Is America as safe today as it needs to be?
The answer is clearly no. Terrorism is on the rise, with the State Department reporting earlier this year that 651 attacks occurred worldwide in 2004. That is more than a threefold increase from the global attacks in 2003 and a 21-year high.
There is a real possibility that the next terrorist attack on our soil could include weapons of mass destruction. The technology revolution has made access to knowledge about building nuclear, chemical and biological weapons readily available to terrorists.
Domestic installations such as NORAD and Space Command in Colorado are vital components of our security portfolio. We must also continue to invest in a national missile-defense system that will work. But these programs are not designed to address the most urgent threat Americans face today: another terrorist attack in the United States and the possibility that it will involve weapons of mass destruction. Yet, over the last four years, we have undermined the very nonproliferation tools that can keep Americans safe.
The Bush administration, led by United Nations nominee John Bolton, has opposed efforts to strengthen the very international conventions aimed at this threat: the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Bush officials are exploring a resumption of nuclear testing and a new type of “bunker buster” nuclear weapon.
In the former Soviet Union, nearly 20,000 nuclear warheads remain operational and insecure from theft by terrorists. Only 40 percent of the facilities housing nuclear material have received security improvements, and only half of these have complete security systems. Yet today, while we invest $10 billion in national missile defense, the administration is cutting the $1 billion Nunn-Lugar program designed to secure these weapons from the hands of terrorists. That needs to change.
Another urgent threat is the dangerous situation posed by North Korea. Over the last four years, North Korea has restarted its frozen plutonium nuclear weapons program and accelerated a second one based on uranium. North Korea most likely has missiles that could reach Alaska and Hawaii. Pyongyang was caught red-handed cheating on the 1994 deal, yet Washington has refused to put any realistic proposal on the table to resolve the issue. It has turned the negotiations over to China, which has declined to take responsibility for stemming the growing crisis. The crisis simply cannot be ignored any longer.
Much as it wishes it were otherwise, the administration will have to negotiate to put this dangerous nuclear genie back in the bottle. Such a deal will involve incentives for North Korea but also a much tougher international inspections regime. The same approach must be adopted in our dealings with Iran, with the U.S. employing – with Europe and Russia – a sophisticated mix of carrots and sticks. As distasteful as such deals may be, the alternatives are far more dangerous.
The United States also must redouble its efforts to counter terrorism at its source. That means working to reform the Arab world. President Bush is rightly focusing on two immediate priorities: reform of the radical education system and an end to the hatred and incitement to violence prevalent in much of the government-controlled media. The United States must also work to address the crises in the developing world of underdevelopment, environmental degradation, and infectious diseases.
Of the 164 conflicts of the last two decades, most were waged in the developing world and took place within, not between states. It is not an accident that Osama bin Laden chose Sudan, a country at war for the last two decades, or Afghanistan, a failed state, as his places of safe haven.
The United States must take up the challenge, articulated in the U.N.’s recent “In Larger Freedom” report, and provide 0.7 percent of its gross national income to address the vast challenges of the developing world, up from its current 0.15 percent. In the post-Sept. 11 world, these are not humanitarian efforts – they are vital to the security of the United States.
The United States needs to once again become the world’s persuader, not just enforcer. Over the last four years, President Bush has been misled by the myth that, because America is the world’s greatest power, we could single-handedly bend the world to our will, primarily through military might. That costly Superpower Myth has made America less, not more safe. The consequent spike in anti-Americanism around the world has made countries less willing to join us in the fight against terrorism and proliferation.
An important shift appears to be underway from that myth to a more realistic policy that can enhance American security. There is at least talk now of a need to rebuild alliances and put past differences behind us. If President Bush turns his new rhetoric into more realistic policies, historic progress in making America safer is possible.
Nancy Soderberg was alternate representative to the United Nations with the rank of ambassador (1997-2001) and the third-ranking official at the National Security Council at the White House (1993-1997). She is the author of “The Superpower Myth, The Use and Misuse of American Might”
