what is the purpose of national security essay

Individual Freedoms and National Security Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Individual freedoms and national security are sometimes seen as two opposites. However, in ideal, national security should reflect the balanced relationship between the two mentioned concepts. Moreover, the principle of the prevalence of individual freedoms over the national security underlies the democratic idea. Individual freedoms include individual rights and are protected by the US Constitution (Longley). This paper argues that individual freedoms should never be sacrificed in the name of national security.

This essay proposes that the protection of individual freedoms by maintaining national security is a fundamental principle and goal of democracy. US President Joe Biden notes, “I strongly believe that democracy is the key to freedom, prosperity, peace, and dignity” (Biden 3). Unlike authoritarian or totalitarian systems, a democratic system puts individual freedoms ahead of national security interests. The implementation of this principle always raises controversy, since there is no single rule universal for all cases. However, individual freedoms are protected in most areas of social life, including migration, cyber security, economic stability, and international diplomatic relations. Interestingly, actual cyber security policy and practice take both human-centric and national-security-centric approaches (Deibert 411). In this regard, the states develop “indivisible network security on a planetary scale for the widest possible coverage of the human experience” (Deibert 412). The above example indicates the breadth of possibilities for applying the principle.

There is probably a counter-argument against the opinion that national security interests should take precedence over individual freedoms. This position can be justified by an external threat or military ambitions and is usually applied by authoritarian regimes. This position is wrong since national security should protect the interest of every citizen, not the abstract idea of the nation. Every citizen is part of the nation and their freedoms should be sacred.

Thus, it was discussed, how individual freedoms should never be sacrificed in the name of national security. The necessity to sacrifice individual freedoms is usually promoted by authoritarian regimes whose real purpose is to meet the interests of the regime. On the contrary, in democratic states, individual freedoms are fundamental and cannot be violated under any circumstances. These freedoms are sacred and ensure the integrity of the democratic states.

Works Cited

Biden Jr, Joseph R. Interim national security strategic guidance . EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON DC, 2021.

Deibert, Ronald J. “Toward a human-centric approach to cybersecurity.” Ethics & International Affairs 32.4 (2018): 411-424. Web.

Longley, Robert. “What Are Individual Rights? Definition and Examples.” ThoughtCo , 2021. Web.

• Liberal Arts Education and Value Breadth Areas
• Biden’s 2023 State of the Union Address Analysis
• The Principle in Net-Centric Computing
• Social Construction of Reality
• The Flint Water Crisis From Marxist Perspective
• Marx’s Thesis on the Fetishism of Commodities
• Review of “Making Social Change: Engaging a Desire for Social Change” Chapter 9
• Analysis of Social Change Ways
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, January 12). Individual Freedoms and National Security. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-freedoms-and-national-security/

"Individual Freedoms and National Security." IvyPanda , 12 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/individual-freedoms-and-national-security/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Individual Freedoms and National Security'. 12 January.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Individual Freedoms and National Security." January 12, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-freedoms-and-national-security/.

1. IvyPanda . "Individual Freedoms and National Security." January 12, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-freedoms-and-national-security/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Individual Freedoms and National Security." January 12, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-freedoms-and-national-security/.

National Security Definition and Examples

• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

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.

Key Takeaways: National Security

• 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.
• To ensure national security, governments rely on tactics, including political, economic, and military power, along with diplomacy.

Concepts of 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 Familia, 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 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 defense, and democracy;
• Promote a favorable 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 defense 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 defense, even at the expense of some civil liberties .

Lasting Effects of the War on Terror

Twenty years after the 9/11 terror attacks, the World Trade Center 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 armor, 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.

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 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.

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.  

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.   

• 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.
• Understanding the Bush Doctrine
• What the National Security Council Does
• What Are Non-State Actors?
• What Is Interventionism? Definition and Examples
• What Is a Failed State? Definition and Examples
• Are the Selective Service System and the Draft Still Needed?
• What Is Foreign Policy? Definition and Examples
• Biography of Colin Powell, Top US General, National Security Advisor
• What Is the Democratic Peace Theory? Definition and Examples
• The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, 1979 - 1989
• Successes and Failures of Détente in the Cold War
• Understanding Soft Power in US Foreign Policy
• How US Foreign Aid is Used in Foreign Policy
• The United States and Japan After World War II
• The Relationship Between U.S. and Great Britain After World War II
• U.S. Policy in the Middle East: 1945 to 2008

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

National Security Strategy Aims to Address New Challenges

The world is at an inflection point, and the new National Security Strategy unveiled yesterday is designed to address this new world, Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden's national security advisor, said.

Sullivan, who spoke today at Georgetown University, compared the situation to the immediate post-World War II era when then-President Harry S. Truman promulgated the strategy that ultimately toppled the Soviet Union. 

As Truman did before him, this new strategy is Biden's moment to define the challenges facing the United States and detail the steps needed to steer the U. S., its allies and partners through such perilous times. 

"Today, our world is once again at an inflection point," he said. "We are in the early years [of] a decisive decade. The terms of our competition with the People's Republic of China will be set. The window of opportunity to deal with shared challenges like climate change will narrow drastically, even as the intensity of those challenges grows. So, we need to grasp our moment, just as Truman did his."

Spotlight: Tackling the Climate Crisis The strategy is used to set budgets, encourage cooperation, advance diplomacy, steer investment, and much more. DOD's National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy take their cues from the National Security Strategy. 

The strategy "touches on our plans and partners in every region of the world," Sullivan said. "It details the president's vision of a free, open, prosperous and secure international order. And it offers a road map for seizing this decisive decade to advance America's vital interests, position America and our allies to outpace our competitors, and build broad coalitions to tackle shared challenges." 

