended
periphery of varying instability. It is therefore not surprising that the role of a ‘natural’ regional power is
expected of us. Our aspirations for inclusion as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and for a
greater voice in international diplomacy are a result of these developments.
8 However, there is a sense that we may not have done adequately rigorous thinking on how to ‘manage’
our pre-ordained rise to global prominence. With the realisation of our aspirations and greater
international recognition will come many more additional responsibilities. The country cannot afford to be
indifferent and non-committal on any regional or global issue – we must have an objective ‘national
interest assessment’ on all questions of importance. As military forces of India, we would be expected to
function as instruments of peace and stability in this rather fragile environment of the Indian Ocean
Region. We have to get our ‘hands dirty’ in addressing common concerns in our respective domains. This
will call for increased participation in peace operations, efforts such as anti-piracy as also capacity-building
and capability-enhancement of smaller and economically weaker nations which look up to us, for support
and security. We must also be seen far away from our shores, working with friendly nations and shaping
perceptions, in furtherance of India’s foreign policy. Quite evidently, the Navy would lead efforts of
military diplomacy, given the medium in which it operates and the distinctive characteristics of its
platforms. If we pursue a meaningful foreign policy to advance national objectives – as we do - then the
military instrument can complement this collective endeavour.
9 It is quite evident that coping with China will certainly be one of our primary challenges in the years ahead.
China is in the process of ‘consolidating’ its comprehensive national power and creating formidable
military capabilities. Once that is done, China is likely to be more assertive on its claims, especially in its
immediate neighbourhood. Our ‘trust deficit’ with China can never be liquidated unless our boundary
47
problems are resolved. China’s known propensity for ‘intervention in space’ and ‘cyber-warfare’ would
also be major planning considerations in our strategic and operational thinking.
10 Common sense dictates that Cooperation with China would be preferable to Competition or Conflict, as it
would be foolhardy to compare India and China as equals. China’s GDP is more than thrice that of ours and
its per capita GDP is 2.2 times our own. China’s early steps to liberalise its economy and invest heavily to
modernise its physical infrastructure gave it a substantial edge over India, and made China a more preferred
destination for FDI. India’s annual defence expenditure (approx $30 Bn for 2008-09) is less than half of
what China spends on defence. China’s official figure is under $ 40 billion but it is widely believed that
China actually spends more than twice as much. RAND Corporation, the US DIA and other studies peg
China’s defence spending to be anything between $ 70 billion to S 200 billion. Whether in terms of GDP,
defence spending or any other economic, social or development parameter, the gap between the two is just
too wide to bridge (and getting wider by the day). In military terms, both conventional and non-
conventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force. These are
indeed sobering thoughts and therefore our strategy to deal with China would need to be in consonance with
these realities.
12. The economic penalties resulting from a military conflict would have grave consequences for both
nations. It would therefore, undoubtedly be in both our interests, to cooperate with each other in mutually
beneficial endeavours, and ensure that the potential for conflict is minimised. This would require pro-active
economic, diplomatic, cultural and people-to-people engagement. Our relations with other major powers,
notably USA, Russia, Japan and other East Asian nations need to be nurtured and leveraged to this end. Our
growing relations with South East and East Asian countries would increase opportunities for cooperative
engagement with China as well. Since resolution of the border problems, autonomy of Tibet, the China-
Pakistan connection, competition for strategic space in the Indian Ocean and management of water
resources would be the prime causative factors for any potential tension with China, our diplomatic focus
on these issues would have to be maintained.
13. On the military front, our strategy to deal with China must include reducing the military gap and countering
the growing Chinese footprint in the Indian Ocean Region. The traditional or ‘attritionist’ approach of matching
‘Division for Division’ must give way to harnessing modern technology for developing high situational
awareness and creating a reliable stand-off deterrent.
The Non-state Actor

14. Today, we have come to live in an era characterised by the rise of sinister non-state forces which have
redefined security responses the world over. We have witnessed an even more worrying phenomenon of the
occasional coalescing of the ‘State’ with some ‘non-State’ entities which has created an evil-hybrid. This
hybrid, to my mind, has been at the very root of the tragic events in Mumbai in November 2008. Where
should we direct our security efforts? Towards the State-sponsor or the non-State entity? How do we expose
the linkages, if any? We have been grappling with this problem for some time now with no satisfactory
solution emerging.
48
15. Asia today, is witnessing the historical and simultaneous rise of at least four major powers namely,
India, China, Japan and the ten countries of ASEAN. Even in these recessionary times, the economic
performances of India, China and Indonesia are quite impressive. On the other hand, Asia is also the
ideological crucible of some of the world’s ominous non-state forces. Maintaining economic growth, social
development and harmony in the face of such disruptive forces will be a thorny problem for many years to
come.
Responses to Threats
16. This is a formidable challenge and no country, however large or powerful, has the wherewithal to insulate
itself from such omnipresent threats, of which terrorism stoked by distorted religious radicalism is the latest and
most grotesque manifestation. Other universal concerns include threats from traffickers of drugs, arms, human
beings, organised poachers, ships that clandestinely discharge oil and toxic cargo into the sea or onto the shores
of unsuspecting and ill-informed states, mercenaries and modern-day pirates. In addition, there are several ‘non-
traditional security threats’ as well. These common challenges can only be faced through the common resolve of
like-minded states, facilitated through multilateral structure as well as opportunities and mechanisms for
constructive engagement. It will need a transformation in the way we think, and in the way we look at one
another. It would also require those nations which have the necessary resources and wherewithal to take the lead
in ensuring all forms of security to life, trade and property. Concerted efforts at capability-enhancement and
capacity-building of the smaller countries of the region, through active assistance of larger neighbours would be
crucial to such efforts in the long term.
Shaping our Immediate Neighbourhood

17. Specifically, we have to be mindful of the need to assist our smaller neighbours in helping themselves.
Our capability-enhancement and capacity-building initiatives with Sri Lanka, Seychelles, Maldives and
Mauritius could be enhanced to a much greater degree, without the need for any kind of ‘quid pro quo’. I
am convinced that as India grows in economic and military stature, it would have to take upon itself, the
role of further enabling its neighbours in ways that would not only enhance their own security, but
contribute positively to regional stability as well. On the Navy-to-Navy level, the Indian Ocean Naval
Symposium or IONS, which was launched in February last year, is a significant military maritime construct
to bring together regional navies and aimed at addressing common concerns. Our diplomatic utterances with
regard to our maritime neighbours must be backed by cohesive engagement. This requires much greater
integration of thought and action between the Ministries of External Affairs, Defence and the Indian Armed
Forces. Our maritime neighbours are the gateways to our strategic frontiers. We need to engage them as
much as they need our presence and support. It would be imprudent of us to leave voids in this strategic
neighbourhood and watch others extend their influence in our backyard.
Securing Our Maritime Borders

18. A word on coordination of maritime security closer to our coast. Preventing ingress of terrorists from the sea
is an abiding challenge. Our long and porous coastline and several island territories, many of which are
uninhabited, offer avenues for infiltration of men and material into our heartland, as well as safe havens for
49
clandestine activities. Intrusions via the sea are extremely difficult to prevent with our current state of material
and organisational preparedness, as we were rudely shocked to realise, when the perpetrators of the Mumbai
terror attacks of 26 Nov 2008 breached the shores of Mumbai with impunity. With a host of ministries and
agencies being stake holders in the maritime arena, any attempt at coastal security will warrant a serious
‘Whole-of-Government’ approach, and robust coordination. The entire sequence of surveillance extending out
well beyond our Exclusive Economic Zone, suspicion indication, risk and threat assessments and finally
investigation and prosecution is a very complex process, demanding a high level of situational awareness, rapid
response and total synergy between all concerned enforcement agencies. This kind of a capability is also
technology-intensive, and obviously very expensive to set up and maintain. However, it must be done in the
interest of national security, if we are to prevent intrusions and attacks through the sea route. Our acute
consciousness of ‘turf guarding’ must give way to a more synergistic way of functioning. A modest beginning
has been made, which has to be sustained through concerted efforts of all stake holders, adequate funding and
most of all, public awareness – which is why fora like the Habitat Centre are important.
Internal Security
19. I also need to flag our growing involvement in internal security tasks. Over the past decade and a half,
‘internal security’ requirements have grown phenomenally. There are unrests of various shades and hues in
different states of our country, borne out of equally diverse causative factors. The addressing of these causes
and maintenance of order are, nearly in all cases, a matter of internal governance and therefore, squarely
within the purview of the civil administration and the police forces. The rampant spread of Left-Wing
Extremism is particularly worrying and tackling the problem requires a well-thought out strategy. However,
the increasing demand on the Armed Forces to assume ‘law and order’ responsibilities is clearly an
undesirable trend. While ‘aid to civil authority’ is a mandated role of the Armed Forces and they will
deliver whenever ordered, this must always be a ‘last resort’ and ‘temporary’ measure to be expeditiously
withdrawn when the critical need is met. The Armed Forces must never be seen as being used ‘against’ our
own population – the irreversible damage of such action is there for all of us to see in our neighbourhood.
Intelligence
20. Much has also been reported about our handling of intelligence in the past and also in the aftermath of the
1999 War and more recently, the Mumbai terror attacks. Our intelligence agencies need to be more focussed
towards long term intelligence forecasting and therefore, must direct efforts towards anticipatory security
planning – predicated on actionable intelligence inputs, in addition to immediate and short-term requirements.
Cohesion amongst intelligence agencies and sharing of intelligence in a far more integrated manner is an
operational necessity. Integration between all organs of government dealing with intelligence and seamless
acquisition, processing of strategic, operational and tactical intelligence and its timely dissemination is of
essence. Information exchange mechanisms with other friendly countries also need to be facilitated to enhance
domain awareness in different arenas.
Cyber Warfare and Web Espionage

50
21. One field, in which awareness is, at best, nebulous, is Cyber Warfare. The annual Virtual Criminology
Report of 2007, authored by McAfee, warned that international cyber espionage was set to be the biggest
single threat to national security in 2008. It claimed that some 120 plus countries are already on the web
espionage bandwagon. Primary targets include critical national infrastructure network systems with
electricity, air traffic control, financial markets and Government computer networks taking centre-stage.
Reports suggest that the USA, Russia and China have acquired considerable capability in this domain. The
Indian Armed Forces are increasingly investing in networked operations, both singly and a joint fashion.
We cannot, therefore, afford to be vulnerable to cyber attacks. Information Technology is our country’s
known strength and it would be in our interest to leverage this strength in developing a formidable
‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’ cyber warfare capability. Harnessing the gene pool available in academia,
private industry and the younger generation of talented individuals is imperative.
Integration & Jointness

