The New Strategic Framework is an "appropriate reflection not only of the post-Cold War relationship between the United States and Russia, but of the new security threats we face in the 21st century," says John R. Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. He says the framework, agreed to by Presidents Bush and Putin during their Moscow summit in May, involves "reducing offensive nuclear weapons, creating defensive systems that protect against missile attacks, strengthening nonproliferation and counterproliferation measures, and cooperating with Russia to combat terrorism."

Since the tragic events of September 11, when the world was made witness to the deadly ambitions of terrorists, the Bush administration has moved rapidly to counter imminent terrorist threats and identify future ones. While the attacks on New York and Washington were delivered by relatively low-tech means, they inflicted enormous damage and unprecedented casualties. As we combat the threat of terrorism, we must be prepared for ever-escalating means of attack from weapons designed to kill far greater numbers of people and wreak havoc on our infrastructure.

The risks posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been with us for some time, but now, as the United States works to rid the world of the terrorist threat, we must not discount the real and added danger posed by chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. As President Bush warned, "Every nation in our coalition must take seriously the threat of terror on a catastrophic scale -- terror armed with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons." Dictators in hostile states such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea already possess some WMD and are developing others. Their terrorist allies are in search of such weapons, and would waste no opportunity to use them against us.

As we survey the security environment, a strong link between terrorist-sponsoring states and the spread of WMD becomes readily apparent. We believe that with very few exceptions, terrorist groups have not acquired and cannot acquire WMD without the support of nation-states. Thus we are moving to end state sponsorship of terror, and to expose those states that are acquiring WMD, often in violation of global nonproliferation treaties.

In countering these urgent threats, the Bush administration believes that the Cold War concepts of mutual assured destruction -- the threat of an overwhelming retaliatory strike in response to provocation -- and containment are no longer appropriate. These tactics made sense when our greatest threat came from a nuclear-armed enemy superpower. But they do not make sense in a world where itinerant terrorists are poised to do the bidding of dictatorial regimes hostile to the United States and its allies. The international security situation has changed, and we must adapt our defenses and resources to it.

In response to this new international security situation, Presidents Bush and Putin agreed upon a comprehensive security strategy called the New Strategic Framework during their May 2002 summit meeting in Moscow. The New Strategic Framework involves reducing offensive nuclear weapons, creating defensive systems that protect against missile attacks, strengthening nonproliferation and counterproliferation measures, and cooperating with Russia to combat terrorism. It was created out of the belief that the more cooperative, post-Cold War relationship between Russia and the United States allows for new approaches to arms control issues.

Accordingly, Presidents Bush and Putin signed a historic document pledging to reduce their countries' strategic nuclear forces over the next 10 years to a total of between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed strategic warheads. This reduced reliance on offensive nuclear weapons forms a key component of the New Strategic Framework, along with a new concept of deterrence based on a limited missile defense.

In June the United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, allowing it to develop and deploy a system to protect against the ballistic missile threat from rogue states. The ABM Treaty, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, posed fundamental problems to the U.S. need to defend against the growing missile threat -- a threat not in existence when the treaty was written. The treaty also hampered the development of normalized, constructive relations with the Russians, based as it was on the Cold War notion of mutual assured destruction. The United States is now at work on six underground missile interceptor silos in Fort Greely, Alaska, and plans are under way to deploy layered defenses -- from the ground, sea, and air -- that will provide protection against a limited missile attack for our country, our friends, and our allies. We plan to work with Russia and our allies on the research and development of such a system, as the missile threat from rogue states lies on their doorstep as well.

Stopping the spread of missile and nuclear technology through nonproliferation efforts forms another critical element of the New Strategic Framework. Presidents Bush and Putin have agreed to step up cooperation on preventing the spread of WMD. We and the Russians have reaffirmed our support for important global treaties such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the United States will continue to insist upon full compliance among their respective members. In addition to these global treaties, multilateral regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Wassenaar Arrangement also play a critical role in controlling the export of sensitive or dual-use technology.

We have ongoing discussions with the Russians about our concerns over the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology by some Russian entities to countries like Iran. We have pledged to work with Russia to insure that it makes strong efforts to stop proliferation by enforcing export control laws and punishing violators. Above all, we must insure that would-be proliferators are not allowed access to the materials and technology needed to develop WMD.

The New Strategic Framework's comprehensive security arrangement is a more appropriate reflection not only of the post-Cold War relationship between the United States and Russia, but of the new security threats we face in the 21st century. These will be characterized by transnational terrorist threats that are harder to isolate and identify, and by the very real dangers that biological, chemical, or nuclear technology pose when hijacked by hostile forces. Partnership and cooperation between the United States and Russia has been a key objective of the Bush administration from the beginning, and our countries will work together to halt the dangers that threaten us and the rest of the civilized world.

Back to top | Contents, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, July 2002 | IIP E-Journals | IIP Home