The strategy focuses on two main strategic challenges. The first is the geopolitical competition the United States faces with China and Russia.  

Sullivan said the United States "is better positioned than any other nation in the world to seize this moment — to help set the rules, shore up the norms, and advance the values that will define the world we want to live in."

Russia is another challenge — one that comes with its own set of risks. "Russia's war against Ukraine builds on years of growing, regional aggression," the national security advisor said. "Russian President Vladimir Putin is making reckless nuclear threats, willfully violating the U.N. charter, relentlessly targeting civilians, [and] acting with a brutality that threatens to drag us all back into the dark days of Soviet expansionism." 

The second strategic challenge deals with the sheer scale and speed of transnational challenges that do not respect borders or adhere to ideologies, Sullivan said.

This challenge is exacerbated by climate change, which is already destroying lives and livelihoods in every part of the world, he said. Climate change is causing increased food and energy insecurity. Other challenges —  including COVID-19 — further roil the waters. "Our strategy proceeds from the premise that the two strategic challenges — geopolitical competition and shared transnational threats — are intertwined," Sullivan said. "We cannot build the broad coalitions we need to out-compete our rivals, if we sideline the issues that most directly impact the lives of billions of people."

Problems must be addressed, and — contrary to what some Americans may believe — they must be addressed globally, Sullivan said. "We are building a strategy fit for purpose for both competition we cannot ignore and global cooperation without which we cannot succeed." 

Sullivan said the timelines align. "This is a decisive decade for shaping the terms of competition, especially with the PRC [China]," he said. "This is a decisive decade for getting ahead of the great global challenges — from climate to disease to emerging technology."

Spotlight: Science & Tech The key to U.S. success in the coming years is investing ambitiously and rapidly in the sources of our national strength, Sullivan said. 

The second step is to mobilize the broadest coalition of nations to enhance U.S. influence. 

A third step is to work with other nations to shape the rules of the road for the 21st century economy.  

"Our approach encompasses all elements of our national power — diplomacy, development cooperation, industrial strategy, economic statecraft, intelligence and defense," Sullivan said. 

On the defense element, the strategy stresses that the United States must equip the military and intelligence enterprises for strategic competition, while maintaining the capability to disrupt the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland, he said. Spotlight: Support for Ukraine

"The war in Ukraine … also highlights the need for a vibrant Defense Industrial Base — one that is capable of rapid mobilization and tooled for innovation and creative adaptation," he said. "All of these steps we take at home are force-multiplied by another core source of our American strength — our alliances."

Sullivan said the United States has re-engaged with allies and partners around the world. The Defeat ISIS coalition and the Ukraine Defense Assistance Group are examples of this portion of the strategy. "If there's anything that's a true hallmark of Joe Biden's approach to the world, it is an investment in America's allies," he said. "A few years ago, NATO was working overtime to justify its value proposition. Today, it is at its apex of its purpose and power." Spotlight: NATO In the Indo-Pacific, the United States reaffirmed iron-clad commitments to our treaty allies. "We've elevated a new partnership of democracies — the Quad — to help drive our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific," he said. "One of the things that we are doing as we strengthen our alliances, is to drive more strategic alliance between the Atlantic and the Pacific."

Within DOD, the National Defense Strategy draws from the White House document and at its heart is integrated deterrence. Secretary Austin has discussed this idea of the seamless combination of capabilities to convince potential adversaries that the costs of their hostile activities outweigh their benefits. 

Integrated deterrence calls for unprecedented cooperation across all domains of warfare — land, air, maritime, cyber and space. It also calls for cooperation with non-military domains — including economic, technological and information, according to the National Security Strategy.  

 "... Understanding that our competitors combine expansive ambitions with growing capabilities to threaten U.S. interests in key regions and in the homeland," the strategy states.

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Related Stories

Defense.gov, helpful links.

• Live Events
• Today in DOD
• For the Media
• DOD Resources
• DOD Careers
• Help Center
• DOD / Military Websites
• Agency Financial Report
• Value of Service
• Taking Care of Our People
• FY 2025 Defense Budget
• National Defense Strategy

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

-->

• speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom;
• use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take;
• make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future; and
• take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments.
• The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
• The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves.Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.
• countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention;
• coordination with European allies and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations; and
• Africa’s capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a sustained basis.
• pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity;
• tax policies—particularly lower marginal tax rates—that improve incentives for work and investment;
• rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors;
• strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use;
• sound fiscal policies to support business activity;
• investments in health and education that improve the well-being and skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and
• free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity.
• Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade Organization.We will assist Russia’s preparations to join the WTO.
• Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and government procurement.We will also offer more opportunity to the poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free trade.
• Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will be our principal focal points.
• Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every administration’s trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade Promotion Authority.
• Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional integration—all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods produced in the 35 countries of sub- Saharan Africa.We will make more use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public health.We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
• Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international community must be able to address genuine concerns about government subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred.
• Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets.
• Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with widening prosperity.We will incorporate labor and environmental concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy “network” between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade.
• Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region.We will also continue to work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient technologies.
• remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation;
• obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to companies that can show real cuts;
• develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission reductions;
• promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power—which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks;
• increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total of $4.5 billion—the largest sum being spent on climate change by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year’s budget; and
• assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and better path.
• Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the United States.While continuing our present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement reforms.
• Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of the world’s poor.We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. contributions to the International Development Association (IDA)—the World Bank’s fund for the poorest countries—and the African Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially in the poorest countries.We will continue to press the multilateral development banks to focus on activities that increase economic productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in developing countries.
• Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world’s poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that more children are getting a better education, more people have access to health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a better future for their families.We have a moral obligation to measure the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation system that measures recipient countries’ progress. For the first time, donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. contribution is linked in this way.We will strive to make sure that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything that these institutions do.
• Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development banks.We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private sector to match government efforts by using grants to support development projects that show results.
• Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy.
• Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more.
• Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher training in Africa. The United States can also bring information technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been devastated by HIV/AIDS.
• Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition.
• assure our allies and friends;
• dissuade future military competition;
• deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and
• decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.
• strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation’s foreign intelligence capabilities;
• establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and our allies;
• continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our intelligence advantage;
• investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities; and
• collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government with allsource analysis.