22. Let me now address the important issue of Jointness and Integration. It has been said that “War is a
continuation of policy by other means”. That was in an age when the military was used exclusively to wage
war. Today, the scope of activity of the Indian Armed Forces spans a wide bandwidth. It ranges from
internal security tasks, augmenting diplomatic effort, bilateral and multi-lateral cooperative efforts with
other countries, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and go on to cover the entire range of tasks
across the full spectrum of conflict. The armed forces are instruments of policy execution as much in peace
as in war. The need for greater integration of the Armed Forces with the Ministries of Defence, and External
Affairs, as well as establishment of effective coordination mechanisms with several other ministries and
agencies, is therefore incontestable. If this is not recognised and organisational correctives are not instituted,
we will not be able to effectively deal with the various security challenges that confront us - and indulge in
futile post-facto blame games.
23. Amongst the Services, as we develop leaders, organisations, systems and doctrines, we must continue to
strengthen trust and confidence amongst the Services and between Service components that are committed
to joint operations. Let me also state quite unequivocally that migration from a single Service to a ‘Joint’
one, essentially calls for enlightenment, borne out of a willingness to transform, and a realistic assessment
of our operational needs. To this end, the Armed Forces and think-tanks such as NMF, CENJOWS,
CLAWS, CAPS, USI and IDSA have been conducting seminars and round-tables, the last being the NMF-
CENJOWS Seminar on ‘Jointness’ held just last month. However, a consensus view is yet to emerge on
‘where and how to move on’ from ‘where we are’.
24. The Strategic Forces Command is a good example of how the Services can work together seamlessly
and synergistically, in a ‘Functional’ Command. The ANC was an experiment which was meant to have
been a test case for possible future initiatives towards the creation of joint ‘Theatre’ or ‘Geographical’
commands. There are strong and divergent opinions about whether this experiment has really succeeded to
the degree envisaged in 2001. I think we now have adequate experience to undertake a dispassionate
assessment, with the aim of administering course corrections as may be necessary.
51
25. I believe that ‘Functional’ Commands are more likely to succeed in our environment – if SFC has worked,
how about a Joint Information Warfare Command or a Joint Air Defence Command? At the staff and planning
levels, jointness is sought to be achieved through joint capability development, joint planning, joint targetting,
joint training, joint logistics and other functions that lend themselves to ‘jointness’. During the recently
concluded Unified Commanders’ Conference, the Chief of the Air Staff opined that “Jointness does not
necessarily imply equal partnership” and that there was a need to “adopt correct combinations, whilst respecting
the core expertise of individual Services”. This is a widely held view and deserves serious consideration.
26. There is also a need to move beyond the present setup of our higher defence management. We must start
thinking in terms of command and control structures and linkages, when we have the CDS in place.
However, as we work towards creation of more joint commands, we must continue to critically examine the
existing joint command for operational effectiveness, make amends and then only move on. We have to
generate an India-specific model since blindly aping an existing model elsewhere would be akin to forcing a
‘square peg into a round hole’. Each individual Service will, quite understandably, continue to have strong
views on the subject but if true jointness has to be ushered in, with a well-deliberated India-specific model,
there is a need to foster much greater understanding of the subject amongst our apex level decision-makers
and perhaps even work towards enacting our own version of a ‘Goldwater-Nichols’ Act (which, as you are
aware, was the guiding legislation for the US Armed Forces to go ‘Joint’).
27. Integration and jointness are as much required between the Service Headquarters and MoD, as amongst
the Services. This is a transformational change and I believe that greater delegation of powers and cross
postings of senior officers are steps that must be taken, without which this transformational progress cannot
be realised.
Nuclear Issues
28. Just a brief mention of nuclear issues… Speaking at the launch of our first indigenously designed and
built nuclear-powered submarine ‘Arihant’ on 26 Jul 2008, our Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said: -
“We do not have any aggressive designs nor do we seek to threaten anyone. We seek an external
environment in our region and beyond, that is conducive to our peaceful development and the protection of
our value systems. Nevertheless it is incumbent upon us to take all measures necessary to safeguard our
country and to keep pace with technological advancements worldwide. It has rightly been said that eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty.”
29. We have had a well-thought our nuclear policy from the 1980s. India is committed to building a
capability that will serve her interests and despite several attempts to ‘isolate’ us in the field of nuclear
technology, especially post-1998, we have walked the path alone and created a capability that is recognised
today, albeit grudgingly. We have a draft nuclear doctrine in place, which is restrained, in keeping with our
traditional national culture. Our efforts at achieving credible deterrence are not just about weapons and
52
platforms but also include well-thought out strategies, policies, targetting plans, command and control
structures as well as an occasional demonstration of capability.
30. Our increasing forays in the nuclear field, both military and civilian, would require the highest
assurances of nuclear surety and security within the country. This calls for substantial investments in safety
and security procedures, testing of environmental parameters, accident prevention and disaster control as
well as management. It also requires a very high degree of awareness and public transparency in proving
that our nuclear assets and establishments do not pose a hazard in any way to the population at large.
Reducing ‘Defence’ Dependence on Foreign Countries

31. Let me now make a brief mention of the critical aspect of self-reliance in the field of defence. Our past
experiences of sourcing military hardware from abroad have been varied, depending on the relationship
between the source nation and India at different points in time. However, the common strain running
through each and every experience has been painfully, one of ‘technology denial’ and ‘post-procurement
dependency’. Our material preparedness has often received setbacks due to these reasons. The only long-
term solution to this problem is a much greater thrust towards indigenisation and transfer of technology.
The Indian defence industry is gradually coming of age and we must, in due course of time, wean ourselves
away from foreign dependencies. Measures to enhance the efficiency of our DPSUs as well as putting much
greater premium on time and cost consciousness amongst all agencies concerned are long overdue. There is
also a need for greater accountability from our research organisations and defence public sector
undertakings, which today rest assured of orders and modernisation funding from the military establishment
without having commensurate results to show. The Hon’ble Raksha Mantri has initiated some long overdue
in-house reviews of our procurement procedures, aimed at enhancing the efficiency of the processes
involved. Whilst the ‘bottom line’ of ‘operational readiness’ should remain the determining factor for our
‘Buy’ or ‘Make’ decisions, we would need to pragmatically consider some present-day compromise for a
more secure future.
Defence Outlay
32. I will now address some more routine and mundane issues but ones that have serious implications on
defence preparedness and hence, national security. With regard to defence spending, India will most likely,
continue to maintain a high growth rate of between 7 and 8 % over the medium term. A vibrant economic
environment will need to be supported by strong defence forces. It is in this context that I have to observe,
that for many years, our defence budget as a percentage of GDP, has been hovering on the fringes of the 2%
mark, notwithstanding an increase in rupee terms. Let alone bridging the gap between us and our potential
adversaries, without a substantial increase, the gap may widen further and dilute our operational edges. It
must never be forgotten that India’s growth as a military power is an essential component of its ascendancy
to ‘great power’ status and the security underpinning of economic development can never be over-
emphasised.
Procurement Procedures
53
33. While the Armed Forces have been seeking enhanced outlays, you would also be aware that we are
unable to completely expend our capital budget, year after year. The problem is not of inadequate planning
or insufficient desire to enhance capabilities, but one of procedure. Our procedures discourage participation
by international and private players, who run out of patience with our protracted dealings. Measures to
make the process more responsive and faster include closer integration of Service HQs with the MoD,
simplification of financial vetting procedures, downward delegation of powers for capital procurements,
increasing the capacity of concerned bodies to process cases; and a much greater realisation of the adverse
implications of delayed decisions on national security. In short - ‘Pragmatism’ must prevail over
‘Procedure’.
The Culture of Strategic Thinking