What Is the National Security Council?

Learn how the president’s advisors protect U.S. national security and help with foreign policy decision-making and coordination across the executive branch.

On May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House in Washington, D.C.

Source: Pete Souza/The White House/Tribune News Service via Getty Images.

On April 28, 2011, President Barack Obama reviewed intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden could be hiding in a compound in Pakistan. He considered how to respond: he could tap the military to conduct a raid, authorize a drone strike on the location, or choose to hold off entirely given the uncertainty of the intelligence.

To help him decide, the president assembled the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC is a group of top advisors tasked with providing guidance on foreign policy matters and implementing the president’s decisions. 

In that April meeting, NSC members talked through the president’s options. The advisors in the room were not unanimous, but most favored a raid.  Obama considered the information and ultimately greenlit a special forces mission that would kill bin Laden.

In this resource, we’ll explore what the NSC is, how it came to be, and how it helps the president make U.S. foreign policy choices.

History of the National Security Council

Before World War II, the United States’ military and foreign policy–making machinery was disjointed. The State Department, War Department, and the U.S. Navy largely all acted separately. Any coordination across departments was an informal process.

Each department had internal priorities and biases in how it wanted to conduct policy, which led to disagreement. As a result, the United States military and foreign policy–making apparatuses were marred with unhealthy competition and inefficiency. These conditions were a major problem as World War II unfolded. President Harry S Truman, for instance, believed the United States could have foreseen the 1941 aerial bombardment on Pearl Harbor had those various departments collaborated effectively.

As World War II concluded and the Cold War with the Soviet Union heated up, the United States set out to integrate its military and diplomatic policymaking processes. To that end, Congress passed the National Security Act in 1947. This law combined the country’s independent military agencies into a unified Department of Defense and created the CIA. The National Security Act also established the National Security Council. 

What does the National Security Council do?

Nested inside the executive branch, the NSC offers a forum for members of the departments and agencies involved in protecting U.S. national security—such as the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury—to convene and recommend policy options to the president. The NSC folds foreign and military policymaking into an interagency process . This structure allows the president to incorporate various departments’ perspectives into decision-making. The interagency process ensures government departments coordinate to share information and implement policies.

Crucially, the NSC is primarily an advisory body. The president can delegate some decisions on matters to the council when members find consensus. However, final decisions on the most important national security issues rest with the occupant of the Oval Office. 

Who are the National Security Council members?

The National Security Act names several members of the government as required, or statutory, members of the NSC.

The NSC’s statutory members include

• the president , the head of state and the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces;
• the vice president , the second highest-ranking official of the U.S. government and often a close advisor to the president;
• the secretary of state , the president’s chief advisor on foreign affairs;
• the secretary of defense , the president’s principal advisor on defense policy;
• the secretary of the treasury , one of the president’s chief economic advisors;
• the secretary of energy , one of the president’s top advisors on energy, environmental, and nuclear issues;
• the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff , the highest-ranking member of the U.S. Armed Forces and the top military advisor to the president; and
• the director of national intelligence , the president’s leading advisor on matters relating to intelligence.

In practice, however, the NSC’s membership is larger. The NSC comprises both statutory members and officials whom the president designates as members. 

That means the NSC typically also includes

• the national security advisor , the president’s senior advisor on national security issues;
• the chief of staff to the president , a close advisor to the president responsible for guiding the process of communicating and implementing presidential decisions;
• the U.S. representative to the United Nations , a U.S. ambassador responsible for advancing U.S. foreign policy interests at the United Nations;
• the attorney general , the head of the Department of Justice and chief lawyer to the U.S. government; and
• the secretary of homeland security , one of the president’s top advisors on threats to U.S. security like terrorism, natural disasters, and cyberattacks.

Official NSC meetings require the full council’s presence. However, presidents will often convene informal meetings limited only to NSC members with expertise relevant to the issue being discussed. 

One of the council’s most crucial members is the national security advisor (NSA). The NSA is often one of the president’s closest personal advisors. As they do not represent a specific government department, they are meant to moderate discussions and serve as honest brokers between NSC members representing departments with conflicting interests. The NSA also oversees NSC staff and coordinates with other NSC members to ensure agencies are carrying out presidential decisions.

Watch this video to take a closer look at what some of these NSC members do: 

To support its work, the NSC also maintains a staff comprising individuals hired by the White House and members of the NSC’s component departments. The NSC staff varies in size and structure with each new administration. That said, NSC staff have included as many as four hundred members in the past. Under President Joe Biden, NSC staff number roughly 350 members.

The NSC staff supports the council by providing expertise on the numerous issues of national security and foreign policy that the NSC and president need to consider. Other staff responsibilities include preparing speeches and memos for the president or other NSC members. The NSC staff is also responsible for handling congressional inquiries related to foreign policy. 

How does the National Security Council work?