34. I will now return to two somewhat larger issues. Firstly, a word about the intellectual framework to
support our National Security Planning. Any coherent National Security Strategy is the outcome of a long-
term vision. Envisioning any long-term perspective calls for a deep and involved thought process. In other
words, a culture of strategic thinking. John F Kennedy had once remarked: -
“Too often… we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”
Strategic decision-making cannot be guided by ‘opinion’ but by serious ‘thought’ – but the reverse is sometimes
true. It is unfortunate that discussions on National Security in our country have been left largely to think-tanks
and academics, and whilst they may do some valuable work in this direction, they lack the executive powers to
put thought into action. For a country of our size and stature, institutionalised strategic thinking mechanism
within and outside government is woefully inadequate.
35. In several established democracies, specialist think-tanks have access to government information on a
graded basis. They are often given contracts for studies to be done for the government departments. In
India, we often, jealously guard information, even if it may be required by other government agencies in the
execution of their legitimate official duties. Our media too, barring honourable exceptions, has very few
people who specialise in defence, though of late a welcome start has been made. We have to develop much
greater mutual interaction between think-tanks, the government, its agencies and the media. In a democracy,
media must be critical – it is intrinsic to the profession – but not needlessly adversarial, which is often the
case in our country. Actually, I was tempted to include some light-hearted humour during my talk this
evening - but considering some media experiences that I have had in the recent past, I decided to resist that
temptation.
36. In the same breath, let me add that I have the greatest respect for the Indian media and its vibrancy – but
I would urge some self-introspection in this matter. Concurrently, there is a need to sustain greater Track II
interactions involving the civil society and the private sector as well in our efforts to bring about greater
awareness on critical national security issues – and I am happy to note that some commendable initiatives
have been taken by the CII and FICCI among some other institutions.
54
Governance
37. And finally, a brief remark about the all-important aspect of ‘governance’. Speaking to IAS probationers
in April this year, our Prime Minister remarked that: -
“Governance is a buzz word today. There are many areas where governance is not keeping in contact with
the requirements of the situation.”
38. It is indisputable that no amount of discussion will translate automatically into result-oriented policy and
firm action – with the existing lacunae that the Hon’ble Prime Minster referred to. Politicians, bureaucrats,
security forces, industry, academia, media and indeed, any other organ of the state or agency involved in the
management of national security must work in close coordination and where necessary, integrate, so that
they complement each other’s efforts. The need for reforms in several sectors is indeed being recognised,
and these must be implemented without delay. Governance obviously needs to focus on securing our
national interests and addressing our peoples’ needs and aspirations. The Armed Forces must be an integral
part of the ‘decision-making’ process on issues of national security that involve them, directly or indirectly.
On their part, the Army, Navy and Air Force, individually and jointly need to contribute in every way that
they can, so that the readiness of the Armed Forces and their employment in war and peace can be
optimised.
Epilogue
39. Let me once again say how gratified I am, to be in your midst today. My thanks once again to the National
Maritime Foundation for providing me this opportunity to speak to such a distinguished audience, in what is
perhaps my last major public interaction on National Security before I demit office at the end of this month.
Some of you in the audience, as the next generation of leaders of the Armed Forces and major stakeholders in
the security of the nation, will need to find ways to bring about much greater integration of thought and action to
meet the various challenges that loom large over the horizon.
40. It is indeed a matter of great satisfaction to note that the three Services and the HQIDS have think-tanks of
their own and their activities too are ‘deepening’ and ‘widening’ by the day. There is a need for these
organisations to synergise their efforts with bodies such as the India Habitat Centre and others, in a combined
effort to raise the level of consciousness on matters relating to National Security – and here again, the role of the
media is critical as an ‘awareness multiplier’.
55
Chapter – 10
National Security System Definition
National security system means any telecommunicate- tions or information system operated by the
United States Government, the function, operation, or use of which—
National security system means any information system (including any telecommunications system)
used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency, or other organization on behalf of an
agency, the function, operation, or use of which involves intelligence activities; involves cryptologic
activities related to national security; involves command and control of military forces; involves
equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or weapons system; or is critical to the direct fulfilment
of military or intelligence missions (excluding a system that is to be used for routine administrative
and business applications, for example, payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management
applications); or is protected at all times by procedures established for information that have been
specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order or an Act of Congress to be
kept classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy (44 U.S.C. § 3552).
National security system. ’ means an informal- tion system that is protected at all times by policies
and procedures established for the processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination or
disposition of information that has been specifically authorized under criteria established by statute or
Executive Order to be kept classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.
Examples of National security system in a sentence The National security system represents a
normatively, structurally and functionally regulated entity whose activity provides protection and
realisation of the national interests of the Republic of Serbia. The National security system predicts
and pro-actively works on preventing the challenges, risks and threats to security of the Republic of
Serbia from occurring.Cooperability. Through responsible boards, it supervises and exercises
democratic and civilian control in the National security system.President of the Republic expresses the
state unity in management of the National security system, chairs the National Security Council,
unifies and directs the functioning of the National security system and commands the Serbian Armed
56
Forces in accordance with the Constitution and law. The governing part of the National security
system creates strategic and doctrinal, normative and legal, organisational, material and other
conditions for its functioning. Preservation of national values and protection and achievement of
national interest by means of pursuing the defined national security policy, is the primary role of the
National security system. If several modes are capable of following the reference test cycle under
charge-depleting operating conditions and at least two of those modes are a configurable start mode,
the worst case mode for electric energy consumption shall be selected from these configurable start
modes. Openness in work of the National security system is enabled to the extent which does not
jeopardise the protection of classified information. Professionalism. The framework of the National
security system provides an all-encompassing and harmonised management and action in the
execution of work and tasks on prevention, mitigation and neutralisation of challenges, risks and
threats to security and elimination of effects of their manifestation. The National security system
harmonises its functioning with changes in strategic environment.Continuity. The National security
system functions as a unified unit, within which all its elements cooperate, make connections and
mutually adjust their actions for the purpose of reaching the common goal.Prevention. More
Definitions of National security system National security system as used in this p@ means any
telecommunications or information system operated by the United States the operation, or use of
which-
National security system means any NASA information system designated as being authorized to
process CNSI.
Related to National security system National security means the national defense or foreign
relations of the United States. National Securities Exchange means an exchange registered with the
Commission under Section 6(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, supplemented or
restated from time to time, and any successor to such statute, or the Nasdaq Stock Market or any
successor thereto. National Ambient Air Quality Standards or “NAAQS” means national ambient air
quality standards that are promulgated pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7409.
Renewable energy system means a fixture, product, device, or interacting group of fixtures, products,
or devices on the customer's side of the meter that use 1 or more renewable energy resources to
generate electricity. Renewable energy system includes a biomass stove but does not include an
incinerator or digester. technical and organizational security measures means those measures aimed
at protecting personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration,
unauthorized disclosure or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data
over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of processing. Small municipal separate storm
sewer system or "small MS4" means all separate storm sewers that are (i) owned or operated by the
United States, a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body
(created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood
control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal
57
organization, or a designated and approved management agency under § 208 of the CWA that
discharges to surface waters and (ii) not defined as "large" or "medium" municipal separate storm
sewer systems or designated under 9VAC25-870-380 A 1. This term includes systems similar to
separate storm sewer systems in municipalities, such as systems at military bases, large hospital or
prison complexes, and highway and other thoroughfares. The term does not include separate storm
sewers in very discrete areas, such as individual buildings. International air transportation means
transportation by air between a place in the United States and a place outside the United States or
between two places both of which are outside the United States. commercial air transport means an
aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo, or mail for remuneration or hire.
relevant system means a relevant system for the holding and transfer of shares in uncertificated form;
technical and organisational security measures means those measures aimed at protecting personal
data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure
or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and
against all other unlawful forms of processing. Safety Management System has the meaning given to
it in the ISM Code. Delivery System means Buyer's delivery scheduling system and electronic data
exchange billing and invoicing system, and their respective document processes. Additional Securities
means such Securities which have been deposited pursuant to Section 2.05 to effect an increase over
the number of Units initially specified in the Reference Trust Agreement. Municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4 means a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage
systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains):
Non-transient non-community water system means a public water system that is not a community
water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
The National Security Council (NSC) is the principal advisory body on the proper coordination and
integration of plans and policies affecting national security.
The NSC consists of two distinct bodies - the Council Proper and the National Security Council
Secretariat.
The Council Proper is a collegial body chaired by the President. It includes concerned officials of the
Cabinet and Congress, as members, as well as other government officials and private citizens who
may be invited by the President.
The Council was created during the Quirino Administration through Executive Order (EO) No. 330,
dated 01 July 1950. It was reorganized by virtue of EO No. 115, series of 1986.
58
The NSC Secretariat is a permanent body that provides technical support to the Council Proper. It is
headed by the Director General / National Security Adviser.
NSA YEAREND STATEMENT
Press Statement by the National Security Adviser and Director General, National Security Council
The National Security Situation in 2018, and outlook for 2019
The Philippines was stable and secure in 2018.
The National Security Council and the security sector succeeded in adequately managing national
security in the face of numerous issues and concerns that continue to challenge the security of the
nation.
The National Security Strategy (NSS) that was issued by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte in May was
instrumental inn integrating the country's major security policies, defining responsibilities, and
coordinating the actions of all concerned agencies, to effectively address security threats, issues and
concerns both within and outside the country.
We recall that in 2018, the security sector was preoccupied with the following:
In the external environment, the West Philippine Sea issue remained to be contentious due to
overlapping territorial claims and maritime domain concerns among various claimants. The great
powers contest had actually shifted focus towards the contested waters if the South China Sea/West
Philippine Sea, and in Asia in general.
Amidst this renewed global interest on Asia, the Détente Administration adopted a "middle ground"
position signifying that the Philippines has embarked on an independent foreign policy that forges new
partnerships with China and Russia, while maintaining ties with traditional partners such as the United
States.
In securing the country's territorial integrity and sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea, we continue the
use of diplomatic engagements with China and other claimant states without compromising Philippine
national interest. The Bilateral Consultative Mechanism with China was established while the ASEAN-
centered negotiations for the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea was formalized.
The Philippines also pursued the development of its deterrence capabilities for a credible defense
posture, particularly through the increased funding allocation by Congress. The improvement of facilities
in the Philippine-occupied features in the West Philippine Sea were also undertaken.
Trans-boundary issues such as terrorism, drug-trafficking, piracy, smuggling, and human trafficking are
being addressed through the strong collaborative mechanisms within the ASEAN framework. The
Philippines remains an active member-state that recognizes the ASEAN way in undertaking concerted
actions against security threats and challenges in the region.
In the Philippines, illegal drugs have become a national security threat. The campaign against illegal
drugs has become a primary mission and the campaign will even be more intensified to eradicate the
menace.
59
The terrorist threat posed by local communist terrorist groups continue to threaten the lives, properties,
and freedoms of the Filipino people. They hamper the country's potential economic gains and progress.
The threat form ISIS-affiliated groups remains despite their resounding defeat in Marawi, which is now
undergoing reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Elsewhere, in areas where there are local terrorist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf, Maute and the BIFF,
the operations will be relentless. More security forces will be deployed, as necessary.
Only a few weeks ago, President Détente issued Executive Order 70 (EO 70) providing for a Whole-of-
Nation approach in defeating the Local Communist Terrorist Groups. A National Task Force to End
Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) was created to synchronize the utilization of the
government's instrumentalities of power with the capabilities of private sector stakeholders to finally end
the 50-year long deceit, lies and atrocities committed by the communist terrorists against the people.
The President himself is leading the way by taking the role of National Task Force Commander, he is
demonstrating resolve to fulfill his vow to provide a better future for the Filipino people.
The "Whole-of-Nation Approach" gives importance to inclusive and sustainable framework towards
attaining peace. In this light, the government remained persistent in implementing the Enhanced
Comprehensive Localized Integration Program (E-CLIP), wherein rebel returnees have found
alternatives to a life of crime and violence.
On the Mindanao situation, the recent Congressional approval to extent Martial Law demonstrates
government's commitment at maintaining peace and order and eliminating extremist influence in the
region. The extended implementation of Martial Law will be vital in ensuring the success of the
upcoming plebiscite of the Bangsamoro Organic Law in January 2019.
Prospects care bright for an even more stable and secure nation in 2019. With the NSS and the "Whole-
of-Nation Approach" in place, the security sector will become more robust in addressing future security
challenges. We are optimistic that as we are able to provide continuing stability, more developmental
prospects, small and big - such as our Build, Build, Build projects -- will see fruition. All these will
translate to improved economic standing and better living conditions of most Filipinos.
We, in the security sector, stand with the President and remain committed to secure our territory, ensure
sovereignty, and implement law and order - all for the well-being of the Filipino and for our future
generations.
HERMOGENES C. ESPERON JR.
Philippine Standard Time
Thursday, May 26, 2022, 1:59:41 PM

60
Measures taken to ensure national security include:
• Using diplomacy to rally allies and isolate threats.

• Marshalling economic power to facilitate or compel cooperation.
• Maintaining effective armed forces.
• Implementing civil defense and emergency preparedness measures (including anti-terrorism

legislation)
National security
The government wants to protect society from disruption owing to a disaster or crisis. With its National
Security Strategy, it is examining the threats, how to prevent them, and what to do if a disaster occurs.
National security is at stake when one or more of our country’s vital interests are threatened. Those interests
are:
• territorial security: this would be jeopardised by a military occupation, but also by prolonged flooding;
• economic security: a major internet or electrical breakdown would disrupt online financial transactions;
• ecological security: damage to the environment from pollution or extreme heat or drought;
• physical security: deaths, injuries and chronic illnesses caused by flooding or a pandemic;
• social and political stability: violations of the rule of law caused by tensions between communities, for
instance.
Analysing, comparing and dealing with threats
Each year, the government investigates potential threats to the Netherlands, how serious they are and how
we can deal with them. This process is roughly divided into three steps:
• Describing threats: what threats may be facing the Netherlands?

• Comparing threats: how serious would the consequences of a threat be, and how likely is it to be
carried out? This is based on the National Risk Assessment. A summary of the National Risk Assessment
will give you an idea of the method used.
• Determining the approach: how the risk of an incident can be reduced (prevention) and how we can
deal with an incident if it occurs (preparation and response).
61
This approach is described in more detail in the summary of the National Security Operating Procedure.
National Security Strategy: findings and scenario
In 2007, the government published its National Security Strategy (2007), which is summarised in the National
Security Strategy Factsheet. The procedures for analysing, comparing and dealing with threats are explored in
a dedicated subsection.
The National Security Strategy implementation method is explained in the document Guidelines for the
National Security Implementation Method: Scenarios, Risk Assessment and Capacities (2009). The scientifically
tested method and guidelines were drawn up by a group of experts from government, research institutes and
the business sector.
In 2007 and 2008, the following threats were analysed:
• floods: coastal and river flooding;

• extreme weather: extreme heat and drought, wildfires, heavy (snow) storms, black ice;
• energy security: power failures, gas failures and oil scarcity;
• infectious diseases: a flu pandemic;
• polarisation and extremism: mass polarisation and ghettoisation;
• ICT breakdowns: lack of digital security;
• serious accidents: nuclear and chemical incidents;
• criminal infiltration of mainstream society: criminal influence in public administration and the stock
market, criminal interference in the business sector.
The results of the 2008 analysis can be found in the Findings of the National Security Strategy 2008/2009. The
results of the 2007 analysis can be found in the Findings of the National Risk Assessment 2007/2008. The
threats are described in the form of scenarios. These scenarios, together with the 2007 scenarios, are included
in the document National Risk Assessment Scenarios 2008/2009.
Preventing and dealing with crises
The government regularly examines whether public bodies, business enterprises and individual citizens are
well prepared for crises and disasters. If necessary, it will introduce additional measures such as continuity
plans, which ensure that business enterprises and public bodies continue to function after a crisis such as a
pandemic.
62
Chapter – 11
A National Security Strategy for A New Century
Preface
Protecting the security of our nation--our people, our territory and our way of life--is my foremost mission and
constitutional duty. As we enter the twenty-first century, we have an unprecedented opportunity to make our nation
safer and more prosperous. Our military might is unparalleled; a dynamic global economy offers increasing opportunities
for American jobs and American investment; and the community of democratic nations is growing, enhancing the
prospects for political stability, peaceful conflict resolution and greater hope for the people of the world.
At the same time, the dangers we face are unprecedented in their complexity. Ethnic conflict and outlaw states
threaten regional stability; terrorism, drugs, organized crime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
are global concerns that transcend national borders; and environmental damage and rapid population growth
undermine economic prosperity and political stability in many countries.
This report, submitted in accordance with Section 603 of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department
Reorganization Act of 1986, sets forth a national security strategy to advance our national interests in this era of
unique opportunities and dangers. It is premised on the belief that both our domestic strength and our leadership
abroad are essential to advancing our goal of a safer, more prosperous America. Building upon America's
unmatched strengths, the strategy's three core objectives are:
• To enhance our security with effective diplomacy and with military forces that are ready to fight and win.
• To bolster America's economic prosperity.
• To promote democracy abroad.
To achieve these objectives, we will remain engaged abroad and work with partners, new and old, to promote
peace and prosperity. We can--and we must--use America's leadership to harness global forces of integration,
reshape existing security, economic and political structures, and build new ones that help create the conditions
necessary for our interests and values to thrive.
As we approach this century's end, the blocs and barriers that divided the world for fifty years largely have
fallen away. Our responsibility is to build the world of tomorrow by embarking on a period of construction--one
based on current realities but enduring American values and interests. In constructing international frameworks,
institutions and understandings to guide America and the world far into the next century, the following strategic
priorities advance our core national security objectives:
63
First, we must help foster a peaceful, undivided, democratic Europe. When Europe is stable and at peace,
America is more secure. When Europe prospers, so does America.
NATO was created to strengthen Europe's west. Now, it can do the same for Europe's east. This summer, we
will hold a special summit to continue the process of adapting our alliance to new demands while enlarging it to
take in new members from among Europe's new democracies. Countries that were once our adversaries now can
become our allies. We aim to build a strong NATO-Russia partnership that provides for consultation and, when
possible, joint action on common security challenges and contributes to a democratic Russia's active
participation in the post-Cold War European security system. We will strengthen the Partnership for Peace
Program and create an enhanced NATO-Ukraine relationship.
Second, America must look across the Pacific as well as across the Atlantic. Over the last four years, we have
made significant progress in creating a stable, prosperous Asia Pacific community. In this endeavor, we must
reinforce our close ties to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and our ASEAN friends and allies. As we
strengthen our security and promote our prosperity, we must remain alert to the challenges that remain. We must
ensure that North Korea continues to implement its agreement to freeze and dismantle its nuclear weapons
program, and we must fund America's contribution to this effort. Together with South Korea, we must advance
peace talks with North Korea and bridge that armed divide. And we must sustain the remarkable growth fueled
by increasingly open markets and the integration that all the region's economies are attaining through the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
We must pursue a deeper dialogue with China. An isolated, inward-looking China is not good for America or
the world. A China playing its rightful role as a responsible and active member of the international community
is. I will visit China and I have invited China's president to come here not because we agree on everything, but
because engaging China is the best way to work on common challenges such as ending nuclear testing--and to
deal frankly with fundamental differences such as human rights.
Third, the American people must prosper in the global economy. We have made it our mission to tear down
trade barriers abroad in order to create jobs at home. Over the last four years we have concluded more than 200
trade agreements, each one of which opened a foreign market more widely to American products. Today,
America is again the world's number one exporter--leading in agriculture and aviation, automobiles and
entertainment, semiconductors and software.
Now, we must build on that momentum, especially in Asia and Latin America. If we fail to act now, these
emerging economies will find their economic future with other nations--and we will be left behind. That is why
I am traveling to Latin America and the Caribbean this year--to continue the work we began at the Summit of
the Americas in Miami in building a community of democracies linked by shared values and expanding trade.
We must continue to help nations embrace open markets, improve living standards and advance the rule of law
and we must support the World Bank and other organizations that multiply our contributions to progress many
times over.
Fourth, America must continue to be an unrelenting force for peace--from the Middle East to Haiti, from
Northern Ireland to Central Africa. Taking reasonable risks for peace keeps us from being drawn into far more
costly conflicts. It encourages other nations to focus on future hopes, not past hatreds. It creates partners willing
to seize the opportunities of a new century. The habits of peace crafted in Bosnia must take hold, helped by the
NATO-led Stabilization Force that is allowing reconstruction and reconciliation to accelerate.
Fifth, we must continue to move strongly to counter growing dangers to our security: weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, international crime, drugs, illegal arms trafficking, and environmental damage. We are
acting to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands and to rid the world of antipersonnel
landmines and chemical weapons. The American people are more secure because we won historic accords to
64
end nuclear testing and to ban chemical weapons. Together with Russia, we are working to cut our nuclear
arsenals by 80 percent from their Cold War height within a decade. We are working with others, with renewed
intensity, to improve civil aviation security, to defeat drug traffickers and to stop terrorists before they act--and
to hold them accountable if they do. We are protecting the global environment--managing our forests, stopping
the spread of toxic chemicals, working to close the hole in the ozone layer, reducing the greenhouse gasses that
challenge our health as they change our climate.
Finally, we must have the diplomatic and military tools to meet all these challenges. We must maintain a strong
and ready military. We will achieve this by selectively increasing funding for weapons modernization and
taking care of our men and women in uniform. They are doing a remarkable job for America-- must do right by
them.
We must also renew our commitment to America's diplomacy--to ensure that we have the superb diplomatic
representation that our people deserve and our interests demand. Every dollar we devote to preventing conflicts,
promoting democracy, and stopping the spread of disease and starvation brings a sure return in security and
savings. Yet international affairs spending today totals just one percent of the federal budget--a small fraction of
what America invested at the start of the Cold War when we chose engagement over isolation. If America is to
continue to lead the world by its own example, we must demonstrate our own commitment to these priority
tasks. This is also why we must pay our debts and dues to a reforming United Nations.
Inherent in this final priority is the need to examine our overall national security posture, programs, structure
and budget. Within the Department of Defense such a review is currently underway and the State Department
and other international affairs agencies are reorganizing to confront the pressing challenges of tomorrow. We
need to continue looking across our government to see if during this time of transition we are adequately
preparing to meet the national security challenges of the next century.
Each of these six priorities is essential to keeping America strong, secure and prosperous and to advancing our
national security objectives. Our strategy requires the patient application of American will and resources. We
can sustain that necessary investment only with the continued support of the American people and the bipartisan
support of their representatives in Congress--a bipartisanship that was clearly displayed in the recent ratification
of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The full participation of Congress is essential to the success of our
continuing engagement, and I will consult with members of Congress at every step as we formulate and
implement American foreign policy.
America has an unparalleled record of international leadership. Through our leadership comes rewards. The
more America leads, the more willing others are to share the risks and responsibilities of forging our futures.
We have repeatedly seen this over the last four years--in Bosnia and Haiti where we worked with many other
nations for peace and democracy, in the Summit of the Americas and APEC Leaders Forum where we agreed
with our partners to build a free and open trading system, and in many other instances. Our achievements of the
last four years are the springboard for tomorrow's better world.
We are at the dawn of a new century. Now is the moment to be farsighted as we chart a path into the new
millennium. As borders open and the flow of information, technology, money, trade, and people across borders
increases, the line between domestic and foreign policy continues to blur. We can only preserve our security and
well being at home by being actively involved in the world beyond our borders.
The need for American leadership abroad remains as strong as ever. With the support of the American public, I
am committed to sustaining our active engagement abroad in pursuit of our cherished goal--a more secure and
prosperous America in a more peaceful and prosperous world where democracy and free markets know no
limits.
65
I. Leaderships dep Today For a Safer,

More Prosperous Tomorrow
Our national security strategy must always be judged by its success in meeting the fundamental purposes set out in the
Constitution:
...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity,...
Since the founding of the nation, certain requirements have remained constant. We must protect the lives and
personal safety of Americans, both at home and abroad. We must maintain the sovereignty, political freedom
and independence of the United States, with its values, institutions and territory intact. And, we must provide for
the well-being and prosperity of the nation and its people.
Challenges and Opportunities

The security environment in which we live is dynamic and uncertain, replete with numerous challenges. Ethnic conflict
and outlaw states threaten stability in many regions of the world. Weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, organized
crime and environmental damage are global concerns that transcend national borders. Yet, this is also a period of great
promise. America's core values of representative governance, market economics and respect for fundamental human
rights have been embraced by many nations around the world, creating new opportunities to promote peace, prosperity
and greater cooperation among nations. Former adversaries now cooperate with us. The dynamism of the global
economy is transforming commerce, culture, communications and global relations.
During the first Clinton Administration we assessed America's role in a radically transformed security
environment and outlined a national security strategy to advance our interests. Our strategy highlighted that the
demise of communism in the former Soviet Union brought with it unprecedented opportunities in global
relations as well as a host of threats and challenges with the potential to grow more deadly in a world grown
closer. This strategy took into account the revolution in technology that not only enriches our lives, but makes it
possible for terrorists, criminals and drug traffickers to challenge the safety of our citizens and the security of
our borders in new ways. Our strategy focused on the security implications for both present and long-term
American policy raised by transnational problems that once seemed quite distant--such as resource depletion,
rapid population growth, environmental degradation and refugee migration. Faced with these circumstances, we
did not set objectives for separate and distinct foreign and domestic policies, but rather for economic and
security policies that advance our interests and ideals in a world where the dividing line between domestic and
foreign policy is increasingly blurred.
These principles continue to guide us at the beginning of the second Clinton Administration and prompt us to
make some general observations about America's role in the world in which we live.
Because we are a nation with global interests, we face a variety of challenges to our interests, often far beyond
our shores. We must always retain our superior diplomatic, technological, industrial and military capabilities to
address this broad range of challenges so that we can respond together with other nations when we can, and
alone when we must. We have seen in the past that the international community is often reluctant to act
forcefully without American leadership. In many instances, the United States is the only nation capable of
providing the necessary leadership for an international response to shared challenges.
The Imperative of Engagement