The National Security Act did not specify how the NSC should operate. That has allowed the NSC to evolve significantly according to the president and international challenges. 

Over the decades, presidents have taken various approaches to how frequently meetings are held, who attends them, how decisions get made, and how large the NSC’s supporting staff should be. Those factors can change significantly, even throughout a single president’s administration. Truman, for instance, initially avoided and distrusted the body, viewing it as an inconvenience imposed by Congress. The outbreak of the Korean War, however, changed his mind. Successful military operations in Korea were staked on the   interagency coordination that only the NSC could provide. Truman eventually came to rely heavily on the council. He attended all but seven of seventy-one meetings held during the war. 

Subsequent presidents have continued to vary the way they structure and use the NSC. Yet over the years, a core framework has solidified that remains in place today. This framework relies on layers of committees that support the NSC and ensure a streamlined flow of information to the president.

Let’s look at this structure by following one path an issue can take as it makes its way to the president.

Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs)

The foreign–policymaking process usually begins in an Interagency Policy Committee, made up of experts from various departments. IPCs study issues, combining information and perspectives from members’ respective departments. IPCs then formulate possible courses of action to respond to those issues. Dozens of IPCs can run concurrently, focused on geographic regions or issues such as terrorism, arms control, or global health crises.

The Deputies Committee (DC)

Next, the issue moves up to the Deputies Committee. This committee is comprised of the deputy leaders of the departments represented on the NSC. Typically, most of the consensus-building on policy options occurs here as officials debate IPC findings. The DC also refines policy options and recommendations to send up the chain. 

The DC directs the formation of IPCs below it and monitors how departments implement policy.

The Principals Committee (PC)

Next, the issue rises to the attention of the Principals Committee, which typically includes all members of the NSC except the president and vice president. The PC works to ensure policy options brought for final consideration before the president already reflect as much consensus and coordination as possible.  

Members of the PC also direct their departments on how to execute the president’s policy decisions.

The National Security Council (NSC)

Finally, NSC members convene to present their recommendations to the president.

Formal NSC meetings are chaired by the president and occur whenever the president sees fit. They consider issues that the NSC or president decide require the president’s personal attention or that need direct presidential approval to act upon. These actions include military strikes, sanctions , or covert actions.

The committee structure is meant to ensure that when it comes time for presidents to make foreign policy decisions, they will be presented only with the best options available, supported by the best information available. However, decision-making doesn’t always flow through this process. Often, if the Deputies or Principals Committees can reach a consensus on the right thing to do, they will make a final decision. The NSC reserves the president’s time for the most important or thorniest issues. In other cases, presidents only involve the PC or NSC in policy deliberations to keep discussions secret or speed them along. For example, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the extreme urgency of the crisis drove President George W. Bush to immediately convene the full NSC. 

The NSC: a vital policymaking tool for presidents

Crafting effective foreign policy is difficult in the best of times. The NSC plays a vital role in U.S. foreign policy-making. The forum ensures the president can lean on the full expertise and capabilities of the executive branch to make the best decision possible. When high-stakes situations arise— like the discovery of bin Laden’s hideout, the NSC proves an invaluable tool for coordinating and executing policy.

To experience what it’s like to run an NSC meeting and make difficult foreign policy decisions, check out Convene the Council .

The Purpose of National Security Policy, Declassified

The most fundamental purpose of national security policy is not to keep the nation safe from physical attack but to defend the constitutional order.  At least, that is what President Reagan wrote in a Top Secret 1986 directive.

“The primary objective of U.S. foreign and security policy is to protect the integrity of our democratic institutions and promote a peaceful global environment in which they can thrive,” President Reagan wrote in National Security Decision Directive 238 on “Basic National Security Strategy,” which was partially declassified in 2005.

In a list of national security objectives, the directive does note the imperative “to protect the United States… from military, paramilitary, or terrorist attack.”

But that is not the primary objective, according to the Reagan directive .  Defense of the Constitution evidently takes precedence.

The first purpose of national security policy is “to preserve the political identity, framework and institutions of the United States as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” President Reagan wrote .

This is a remarkable statement, for several reasons.  First, it recognizes that the political identity and institutions of the United States are not simply a given, but that they are vulnerable to many types of threats and must be actively defended and sustained.  This task is not normally assigned the urgency or the priority given to “national security.”

Second, the directive distinguishes between constitutional governance and physical security. Not every measure intended to promote security is constitutional.  And not every act in defense of democratic self-governance is likely to promote public safety.  (The American Revolution was not calculated to increase “homeland security.” Quite the opposite.)  Sometimes a choice between the two is required.  President Reagan indicated what he thought the choice should be.

And third, the directive is remarkable because its rhetoric was so imperfectly realized by the Reagan Administration (and egregiously defied in the Iran-Contra Affair) and has been largely abandoned by its successors.

“Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government,” wrote President George W. Bush in his 2002 National Security Strategy, skipping over President Reagan’s “primary” objective.

Likewise, “As President, I have often said that I have no greater responsibility than protecting the American people,” President Obama wrote in his National Strategy for Counterterrorism.

The Reagan directive invites reflection on what U.S. national security policy would look like if it were truly structured above all “to protect the integrity of our democratic institutions.”

In a section of the directive that was only classified Confidential, President Reagan contrasted the U.S. with the Soviet Union, which was described as its polar opposite.

“Our way of life, founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual, depends on a stable and pluralistic world order within which freedom and democratic institutions can thrive.  Yet, the greatest threat to the Soviet system, in which the State controls the destiny of the individual, is the concept of freedom itself.”

“The survival of the Soviet system depends to a significant extent upon the persistent and exaggerated representation of foreign threats, through which it seeks to justify both the subjugation of its own people and the expansion of Soviet military capabilities well beyond those required for self-defense,” President Reagan wrote .

Numerous Presidential directives from the Reagan Administration have been declassified in recent years and have released by the Reagan Library , though others still remain partially or completely classified. Many of the declassified directives provide a fascinating account that enlarges and enriches the public record of events of the time.

Only last year, for example, a 1985 directive (NSDD-172) on “Presenting the Strategic Defense Initiative” was finally declassified.

This year, NSDD 159 on “Covert Action Policy Approval and Coordination Procedures” (1985) was declassified.

NSDD 207 on “The National Program for Combatting Terrorism” (1986) was declassified in 2008.  Among other things, that directive ordered the Attorney General to “Review the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and determine whether terrorist movements or organizations are abusing its provisions.”

The three new members to serve the nonpartisan organization include Drs: Jim Gates, Theresa Mayer, and Allison Scott.

Comprehensive heat safety standards are essential to mitigate the impacts of climate change on farmworkers and ensure the sustainability and resilience of agricultural operations.

Public deliberation, when performed well, can lead to more transparency, accountability to the public, and the emergence of ideas that would otherwise go unnoticed.

As emerging clean energy technologies move along the innovation pipeline from first concept to commercialization, they encounter hurdles that can prove to be a death knell for young startups.

The New York Times

The learning network | what is more important: our privacy or national security.

What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?

Questions about issues in the news for students 13 and older.

• See all Student Opinion »

Earlier this year, Edward J. Snowden, a government contractor, leaked classified documents to the news media that revealed the existence of top-secret government surveillance programs.

We now know that the National Security Agency gathers phone logs and Internet data from millions of Americans as part of its mission to keep the United States safe. But has domestic spying gone too far?

What do you feel is more important: our privacy or national security?

In the article “ Poll Finds Disapproval of Record Collection, but Little Personal Concern ,” Allison Kopicki writes about the results of a June CBS News poll conducted after the first leaks by Mr. Snowden.

In the wake of the exposure of two classified surveillance operations, most Americans expressed disapproval about the United States government’s collecting phone records of “ordinary” Americans. Yet, most showed little concern about their own Internet activities or phone calls’ being monitored. A majority, 57 percent, said that the leaks about the surveillance programs would not affect the ability of the United States to prevent future terrorist attacks, while 30 percent said the fact that the programs had been made public would weaken the government’s efforts to prevent terrorism. According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism. However, three-quarters said they approved of the government’s tracking phone records of Americans suspected of terrorist activity. Nearly the same number approved of the United States’ monitoring the Internet activities of people living in foreign countries.

Students: Tell us …

• Do you think it’s possible for the government to find a healthy balance between protecting the country and our privacy? Do you believe the government is striking the right balance? Why?
• Would you rather the government err on the side of national security or privacy rights in its domestic surveillance programs? Why?
• How do you feel about the revelation that the government is collecting phone records and Internet data from millions of Americans? Why?
• What kind of information — like Web sites visited or phone numbers called — do you think the government should have access to in order to prevent future terrorist attacks? On the other hand, what information should the government not have access to, so that Americans’ privacy rights are not compromised?
• Do any of the findings in the poll above surprise you? Why or why not?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment below. Please use only your first name . For privacy policy reasons, we will not publish student comments that include a last name.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I honestly think privacy and our national security is important. You need privacy because nobody wants to be in the public eye all the time, and you need national security so the world could be somewhat a safe place. I think both are important.

You know, I really don’t care how the government stalks what I do, as long as it prevents an incident like 9/11.

They can stalk and look how much they want, I have nothing to hide. All I do is watch is youtube videos, nothing wrong there.

I am actually not surprised by the poll at all. People don’t like to be spied on. People like having their privacy and by the government collecting phone records, they are invading the privacy of Americans.

In our opinion we feel that there are other ways to make sure we are safe without totally taking away our privacy. Sometimes the government go to far in “watching” over us. Certain things need to STAY private and the government shouldn’t have control over that. In all honesty we feel they have NO right to find sneaky ways to watch us at ALL times. However it is important to make sure we are safe as a society but there are OTHER ways to do it. Besides…….if there trying to make sure we are safe and since they are watching over our every move then certain disasters should be taken care of quicker without us having to call. We’re just saying they should respect our privacy.

I don’t care how the government watches us. If you don’t have anything to hide why are you worrying about it?

This something shocking to me i didnt know that are privacy is not private at all i mean i under stand the attack on us but i dont think they should go about that way national security should go about it another why instead of tapping into are phone calls.

In my own opinion, I believe that both are important for different reasons. I believe that national security is important because we are and will be protected as a whole. I believe that our privacy matters as well because everyone wants to keep their personal business to their self’s, or at least have the opinion to keep it that way. I believe that people should be able to have their own personal privacy without worry that it’ll be interrupted. I also believe that national security is important so that people will know they are and will be protected without worry.

i feel that the government is invading the American people’s privacy. People have the freedom of speech in America. It is good that they have access to social media and things like it to prevent terrorist attacks on america but it is still invading the American people’s privacy. people should be able to post statuses and talk on the phone without it being stored through statilite. No one cares about how you broke-up with your boyfriend because he cheated on you with your friend. This is how i feel about government invasion of American people’s privacy.

The only information the government should be allowed to collect is messages and wedsites and other things people go to or talk about illegal or things that look terriost suspious. they shouldnt have access to just anything. thats invading peoples privacy and ultimately makes people uncomfortable.