These observations make our strategic approach clear. First, we must be prepared and willing to use all appropriate
instruments of national power to influence the actions of other states and non-state actors. Second, we must have the
demonstrated will and capabilities to continue to exert global leadership and remain the preferred security partner for
66
the community of states that share our interests. In short, American leadership and engagement in the world are vital
for our security, and the world is a safer place as a result.
Three-quarters of a century ago, the United States squandered Allied victory in World War I when it embraced
isolationism and turned inward. After World War II, and in the face of a new totalitarian threat, America
accepted the challenge to lead. We remained engaged overseas and, with our allies, worked to create
international structures--from the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, NATO and 42 other defense arrangements,
to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that enabled us to strengthen our security and prosperity
and win the Cold War.
By exerting our leadership abroad, we can make America safer and more prosperous--by deterring aggression,
fostering the resolution of conflicts, opening foreign markets, strengthening democracies, and tackling global
problems. Without our leadership and engagement, threats would multiply and our opportunities would narrow.
Our strategy recognizes a simple truth: we must lead abroad if we are to be secure at home, but we cannot lead
abroad unless we are strong at home.
Underpinning that international leadership is the power of our democratic ideals and values. In designing our
strategy, we recognize that the spread of democracy supports American values and enhances both our security
and prosperity. Democratic governments are more likely to cooperate with each other against common threats
and to encourage free and open trade and economic development--and less likely to wage war or abuse the
rights of their people. Hence, the trend toward democracy and free markets throughout the world advances
American interests. The United States must support this trend by remaining actively engaged in the world. This
is the strategy to take us into the next century.
Implementing the Strategy

Though we must always be prepared to act alone, when necessary, or as a leader of an ad hoc coalition that may form
around a specific objective, we cannot always accomplish our foreign policy goals unilaterally. An important element of
our security preparedness depends on durable relationships with allies and other friendly nations. Accordingly, a central
thrust of our strategy is to strengthen and adapt the security relationships we have with key nations around the world
and create new structures when necessary. Examples of these efforts include NATO enlargement, the Partnership for
Peace, and the commitment by the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the Summit of the Americas to
expand free trade and investment.
At other times we must harness our diplomatic, military and economic strengths to shape a favorable
international environment outside of any formal structures. This approach has borne fruit in areas as diverse as
the advancement of peace in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, the elimination of nuclear weapons from
Ukraine, Kazakhstani and Belarus and in our support for the transformation of South Africa, and is further
exemplified through our comprehensive assistance package to Russia and other New Independent States (NIS).
In implementing our strategy for a safer, more prosperous tomorrow, we are guided by the strategic priorities
President Clinton laid out in his 1997 State of the Union Address:
• foster an undivided, democratic and peaceful Europe

• forge a strong and stable Asia Pacific community
• continue America's leadership as the world's most important force for peace
• create more jobs and opportunities for Americans through a more open and competitive trading system that
also benefits others around the world
• increase cooperation in confronting new security threats that defy borders and unilateral solutions
• strengthen the military and diplomatic tools necessary to meet these challenges
67
As we stand at the edge of a new century, our national security strategy will continue to make a real difference
in the lives of our citizens by promoting a world of open societies and open markets that is supportive of U.S.
interests and consistent with American values. We know that there must be limits to America's involvement in
the world. We must be selective in the use of our capabilities, and the choices we make always must be guided
by advancing our objectives of a more secure, prosperous and free America. But we also recognize that if we
withdraw U.S. leadership from the world today, we will have to contend with the consequences of our neglect
tomorrow. America cannot walk away from its global interests and responsibilities, or our citizens' security and
prosperity will surely suffer.
We also know that our engagement abroad rightly depends on the willingness of the American people and the
Congress to bear the costs of defending U.S. interests in dollars, energy, and, when there is no other alternative,
American lives. We must, therefore, foster the broad public understanding and bipartisan congressional support
necessary to sustain our international engagement, always recognizing that some decisions that face popular
opposition must ultimately be judged by whether they advance the interests of the American people in the long
run.
II. Advancing U.S. National Interests

As stated, the goal of the national security strategy is to ensure the protection of our nation's fundamental and enduring
needs: protect the lives and safety of Americans; maintain the sovereignty of the United States, with its values,
institutions and territory intact; and provide for the prosperity of the nation and its people.
We seek to create conditions in the world where our interests are rarely threatened, and when they are, we have
effective means of addressing those threats. In general, we seek a world in which no critical region is dominated
by a power hostile to the United States and regions of greatest importance to the U.S. are stable and at peace.
We seek a climate where the global economy and open trade are growing, where democratic norms and respect
for human rights are increasingly accepted and where terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime do not
undermine stability and peaceful relations. And we seek a world where the spread of nuclear, chemical,
biological and other potentially destabilizing technologies is minimized, and the international community is
willing and able to prevent or respond to calamitous events. This vision of the world is also one in which the
United States has close cooperative relations with the world's most influential countries and has the ability to
influence the policies and actions of those who can affect our national well-being.
The overall health of the international economic environment directly affects our security, just as stability
enhances the prospects for prosperity. This prosperity, a goal in itself, also ensures that we are able to sustain
our military forces, foreign initiatives and global influence. It is that engagement and influence that helps ensure
the world remains stable so that the international economic system can flourish.
We believe that our strategy will move us closer to the vision outlined above and therefore will achieve our
objectives of enhancing our security, bolstering our economic prosperity and promoting democracy.
Enhancing Security
To ensure the safety of our nation, the United States will continue its integrated approach to addressing the numerous
threats to our interests and preserve a full range of foreign policy tools. We must maintain superior military forces.
Similarly, we must retain a strong diplomatic corps and a foreign assistance program sufficient to maintain American
leadership. Our tools of foreign policy must be able to shape the international environment, respond to the full spectrum
of potential crises and prepare against future threats. Our military forces will have the ability to respond to challenges
short of war, and in concert with regional friends and allies, to win two overlapping major theater wars. We will continue
pursuing diplomatic, economic, military, arms control, and nonproliferation efforts that promote stability and reduce the
danger of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional conflict.
68
Threats to U.S. Interests
The current era presents a diverse set of threats to our enduring goals and hence to our security. These threats are
generally grouped into three, often intertwined, categories:
• Regional or State-entered Threats: A number of states still have the capabilities and the desire to threaten our
vital interests, through either coercion or cross border aggression. In many cases, these states are also actively
improving their offensive capabilities, including efforts to obtain nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. In
other cases, unstable nations, internal conflicts or failed states may threaten to further destabilize regions where
we have clear interests.
• Transnational Threats: Some threats transcend national borders. These transnational threats, such as terrorism,
the illegal drug trade, illicit arms trafficking, international organized crime, uncontrolled refugee migrations, and
environmental damage threaten American interests and citizens, both directly and indirectly. Not all of these are
new threats, but advances in technology have, in some cases, made these threats more potent.
• Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons of mass destruction pose the greatest potential threat to
global security. We must continue to reduce the threat posed by existing arsenals of such weaponry as well as
work to stop the proliferation of advanced technologies that place these destructive capabilities in the hands of
parties hostile to U.S. and global security interests. Danger exists from outlaw states opposed to regional and
global security efforts and transnational actors, such as terrorists or international crime organizations,
potentially employing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against unprotected peoples and governments.
The Need for Integrated Approaches

No one nation can defeat these threats alone. Accordingly, a central thrust of our strategy is to adapt our security
relationships with key nations around the world to combat these threats to common interests. We seek to strengthen
cooperation with friends and allies to address these threats by, for example, denying terrorists safe havens, cracking
down on money laundering and tightening intelligence cooperation to prevent weapons proliferation, terrorist attacks
and international crime.
Building effective coalitions of like-minded nations is not enough. That is why we are continuing to strengthen
our own capabilities: so we can more effectively lead the international community in responding to these
threats, and act on our own when we must. Our response to these threats is not limited exclusively to any one
agency within the U.S. Government. National security preparedness particularly in this era when domestic and
foreign policies are increasingly blurred crosses agency lines; thus, our approach places a premium on integrated
interagency efforts to enhance U.S. security.
Many aspects of our strategy are focused on shaping the international environment to prevent or deter threats.
Diplomacy, international assistance, arms control programs, nonproliferation initiatives, and overseas military
presence are examples of shaping activities. A second element of this integrated approach is the requirement to
maintain an ability to respond across the full spectrum of potential crises, up to and including fighting and
winning major theater wars. Finally, we must prepare today to meet the challenges of tomorrow's uncertain
future.
Shaping the International Environment

The United States has a range of tools at its disposal with which to shape the international environment in ways
favorable to U.S. interests and global security. Shaping activities enhance U.S. security by promoting regional security
and preventing and reducing the wide range of diverse threats outlined above. These measures adapt and strengthen
alliances, maintain U.S. influence in key regions and encourage adherence to international norms. When signs of
potential conflict emerge, or potential threats appear, we undertake initiatives to prevent or reduce these threats. Such
efforts might aim to discourage arms races, halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and reduce tensions in
critical regions. Shaping activities take many forms.
69
...through Diplomacy
Diplomacy is our first line of defense against threats to national and international security. The daily business of
diplomacy conducted through our missions and representatives around the world is a vital shaping activity.
These efforts are essential to sustaining our alliances, forcefully articulating U.S. interests, resolving regional
disputes peacefully, averting humanitarian catastrophe, deterring aggression against the United States and our
friends and allies, creating trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies, and projecting U.S. influence
worldwide.
One of the lessons that has been repeatedly driven home is the importance--and cost effectiveness--of preventive
diplomacy in dealing with conflict and complex emergencies. It is far more effective to help prevent nations
from failing than to rebuild them after an internal crisis; far more beneficial to help people stay in their homes
than it is to feed and house them in refugee camps; and far less taxing for relief agencies and international
organizations to strengthen the institutions of conflict resolution than to heal ethnic and social divisions that
have already exploded into bloodshed. In short, while crisis management and crisis resolution are necessary
tasks for our foreign policy, preventive diplomacy is obviously far preferable.
Military force and the credible possibility of its use are essential to defend our vital interests and keep America
safe. But force alone can be a blunt instrument, and there are many problems it cannot solve. To be most
effective, force and diplomacy must complement and reinforce each other for there will be many occasions and
many places where we must rely on diplomatic shaping activities to protect and advance our interests.
...through International Assistance

From the U.S.-led mobilization to rebuild post-war Europe to the more recent creation of export opportunities
across Asia, Latin America and Africa, U.S. foreign assistance has helped expand free markets, assisted
emerging democracies, contained environmental hazards and major health threats, slowed population growth
and defused humanitarian crises. Crises are averted--and U.S. preventive diplomacy actively reinforced--
through U.S. sustainable development programs that promote voluntary family planning, basic education,
environmental protection, democratic governance and rule of law, and the economic empowerment of private
citizens.
When combined effectively with other bilateral and multilateral activities, U.S. initiatives reduce the need for
costly military and humanitarian interventions. Where foreign aid succeeds in consolidating free market
policies, substantial growth of American exports has frequently followed. Where crises have occurred, actions
such as the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative have helped staunch mass human suffering and created a path out
of conflict and dislocation through targeted relief. Other foreign aid programs have worked to help restore
elementary security and civic institutions.
...through Arms Control