Privacy is something that can be personal to you or your family. I feel uncomfortable knowing that someone can be spying on my phone calls or knowing what I browse on the Internet. I understand that the government wants to keep us safe but there is a difference between safety and privacy.

In my opinion both national security and privacy are important. I think these two situations should be taken care to the best of the governments ability without the neglecting one or the other. If the government obtains to much power and ability to know what we are doing then it takes away from the purpose of a free nation. At the same time citizens should be understanding that in order to be safe some thing has to be sacrificed. I think that if the government doesn’t try to over do it and meet their citizens in the middle people will be more willing to give consent for more intel strategies.

I feel one day our government will find a way to protect us, as of right now no way. I believe in privacy of the people should be up to the people not the government . Unless something very bad happens then the government should step in.

i bieleve that having security is more important than Privacy International’s mission is to defend the right to privacy across the world, and to fight surveillance and other intrusions into private life by governments and corporations. The world is changing. Technology is transforming our lives and relationships. The threat of terrorism is giving governments carte blanche to ramp up state surveillance and curtail civil liberties. We believe that technological developments should strengthen, rather than undermine, the right to a private life, and that everyone’s personal information and communications must be carefully safeguarded, regardless of nationality, religion, personal or economic status.

I personally think that our privacy and our national security is important. I think our country needs to find a happy median between these two things. We should be allowed to have private phone conversations without having our lines tapped. I think the government should only be allowed to our Internet and computer data/history.

i see nice place and lots building. i see there big black buildiing look like people who are rich person. Full window is black and clean. There lots car parking and is full look like they cant find parking.

I think that national security is a big situation for United States because if anyone can breach into the government database knowing all of our information, what would stop countries from invading and trying to claim US soil. So many movies have been made on the “what if’s” and how those “what if’s” can change humanity. I personally believe that the government keeps things out of the public eye. But then again, that’s just my theory.

I don’t think it is a bad idea for the government to monitor everyday internet activity because that is where people go to do their chats. Also thats where people can get their supplies for their building bombs and things for terrorist attack. the phone is bit much because must people assume that they are being listened to on the phone.

I do believe the government can find a healthy balance between privacy and protecting us, however it’s not as easy as it sounds. I have no idea how to solve that situation but I’m sure they’re working hard to find better ways of handling that.

i feel like the government should give us privacy because its are right to do what we want to do as long as it isnt against the law. The government tries to play a role of them trying to protect us but are actually trying know what were doing at all time. This is why we have to state our information in anything we have to sign up for such as are adrdress, telephone ,number or location. The government even tried to take are second amendment away from us by banning are rights to bare fire arms. If no U.S. citizens have weapons and the government does it will be very easy for them to control a big population

For me is not nothing new, always I believe the government or national security are watching us all the time. I don’t have any problem somebody is watching me. They think is going be more security go ahead. If you don’t do anything bad you don’t have to be scare.

When I first heard the news of Snowden, I wasn’t surprised at all. That a government has surveillance its people makes our privacy gone, but it has been running for the time that the country was built. The point is if our government commits or not. Our privacy should be the most important thing, but there wouldn’t have any privacy to talk about if the country were under the dangerous of terrorism. Actually, the privacy and national security are on the different aspects. Since we can’t hold the balance between them, I would rather choose to trust the government, so far. Or say that there are hundreds millions people in the United States, but how many agents in the NSA? Although our data is in their computers, I don’t think they can read all the details of everyone.

I think our privacy and national security, both are important. People don’t want to be in news with bad records. I can understand that people take advantage of internet and phones but no one wants to lose their privacy. I believe the government doing right job. Because people who, didn’t do anything wrong, they living their life peacefully. Government takes care of nation also public safety/privacy. People shouldn’t get afraid, if they didn’t do anything or will do anything that could be cause to be in public eyes with bad records. I feel government should have access to in order to prevent future terrorist. It will be good for our nation and us.

According with the article ‘’What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?’’. I agree with the government has access to check and collecting phone records because for me, American security is the most important situation facing the society privacy. Some of the reason why I say it is because everybody knows that government was taking access to our information long time ago. It is not a new! , Also I think that the principally, government doesn’t care about our lives. They just want to prevent our security of possible attacks terrorist and people, who want to cause crime; it doesn’t matter if the government just wants to save its security. Everybody should know that all government problems affect our relatively. We are the government!

I think the government by collecting the phone records of people living in the United States, may be an alternative to prevent future attacks, but the state or government forgets that it is possible to eliminate personal privacy of a country and do not respect this constitutional right. When talking about which is more important to the government, the population Privacy or Security? The government took the decision to protect the country from possible terrorist attacks. Maybe it’s a good option to improve national security but has not sought a solution to the privacy of American citizens. It is difficult and complicated to accept that in the current era, citizens or people living in the United States cannot have privacy and quiet to have a conversation without being spied on. This limits and makes it impossible to express in natural. I think the web pages to be controlled by the government, should be those that yield information about easy construction of apparatus and appliances that cause harm, such as pages that teach make homemade bombs, construction of weapons

In the USA, I think the government monitors our internet and cell phone can’t help future terrorist attacks. It isn’t a good and healthy idea to balance the terrorist attacks, terrorism can send information in another ways. And government can’t monitor all of internet, some information that they can send out. In my opinion, I think American government need reduce the war and send army back to America; they can’t fight with other country. If they always fight or notice other country, the terrorism attack won’t educe. The best protect idea is make good relationship with other country. American can became a side walker.

What's Next

Essay Service Examples Crime Security

National Security: What it is

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Infrastructure

“Technology is a Useful Servant but a Dangerous Master” -Christian Lous Lange When technology was...

The IAFIS stands for Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification system. It is managed by the...

• Conversation

Theodore Roosevelt once stated, “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and...

• Criminal Behavior
• Perspective

Endpoint security is the process of securing the various endpoints on a network, often defined as...

• Mount Everest

In India, the Concept of Social Security was found to be well embedded in the institutions like...

• Data Collection

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be replacing Data Protection Directive 95/46/ec...

• Effects of Technology

The major cankerworm that has eaten deep into the root of Nigeria, is the menace called...

• Accountability

With the advanced rapid growth of technology within computer networks and multiple business...

In this universe of pervasive CPU and persevering dangers from specialist, ensuring your CPU is an...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Internal Security

Make Your Note

India’s National Security Strategy

• 08 Nov 2023
• 15 min read
• Security Challenges & their Management in Border Areas
• Cyber Security
• Cyber Warfare
• Linkages of Organized Crime with Terrorism
• Various Security Forces & Agencies & Their Mandate
• GS Paper - 3

This editorial is based on “ India to bring in a National Security Strategy: what is it, why is it important? ” which was published in The Indian Express on 06/11/2023. It talks about how a National Security Strategy document outlines the security goals of a nation and the strategies to attain them.

For Prelims : National Security Strategy , National Security Council , National Security Advisory Board , Naresh Chandra Task Force on Security , Gen. D.S. Hooda's Document on NSS, Cold War, Left-wing Extremism, National Security Adviser (NSA) , Defence Planning Committee (DPC), Indo- Pacific Region.

For Mains: About National Security Strategy, Significance of National Security Strategy,Challenges for Developing a National Security Strategy, Strategy for Better Formulation of NSS.

After years of deliberations in the military and strategic community, India has started the process of bringing in a National Security Strategy (NSS). The National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) is in the process of collating inputs from several Central ministries and departments to stitch together the draft of the strategy before seeking the final cabinet approval for it. This is the first time that India will come out with a National Security Strategy.

What is a National Security Strategy?

• A National Security Strategy document outlines the country’s security objectives and the ways to be adopted to achieve these.
• An NSS should consider traditional (affect only the state) and non-traditional threats(affect the state, individual and the entirety of humanity). Also, It must work within the framework of India's Constitution and democratic principles.
• The strategy often includes assessments of potential threats, resource allocation, diplomatic and military actions, and policies related to intelligence, defense, and other security-related areas.
• Developed nations with advanced military and security structures, such as the United States , the United Kingdom , and Russia , have National Security Strategies.
• China also has a Comprehensive National Security strategy, and Pakistan has released a National Security Policy 2022-2026.
• Kargil Review Committee Report (2000): The Kargil Review Committee, formed in the aftermath of the Kargil conflict in 1999, submitted a comprehensive report that included recommendations on national security. While the report itself was made public, it did not lead to the immediate formulation of a formal NSS.
• Report of the Naresh Chandra Task Force on Security (2012) : In 2012, the Naresh Chandra Task Force on Security submitted a report that discussed various aspects of national security, including defense and intelligence reforms. However, the report did not result in the immediate release of a formal NSS.
• National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) : The NSAB , which comprises experts and advisers on national security matters, has reportedly formulated draft national security strategy documents on multiple occasions. These drafts were presented to successive governments, but a formal NSS did not materialize.
• Gen. D.S. Hooda's Document (2019) : In 2019, Lt. Gen. (retd) D.S. Hooda, a former Army Commander, prepared a national security strategy document which marked a significant step toward the development of an NSS for India.
• a working definition of national security and national security objectives;
• an appreciation of the emerging security environment taking into account the geopolitical changes in the world;
• an assessment of the national strengths and weaknesses of the country in dealing with the challenges;
• identification of the military, economic, diplomatic resources needed to meet the challenges.

What is the Need of the National Security Strategy in India?

• The end of the Cold War has created a complex and unpredictable global landscape, with a growing number of potential adversaries and expanding missions for armed forces.
• While some regional groupings are assuming state functions, non-state actors like warlords, ethnic chieftains, multinational corporations, and international NGOs are influencing global politics.
• Key challenges include terrorism , ethnic diversity, small arms proliferation, narcotics trafficking, and religious extremism, which require vigilant attention.
• The future of nuclear deterrence is a vital aspect of India's security. India has long been concerned about the nuclear capabilities of China and Pakistan in its neighborhood.
• India has also expressed concerns about the presence of US nuclear weapons at Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean.India's nuclear deterrent needs to adapt to technological change and geopolitical shifts.
• The balance of power is shifting from North America and Europe to the Indo-Pacific region, which is becoming the new strategic center of gravity.
• An emerging security framework envisions "competitive cooperation" within a matrix of "cooperative security" in the Indo- Pacific Region .
• Domestic stability can be threatened by economic and social issues, such as left-wing extremism in tribal areas.
• Technology impacts national security, by both enhancing capabilities and creating vulnerabilities.
• Cybersecurity is a major concern, requiring advanced technological capabilities.
• Environmental changes have security implications, such as glacier melting and  sea-level rise.
• The National Security Council (NSC) has been underutilized in its advisory role.
• There is a pressing need to empower the authority of the National Security Adviser (NSA).

What can be the Potential Benefits of the National Security Strategy in India?