Arms control efforts are another important shaping tool. By increasing transparency surrounding the size and
structure of military forces, arms control efforts build national confidence, reduce incentives to initiate an attack
and allow countries to direct resources to safer, more productive relations. Our various arms control initiatives
are an essential prevention measure that can yield disproportionately significant results, often eliminating the
need for a more substantial U.S. response later.
Reductions in strategic offensive arms and the steady shift toward less destabilizing systems remain essential to
our strategy. Under START II, the United States and Russia will each be limited to no more than 3,000-3,500
total deployed strategic nuclear warheads. START II ratification by Russia will open the door to the next round
of strategic arms control.
At the Helsinki Summit, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to START III guidelines that if adopted will, by
the end of 2007, cap the number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed in each country at 2,000-2,500--
70
reducing both our arsenals by 80 percent from Cold War heights. They agreed that START III will, for the first
time, require the U.S. and Russia to destroy nuclear warheads, not only the missiles, aircraft and submarines that
carry them, and they opened the door to possible reductions in shorter-range nuclear weapons. Also at Helsinki,
the Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the necessity of
effective theater missile defence’s and reached agreement on demarcation between systems to counter strategic
and theater ballistic missiles.
Regional and multilateral arms control efforts, such as achieving a comprehensive global ban on antipersonnel
landmines as soon as possible, strengthening the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and
implementing and enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) increase the security of our citizens and
prevent or limit conflict. That is why the Administration aggressively pursued Senate ratification of the CWC.
Similarly, Senate approval of the CFE Flank Agreement is important because the agreement underpins new
negotiations to adapt the 30-nation CFE Treaty to the changing European security environment. And, Senate
approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) banning all nuclear test explosions is also a priority
objective.
Other arms control objectives include securing Indian and Pakistani accession to the CTBT to allow that treaty
to enter into force; obtaining Senate approval of protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the
African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, and protocols to the Convention on Conventional Weapons dealing
with landmines and blinding lasers; and obtaining Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian ratification of the Open
Skies Treaty.
We also promote, through international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), implementation of confidence and security-building measures in regions of tension and
instability--even where we are not formal parties to such agreements. Agreements in the Balkans as mandated
by the Dayton Accords are excellent examples.
...through Nonproliferation Initiatives

Nonproliferation initiatives, which deter the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nuclear, biological and
chemical and stem their spread and that of their component parts or delivery systems, enhance global security.
The Administration supports international treaty regimes that prohibit the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the CWC and the BWC. We also seek to
achieve a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to cap the nuclear materials available for weapons purposes.
The Administration also seeks to limit access to sensitive equipment and technologies through participating in
and fostering the efforts of multilateral regimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for
Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, the Australia Group (for chemical and biological
weapons), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. We are working
to harmonize national export control policies, increase information sharing, refine control lists and expand
cooperation against illicit transfers.
Regional nonproliferation efforts are particularly critical in three proliferation zones: the Korean Peninsula,
where the 1994 Agreed Framework requires North Korea's full compliance with its nonproliferation obligations;
the Middle East and Southwest Asia, where we encourage regional arms control agreements that address
legitimate security concerns of all parties and continue efforts to thwart and roll back Iran's development of
weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its programs; and South Asia, where we seek to
persuade India and Pakistan to bring their nuclear and missile programs into conformity with international
nonproliferation standards.
Through programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and other initiatives, we
aim to prevent the theft or diversion of WMD or related material or technology. We are purchasing tons of
71
highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons for conversion into commercial reactor fuel
for U.S. use. And we are also working together to redirect former Soviet facilities and scientists from military to
peaceful purposes.
We are working with China to resolve a number of important proliferation issues and they have committed not
to transfer MTCR-controlled missiles. Our priority now is to gain their agreement to implement national export
controls that meet international standards.
...through Military Activities

The U.S. military plays an essential role in building coalitions and shaping the international environment in
ways that protect and promote U.S. interests. Through means such as the forward stationing or deployment of
forces, defense cooperation and security assistance, and training and exercises with allies and friends, our armed
forces help to promote regional stability, deter aggression and coercion, prevent and reduce conflicts and threats,
and serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies.
Our military promotes regional stability in numerous ways. In Europe, East Asia and Southwest Asia, where the
U.S. has clear, vital interests, the American military helps assure the security of key allies and friends. We are
continuing to adapt and strengthen our alliances and coalitions to meet the challenges of an evolving security
environment and to improve other countries' peacekeeping capabilities. With countries that are neither staunch
friends nor known foes, military cooperation often serves as a positive means of engagement, building security
relationships today in an effort to keep these countries from becoming adversaries tomorrow.
Deterrence of aggression and coercion on a daily basis is another crucial aspect of the military's shaping role.
Our ability to deter potential adversaries in peacetime rests on several factors, particularly on our demonstrated
will and ability to uphold our security commitments when they are challenged. We have earned this reputation
through both our declaratory policy, which clearly communicates costs to potential adversaries, and the
credibility of our conventional warfighting capability, as embodied in forces and equipment strategically
stationed or deployed forward, our rapidly deployable stateside-based forces, our ability to gain timely access to
critical infrastructure overseas, and our demonstrated ability to form and lead effective military coalitions.
U.S. military forces prevent and reduce a wide range of potential conflicts in key regions. An example of such
an activity is our deployment to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to prevent the spread of violence
to that country.
Our armed forces also serve as a role model for militaries in emerging democracies around the world. Through
modest military-to-military activities and increasing links between the U.S. military and the military
establishments of Partnership for Peace nations, for instance, we are helping to transform military institutions in
central and eastern Europe.
Finally, our nuclear deterrent posture is one of the most visible and important examples of how U.S. military
capabilities can be used effectively to deter aggression and coercion. Nuclear weapons serve as a hedge against
an uncertain future, a guarantee of our security commitments to allies and a disincentive to those who would
contemplate developing or otherwise acquiring their own nuclear weapons. In this context, the United States
must continue to maintain a robust triad of strategic forces sufficient to deter any hostile foreign leadership with
access to nuclear forces and to convince it that seeking a nuclear advantage would be futile.
Responding to Crises
Because our shaping efforts alone cannot guarantee the international environment we seek, the United States must be
able to respond to the full spectrum of crises that may arise. Our resources are finite, however, 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,
72
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.
Since there are always many demands for U.S. action, our national interests must be clear. These interests fall
into three categories. The first includes vital interests those of broad, overriding importance to the survival,
safety and vitality of our nation. Among these are the physical security of our territory and that of our allies, the
safety of our citizens, and our economic well-being. We will do whatever it takes to defend these interests,
including--when necessary--using our military might unilaterally and decisively.
The second category includes situations where important national interests are at stake. These interests do not
affect our national survival, but they do affect our national well-being and the character of the world in which
we live. In such cases, we will use our resources to advance these interests insofar as the costs and risks are
commensurate with the interests at stake. Our intervention in Haiti and participation in NATO operations in
Bosnia are relevant examples.
The third category involves humanitarian interests. In the event of natural or manmade disasters or gross
violations of human rights, our nation may act because our values demand it. Moreover, in such cases, the force
of our example bolsters support for our leadership in the world. Whenever possible, we seek to avert such
humanitarian disasters through diplomacy and cooperation with a wide range of partners, including other
governments, international institutions and nongovernmental organizations. By doing so, we may not only save
lives but also prevent the drain on resources caused by intervention in a full-blown crisis.
The U.S. military is at once dangerous to our enemies and a bulwark to our friends. Though typically not the
best tool to address long-term humanitarian concerns, under certain circumstances our military may provide
appropriate and necessary humanitarian assistance. Those circumstances include: a natural or manmade disaster
that dwarfs the ability of the normal relief agencies to respond; the need for relief is urgent and the military has
a unique ability to respond quickly; and the U.S. mission is narrowly defined with minimal risk to American
lives. In these cases, the United States may intervene when the costs and risks are commensurate with the stakes
involved and when there is reason to believe that our action can make a real difference. Such efforts by the
United States and the international community will be limited in duration and designed to give the affected
country the opportunity to put its house in order. In the final analysis, the responsibility for the fate of a nation
rests with its own people.
One final consideration regards the central role the American people rightfully play 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.
Transnational Threats
Today, American diplomats, law enforcement officials, military personnel and others are called upon to respond to
assorted transnational threats that have moved to center stage with the Cold War's end. Combating these dangers which
range from terrorism, international crime, and trafficking in drugs and illegal arms, to environmental damage and
intrusions in our critical information infrastructures requires far-reaching cooperation among the agencies of our
government as well as with other nations.
The United States will continue appropriate sharing of intelligence and information with other nations to counter
terrorism, corruption and money-laundering activities, and fight drug trafficking. We will also further seek to
prevent arms traders from fueling regional conflicts and subverting international embargoes and will impose
additional sanctions on states that sponsor terrorism. International cooperation to combat these transnational
threats will be vital for building security in the next century.
73
Terrorism
U.S. counterterrorism approaches are meant to prevent, disrupt and defeat terrorist operations before they occur,
and, if terrorist acts do occur, to respond overwhelmingly, with determined efforts to bring the perpetrators to
justice. Our policy to counter international terrorists rests on the following principles: (1) make no concessions
to terrorists; (2) bring all pressure to bear on state sponsors of terrorism; (3) fully exploit all available legal
mechanisms to punish international terrorists; and (4) help other governments improve their capabilities to
combat terrorism.
The U.S. has made concerted efforts to deter and punish terrorists and remains determined to apprehend those
who terrorize American citizens. Similarly, as long as terrorists continue to target American citizens and
interests, we reserve the right to strike at their bases and attack assets valued by those who support them--a right
we exercised in 1993 with the attack against Iraqi intelligence headquarters in response to Baghdad's
assassination attempt against former President Bush.
Countering terrorism effectively requires day-to-day coordination within the U.S. Government and close
cooperation with other governments and international organizations. We have seen positive results from the
increasing integration of intelligence, diplomatic, investigative and prosecutorial activities among the
Departments of State, Justice, Defense, Treasury, Transportation, and the CIA. The Administration is also
working with Congress to increase the ability of these agencies to combat terrorism through augmented funding
and manpower.
Placing terrorism at the top of the diplomatic agenda has increased international information sharing and law
enforcement efforts. At the 1996 Lyon Summit the industrial powers joined in condemning Iran's support for
terrorism and continued efforts to achieve global adoption of all current counterterrorism treaties by the year
2000. Last year Congress and the President worked together to enact the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act which will
increase economic pressure on these two state sponsors of terrorism. We further seek to uncover, reduce or
eliminate foreign terrorist capabilities in our country; eliminate terrorist sanctuaries; counter state-supported
terrorism and subversion of moderate regimes through a comprehensive program of diplomatic, economic and
intelligence activities; improve aviation security worldwide and at U.S. airports; ensure better security for all
U.S. transportation systems; and improve protection for our personnel assigned overseas.
Drug Trafficking
The U.S. response to the global scourge of drug abuse and drug trafficking is to integrate domestic and
international efforts to reduce both the demand and the supply of drugs. Its ultimate success will depend on
concerted efforts by the public, all levels of government and the private sector together with other governments,
private groups and international organizations. Domestically, we seek to educate and enable America's youth to
reject illegal drugs; increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and
violence; reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use; and shield America's air, land and sea
frontiers from the drug threat.
Abroad, the U.S. National Drug Control Strategy seeks to reduce cultivation of drug producing crops, interdict
the flow of drugs at the source and in the transit zone (particularly in Central and South America, the Caribbean
and Mexico), and stop drugs from entering our country. The strategy includes efforts to strengthen democratic
institutions; root out corruption; destroy trafficking organizations; prevent money laundering; eradicate illegal
drug crops in this hemisphere, Asia and the Middle East; and encourage alternate crop development. The United
States is aggressively engaging international organizations, financial institutions and non-governmental
organizations in counter narcotics cooperation. For instance, the President has invoked the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to attack the finances, companies and individuals owned or
controlled by the Cali Cartel as well as other Colombian drug cartels, freezing their assets in the United States,
identifying front companies and barring Americans from doing business with them.
74
Our strategy recognizes that at home and abroad, prevention, treatment and economic alternatives must go hand-
in-hand with law enforcement and interdiction. Long-term efforts will be maintained to help nations develop
economies with fewer market incentives for producing drugs. We have also increased efforts abroad to foster
public awareness and support for foreign governments' efforts to reduce drug abuse.
International Organized Crime

International organized crime undermines fragile new democracies as well as developing nations and challenges
our own security. In parts of the former Soviet Union, for instance, organized crime poses a threat to our
interests because of the potential for theft and smuggling of inherited nuclear materials remaining in those
countries.
To fight organized crime, we seek to mount an international effort to combat the major international criminal
cartels, most notably those based in Italy, the former Soviet Union, Colombia, Southeast Asia, and Nigeria. In
particular, in the context of the P-8 and bilaterally, we are promoting legal assistance and extradition
cooperation. We also are working to combat money laundering and other criminal activities in the major
offshore financial centers, create indigenous criminal investigation and prosecution capabilities in key countries
and implement specific plans to address several other financial crimes, including counterfeiting, large-scale
international fraud and embezzlement, computer intrusion of banks and cellular phones, and alien smuggling.
The Administration has launched a major initiative to stop criminal organizations from moving funds through
the international financial system. We will identify and put on notice nations that fail to bring their financial
systems into conformity with international standards and appropriate Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
recommendations. We also seek to target the criminal enterprises that are developing the gray market trade in
illegal weapons. By using forged documents and diverting deliveries of armaments, these networks serve
criminals and terrorists alike and move weapons to areas of conflict and instability, often subverting
international arms embargoes.
International organized crime organizations target nations whose law enforcement agencies lack the capacity
and experience to stop them. To help the new democracies of Central Europe, the United States and Hungary
established an international law enforcement academy in Budapest. The President proposed last year at the
United Nations to establish a network of such centre’s around the world to share the latest crime-fighting
techniques and technology.
Environmental and Security Concerns

Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-
being. Natural resource scarcities often trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate
change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of dangerous chemicals directly threaten the health of
U.S. citizens. We must work closely with other countries to respond aggressively to these and other
environmental threats. <
Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations;
consequently, our national security planning is incorporating environmental analyses as never before. In
addition, we have a full diplomatic agenda, working unilaterally, regionally and multilaterally to forge
agreements to protect the global environment.
Smaller-Scale Contingencies
When efforts to deter an adversary 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 declaratory statements to
75
communicate the costs of aggression or coercion to an adversary, and in some cases may choose to employ U.S. forces in
a limited manner to underline the message and deter further adventurism.
The U.S. military conducts smaller-scale contingency operations to vindicate national interests. These
operations encompass the full range of military operations short of major theater warfare, including
humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, disaster relief, no-fly zones, reinforcing key allies, limited strikes, and
interventions. These operations will likely pose the most frequent challenge for U.S. forces and cumulatively
require significant commitments over time. These operations will also put a premium on the ability of the U.S.
military to work closely and effectively with other U.S. Government agencies, nongovernmental organizations,
regional and international security organizations and coalition partners.
Not only must the U.S. military be prepared to successfully conduct multiple concurrent operations worldwide,
it must also be prepared to do so in the face of challenges such as terrorism, information operations, and the
threat or use of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. forces must also remain prepared to withdraw from
contingency operations if needed to deploy to a major theater war. Accordingly, U.S. forces will remain multi-
mission capable and will be trained and managed with multiple missions in mind.
At times it will be in our national interest to proceed in partnership with others to preserve, maintain and restore
peace. American participation in peace operations takes many forms, such as the NATO coalition in Bosnia, the
American-led UN force in Haiti and our involvement in a multilateral coalition in the Sinai.
The question of command and control in contingency operations is particularly critical. Under no circumstances
will the President ever relinquish his constitutionally mandated command authority over U.S. forces, but there
may be times when it is in our interest to place U.S. forces under the temporary operational control of a
competent allied or United Nations commander. This is consistent with well-established practice from the siege
of Yorktown during the Revolutionary War to the battles of Operation DESERT STORM.
Major Theater Warfare

At the high end of responding to crises is fighting and winning major theater wars. This mission will remain the ultimate
test of our Total Force our active and reserve military components and one in which it must always succeed. For the
foreseeable future, the United States, in concert with regional allies, must remain able to deter credibly and defeat
large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theatre’s in overlapping time frames.
As long as countries like Iraq and North Korea remain capable of threatening vital U.S. interests, this
requirement is only prudent. Maintaining such a capability should, when we are heavily engaged in one region,
deter opportunism elsewhere and provide a hedge against the possibility that we might encounter larger or more
difficult than expected threats. A strategy for deterring and defeating aggression in two theaters ensures we
maintain the flexibility to meet unknown future threats, while continued global engagement helps preclude such
threats from developing.
Fighting and winning major theater wars entails three particularly challenging requirements. First, we must
maintain the ability to rapidly defeat initial enemy advances short of enemy objectives in two theaters, in close
succession. The U.S. must maintain this ability to ensure that we can seize the initiative, minimize territory lost
before an invasion is halted, and ensure the integrity of our warfighting coalitions.
Second, the United States must plan and prepare to fight and win under conditions where an adversary may use
asymmetric means against us unconventional approaches that avoid or undermine our strengths while exploiting
our vulnerabilities. This is of particular importance and a significant challenge. Because of our dominance in the
conventional military arena, adversaries who challenge the United States are likely to do so using asymmetric
means, such as WMD, information operations or terrorism.
76
Finally, our military must also be able to transition to fighting major theater wars from a posture of global
engagement from substantial levels of peacetime engagement overseas as well as multiple concurrent smaller-
scale contingencies. Withdrawing from such operations would post significant political and operational
challenges. Ultimately, however, the United States must accept a degree of risk associated with withdrawing
from contingency operations and engagement activities in order to reduce the greater risk incurred if we failed
to respond adequately to major theater wars.
Our priority is to shape effectively the international environment so as to deter the onset of major theater wars.
Should deterrence fail, however, the United States will defend itself, its allies and partners with all means
necessary.
Preparing Now for an Uncertain Future

At the same time we address the problems of today, we must prepare now for tomorrow's uncertain future. This
requires that we support shaping and responding requirements in the near term, while at the same time evolving our
unparalleled capabilities to ensure we can effectively shape and respond to meet future challenges. Key to this evolution
is the need to foster innovation in new operational concepts, capabilities, technologies and organizational structures;
modernize our forces; and take prudent steps today to position ourselves to respond more effectively to unlikely but
significant future threats.
We must continue aggressive efforts to construct appropriate twenty-first century national security programs
and structures. The Quadrennial Defense Review is doing this within the Department of Defense, and the State
Department and other international affairs agencies are similarly reorganizing to confront the pressing
challenges of tomorrow as well as those we face today. We need to continue looking across our government to
see if during this time of transition we are adequately preparing to meet the national security challenges of the
next century.
It is critical that we renew our commitment to America's diplomacy-- to ensure we have the diplomatic
representation required to support our global interests. This is central to retaining our ability to remain an
influential voice on international issues that affect our well-being. We will preserve that influence so long as we
retain the diplomatic capabilities, military wherewithal and economic base to underwrite our commitments
credibly.
The United States is approaching the point where a major modernization of our military forces is required. The
military procurement buys of the late-70s and early-80s permitted us to defer large-scale recapitalization of the
force for over a decade. In order to maintain the technological superiority of U.S. forces, we must selectively
increase modernization funding to both introduce new systems, and replace aging Cold War-era equipment as it
reaches the end of its service life.
Closely related to our modernization efforts is the requirement to invest in selected research and prototype
systems while monitoring trends in likely future threats. These prudent steps provide insurance against the
possibility that some of our efforts to shape the international environment in ways favorable to U.S. interests do
not succeed. Although such insurance is certainly not free, it is a relatively inexpensive way to manage risk in
an uncertain, resource-constrained environment--that is, the risk of being unprepared to meet a new threat, the
risk of developing the wrong capabilities, and the risk of producing a capability too early and having it become
obsolete by the time it is needed.
The United States cannot hedge against every conceivable future threat. Instead, we should focus our insurance
efforts on threats that, while unlikely, would have highly negative consequences for U.S. security and would be
very expensive to counter were they to emerge. Our current research and development effort to position the U.S.
to deploy a credible national missile defense system within three years of a deployment decision is an example
of this approach.
77
Without preparing adequately today to face the pressing challenges of tomorrow, our ability to exert global
leadership and to create international conditions conducive to achieving our national goals would be in doubt.
Thus, we must strive to strike the right balance between the near-term requirements of shaping and responding
and the longer-term requirements associated with preparing now for national security challenges in the twenty-
first century.
Overarching Capabilities
Critical to our nation's ability to shape the international environment and respond to the full spectrum of crises--today
and tomorrow--are technologies, capabilities and requirements to enable the continued worldwide application of U.S.
national power.
Intelligence
Our intelligence capabilities are critical instruments for implementing our national security strategy.
Comprehensive intelligence capabilities are needed to provide warning of threats to U.S. national security, give
analytical support to the policy and military communities, provide near-real time intelligence in times of crisis
while retaining global perspective, and to identify opportunities for advancing our national interests.
Today, intelligence operations must cover a wider range of threats and policy needs than ever before and work
more closely with policymaking agencies. We place a high priority on preserving and enhancing those
intelligence collection and analytic capabilities that provide information on states and groups that pose the most
serious threats to U.S. security.
Current intelligence priorities include states whose policies and actions are hostile to the United States;
countries that possess strategic nuclear forces or control nuclear weapons, other WMD or nuclear fissile
materials; transnational threats; potential regional conflicts that might affect U.S. national security interests;
intensified counterintelligence against foreign intelligence collection inimical to U.S. interests; and threats to
U.S. forces and citizens abroad.
Intelligence support is also required to develop and implement U.S. policies to promote democracy abroad,
protect the environment, identify threats to modern information systems, monitor arms control agreements, and
support worldwide humanitarian efforts. The fusion of all intelligence disciplines will provide the most effective
collection and analysis of data on these subjects.
Space
We are committed to maintaining our leadership in space. Uninhibited access to and use of space is essential for
preserving peace and protecting U.S. national security as well as civil and commercial interests. It is essential to
our ability to shape and respond to current and future changes in the international environment. Our space
policy objectives include deterring threats to our interest in space and defeating hostile efforts against U.S.
space assets if deterrence fails, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to space, and enhancing
global partnerships with other space-faring nations across the spectrum of economic, political and security
issues.
Missile Defense
We have highly effective missile defense development programs designed to protect our country, deployed U.S.
forces and our friends and allies against ballistic missiles armed with conventional weapons or WMD. These
programs and systems complement and strengthen our deterrence and nonproliferation efforts by reducing
incentives for potential proliferators to develop or use WMD. Significantly, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin
agreed at the Helsinki Summit to maintain the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability, yet adapt it to
meet the threat posed by shorter-range missiles a threat we seek to counter through our theater missile defense
(TMD) systems. The agreement is consistent with planned U.S. TMD programs, all of which have been certified
by the United States as compliant with the ABM Treaty.
78
Although the intelligence community does not believe it likely that any hostile state will develop an
intercontinental-range missile capability that could threaten our nation in the foreseeable future, we are
developing missile defense programs that position the U.S. to deploy a credible national missile defense system
should a threat materialize.
Information Infrastructure
The national security posture of the United States is increasingly dependent on our information infrastructures.
These infrastructures are highly interdependent and are increasingly vulnerable to tampering and exploitation.
Concepts and technologies are being developed and employed to protect and defend against these
vulnerabilities; we must fully implement them to ensure the future security of not only our national information
infrastructures, but our nation as well.
National Security Emergency Preparedness

We will do all we can to prevent destructive forces such as terrorism, WMD use, sabotage of our information
systems and natural disasters from endangering our citizens. But if an emergency occurs, we must also be
prepared to respond effectively to protect lives and property and ensure the survival of our institutions and
national infrastructure. National security emergency preparedness is imperative, and comprehensive, all-hazard
emergency planning by Federal departments and agencies continues to be a crucial national security
requirement.
Chapter – 12
Review of literature
National Security edited by Sumit Ganguly and others is a scholarly and timely addition to the growing
literature on India’s national security. The editors and contributors have done a commendable job of telling us
what the contents of India’s national security are and what can be done to improve its various aspects. Before
we take a closer look at what the book offers, let’s ask the basic question: what, after all, is national security?
Is it merely about the state or does it include individuals as well? The three well-regarded editors have offered
a nuanced definition of security — ‘an area of inquiry of the sources and management of direct threats to the
physical integrity of a country’s population’ including ‘violence between individuals and groups of individuals.’
Definitions are important: they not only set the tone of the argument but also instruct the reader on what to
expect. In this case, the editors’ definition of security is refreshing and sufficiently accommodative
79
Chapter – 13
Data Analysis & Presentation
NSIA 810 - National Security Policy and the Intelligence Community

Credits: 3
This course provides students an introduction to United States national security policy and the role of the
intelligence community. Current and historical case studies will highlight the functions and limits of
intelligence activities in support of decision makers policy making and implementation. In this course we
survey political, institutional, and cultural challenges confronting analysts as they strive to provide
intelligence products relevant to strategic and tactical policy goals.
Grade Mode: Letter Grading
NSIA 820 - Intelligence Analysis

Credits: 3
In this class we define intelligence and focus on analysis. We identify intelligence organizations relationships
with policymakers and the types of intelligence products they produce. Students will learn to identify and
create intelligence requirements and the related variables and collection targets. We will explore analytical
80
approaches and develop critical thinking skills. In this class we will define data, the causes of intelligence
failures, and identify creativity in intelligence analysis.
Grade Mode: Letter Grading
Chapter 14
Conclusion & Suggestions
National security holds a relevance and importance that goes beyond mere internal stability. Its
significance includes the well-being and prosperity of citizens and the populations they form, as well
as the relations between all countries on a regional and global basis.
No president has ever made national security policy in the National Security Council. The NSC was
not created as a policymaking body but as an advisory body to the president. The Cold War brought
into the policy process various agencies and groups whose views were important but rarely
coordinated. Foreign policy was no longer just in the hands of the State Department. The Defense
Department and the JCS, joined by the CIA and the Treasury Department, were all players on the
field of U.S. global power.
Therefore, even when presidents avoided the formal structure created early in the Cold War, they
found it necessary to find a substitute. Interdepartmental committees and the Committee of Principals
were all created to fill this role.
81
The turning point in the history of the NSC came in 1961 with the election of John F. Kennedy. When
Kennedy brought into the White House a national security adviser with a staff, he began an inexorable
move toward a completely new process. Even though it continued to meet sporadically, after 1961 the
NSC was nothing more than the president's adviser and his staff, which soon evolved into just the
president's staff.
Personality has been more important to the policy process than structure. That each president uses
the NSC differently is part of the received wisdom about the policy process. Every president uses the
NSC differently in order to differentiate himself from his predecessor as campaign promises for new
policies are subsequently translated into new processes.
Reference :-
1. Romm, Joseph J. (1993). Defining national security: the nonmilitary aspects. Pew Project on
America's Task in a Changed World (Pew Project Series). Council on Foreign Relations.
p. 122. ISBN 978-0-87609-135-7. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
2. ^ a b c Paleri, Prabhakaran (2008). National Security: Imperatives And Challenges. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill. p. 521. ISBN 978-0-07-065686-4. Retrieved 23 September 2010.
3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Romm, Joseph J. (1993). Defining national security: the nonmilitary aspects. Pew
Project on America's Task in a Changed World (Pew Project Series). Council on Foreign Relations.
p. 122. ISBN 978-0-87609-135-7. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
4. ^ Quoted in Paleri (2008) ibid. Peg 52.
5. ^ Brown, Harold (1983) Thinking about national security: defense and foreign policy in a dangerous
world. As quoted in Watson, Cynthia Ann (2008). U.S. national security: a reference handbook.
Contemporary world issues (2 (revised) ed.). ABC-CLIO. pp. 281. ISBN 978-1-59884-041-4.
Retrieved 24 September 2010.
6. ^ MAIER, CHARLES S. Peace and security for the 1990s. Unpublished paper for the MacArthur
Fellowship Program, Social Science Research Council, 12 Jun 1990. As quoted in Romm 1993, p.5
7. ^ Definition from "Proceedings of Seminar on "A Maritime Strategy for India" (1996). National
Defence College, Tees January Marg, New Delhi, India. quoted in Paleri 2008 (ibid).
8. ^ a b c d e f g Ammerdown Group (2016). "Rethinking Security: A discussion
paper" (PDF). rethinkingsecurity.org.uk. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
9. ^ a b c d e Rogers, P (2010). Losing control : global security in the twenty-first century (3rd ed.).
London: Pluto Press. ISBN 9780745329376. OCLC 658007519.
10. ^ "National Security Strategy". Office of the Security of Defense.
11. ^ a b c d Spanish Government (2013). "The National Security Strategy: Sharing a common
project" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-12-17.
12. ^ a b c d e Sweden, Prime Minister's Office (2017). "National Security Strategy"(PDF).
Retrieved 2017-12-18.
13. ^ a b c UK, Cabinet Office (2015). "National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security
Review 2015". Retrieved 2017-12-17.
14. ^ a b c d e US, White House (2015). "National Security Strategy" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-12-17.
15. ^ a b "War in the fifth domain". The Economist. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
16. ^ South Africa, Department of Defence (2015). "South African Defence Review, 2015" in(PDF).
17. ^ France (2017). "Strategic Review of Defence and National Security" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-12-18.
18. ^ Olika, O (2016). "Unpacking Russia's New National Security Strategy". www.csis.org.
82
19. ^ "Highways For Travelers". Transportation Security Administration. Archived from the original on
15 September 2012.
20. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2008-12-16. Retrieved 2008-12-07.
21. ^ "Reliance spells end of road for ICT amateurs", May 07, 2013, The Australian
22. ^ a b Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1998. p. 239. ISBN 978-1-
55587-784-2.
23. ^ United Nations. "UN Trust Fund for Human Security". www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
24. ^ United Nations General Assembly (2010). "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 20
December 2010". www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
25. ^ Gleick, Peter H. (2014-03-03). "Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria". Weather,
Climate, and Society. 6(3): 331–340. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-13-00059.1. ISSN 1948-
8327. S2CID 153715885.
26. ^ Diamond, Jared. "Malthus in Africa: Rwanda's Genocide". Retrieved 26 September 2010.
27. ^ US, Department of Defense (2013). "Fiscal year 2012: Operational energy annual report" (PDF).
Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-09-19. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
28. ^ a b UK, Cabinet Office (2008). "The national security strategy of the United Kingdom: security in an
interdependent world". Retrieved 2017-12-18.
29. ^ Farah, Paolo Davide (2015). "Sustainable Energy Investments and National Security: Arbitration
and Negotiation Issues". Journal of World Energy Law and Business. 8 (6).
30. ^ Prehoda, et al. 2017. U.S. Strategic Solar Photovoltaic-Powered Microgrid Deployment for
Enhanced National Security. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 78, 167–
175. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.094

A Project Submitted To University of Mumbai For Partial Completion of The Degree of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project Submitted To University of Mumbai For Partial Completion of The Degree of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project Submitted To University of Mumbai For Partial Completion of The Degree of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

MASTER IN COMMERCE ( CHOICE BASED CREDIT SYSTEM )

UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF

JSSP'S COLLEGE OF ARTS COMMERCE AND SCIENCE,GOVELI

Name & Signature of Guide:

Name & Signature: principal of the institution

( Someshwar Bama Chikankar )

• Concept of National Security :-

1.3 Statement of problems :-

1.4 Rational of study :-

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI),

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA),

1.1 Objective of study :-.

OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE

The goals of the National Security Service shall be the following:

1.2 Scope of the study :-

Definition of National security

Today’s national security environment is complicated by a proliferation of a diverse range of violent

Beyond spoiler management strategies, international peace-building and state-building efforts

Goals and Priorities

In safeguarding national security, governments rely on a range of tactics, including political,

National security Versus Global Security

2. Food: measures against hunger and famine.

4. Environmental: measures against environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural disasters

6. Community: measures against inter-ethnic, religious and other identity tensions.

7. Political: measures against political repression and human rights abuses.6

5 Threats to National Security & How Government Protects it’s Citizens

What is National Security Theatre?

Natural Disasters and Diseases

How Disease Disrupts

Protecting Against Biological Warfare

Cyberterrorist activity poses a threat to national security for a number of reasons:

Protecting Against Cyberterrorism

4. Climate change and national security

Impact of Climate Change

Combating Climate Change

Examples of Transnational Crime

Transnational crime may take a number of forms, including the following:

• The procurement of illegal goods, including drug trafficking

Keeping the country & it’s people safe

Photo by Bill Clark via AP

GAZETTE: What comes after this report? Is there a next step?

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

Embassy to discuss the report's findings and recommendations.

risks we see right now is climate change."

Findings and Recommendations

months of deliberation, the board outlined four findings:

• Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security;

security and national defense strategies;

climate changes to avoid disruption to global security and stability;

capacity and resiliency to climate impacts;

U.S. combat power through energy efficiency; and

something bad is going to happen indeed."

Climate as Threat Multiplier

we behaved in our operations."

deal with [the Mozambique] humanitarian crisis," he said.

New Threats and Engagement Strategies

• Phase One: planning;

• Phase Two: deployment;