• Comprehensive Approach : An NSS provides a comprehensive framework for addressing various security challenges, both internal and external, in a holistic manner.
• Clear Objectives: It outlines clear security objectives, helping to define the assets and interests that need protection and the identification of potential threats.
• Policy Guidance : An NSS offers policy guidance, helping the government formulate and implement strategies and policies to safeguard national security.
• Prioritization : It helps prioritize security concerns, enabling the allocation of resources and efforts to the most critical issues..
• Resource Allocation : It assists in resource allocation, enabling efficient use of financial and human resources to enhance security.
• Deterrence: The strategy can help deter potential adversaries by demonstrating a clear and well-thought-out approach to national security
• Whole-of-Government Approach : NSS promotes a "whole-of-government" approach by involving multiple government departments and agencies, ensuring coordination and cooperation in security-related matters.
• Public Awareness : Elements of the NSS can be shared with the public, raising awareness about national security concerns and garnering public support.
• International Engagement : An NSS can guide India's engagement with other countries and international organizations on security matters.

What are the Challenges for Developing a National Security Strategy?

• Achieving a political consensus on the content and priorities of the NSS can be challenging, as different political parties may have varying perspectives on national security.
• Legal Framework : Ensuring that the NSS complies with existing legal frameworks, including international agreements and domestic laws, is essential but can be complex.
• Resource Allocation : Allocating the necessary resources, both financial and human, to implement the NSS effectively can be a challenge, especially when there are competing demands on the budget.
• Divergence between the military and political leadership : The bureaucratic setup within the Ministry of Defence and other government agencies may have diverging opinions on a formal NSS.
• Changing Threat Landscape : Adapting the NSS to address evolving security threats, such as cyber threats, terrorism, and non-traditional security challenges, is a continuous challenge.
• Reactive Approach : India has often adopted a reactive approach to national security, addressing security challenges as they arise rather than having a proactive and overarching strategy in place.
• National Security Culture : Building a national security culture that emphasizes the importance of a NSS and systematic thinking about security has been a gradual process.

What are the Recommendations of the Hooda Committee?

The Hooda Committee(2019) , under the leadership of Lieutenant General (Retd) D.S. Hooda , crafted the following suggestions to enhance India's National Security Strategy framework :

• India is encouraged to support international cooperation, prioritize equitable and inclusive digital development, and provide an intellectual dimension to global cooperation.
• Engage confidently with major powers , including the US, Russia, and China, based on its own national interests
• India's engagement with the Middle East is emphasized, focusing on shared interests in energy, trade, and security.
• India must strengthen relations with neighboring countries through soft power , improved connectivity, and regional trade.
• India-Pakistan relations are strained, with a need for a sustained strategy to pressure Pakistan to end support for terror. Diplomacy, economic isolation, and even limited military actions may be necessary. Nuclear issues must also be addressed through dialogue.
• Future rivalry between China and India is certain, and it must be managed carefully. India desires a peaceful relationship but cannot compromise on core interests, such as border integrity and counterterrorism efforts.
• In Jammu & Kashmir, countering radicalization and eliminating terrorists must go hand in hand, supported by a clearly defined political objective to mainstream the region with a campaign to replace fear with hope.
• In the North East, there should be a greater focus on development and integration, with a simultaneous effort to resolve the Naga insurgency.
• Tackling LWE requires addressing the root causes like tribal deprivation and exploitation.
• Combating transnational terrorism requires restructuring and cooperation among agencies.
• Effective national security strategy should prioritize the protection of common citizens.
• Risks can arise from global phenomena like climate change and cyber threats and internal changes driven by demographics, urbanization, and inequalities.
• India needs to enhance capabilities for protecting its citizens and deterring adversaries by securing our Land and Maritime Borders.
• The government must support Research and development for indigenous defense platforms.
• India needs to create a dedicated Cyber Command.

In an ever-evolving world, an anticipatory and flexible National Security Strategy serves asthe cornerstone of India's well-being and success. Through the adoption of a watchful and adaptable National Security Strategy, India can more effectively steer through the dynamic landscape of global security and protect its interests and principles in the 21 st century.

Discuss the key elements and priorities that India should consider in the National Security Strategy to effectively address current and future security challenges of the country.

UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Q.With reference to the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’, consider the following statements: (2016)

• It is an agreement among all the Pacific Rim countries except China and Russia.
•  It is a strategic alliance for the purpose of maritime security only.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Q. “The diverse nature of India as a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society is not immune to the impact of radicalism which is seen in her neighborhood.” Discuss along with strategies to be adopted to counter this environment. (200 words) [2014]

Invest in news coverage you can trust.

Donate to PBS NewsHour by June 30 !

Teresa Crawford, Associated Press Teresa Crawford, Associated Press

John O'Connor, Associated Press John O'Connor, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-is-flag-day-heres-a-guide

What is Flag Day? Here’s a guide

WAUBEKA, Wis. (AP) — Each June, the people of Waubeka venerate perhaps the nation’s most enduring symbol, celebrating Flag Day, a holiday that escapes the notice of many Americans.

But this unincorporated Wisconsin town about 35 miles north of Milwaukee takes the day seriously. After all, it lays claim to being the birthplace of Flag Day, thanks to a tenacious teacher in a one-room schoolhouse.

Here are some things to know about the obscure flag-waving holiday.

What is Flag Day?

Flag Day commemorates June 14, 1777, when the Continental Congress determined the composition of the nation’s banner: “Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”

READ MORE: 8 things you didn’t know about the Fourth of July

President Woodrow Wilson issued a 1916 proclamation of June 14 as Flag Day and in 1949, President Harry S. Truman signed the formal observance into law. And it falls during Flag Week, after another congressional dictum in 1966.

What about July 4?

Yes, Independence Day makes prominent use of the flag. But the emblem is important enough to have its own day, according to David Janik, a Waubeka native and second-generation president of the National Flag Day Foundation.

“July 4th, we’re celebrating our independence,” Janik said. “But on Flag Day, we’re celebrating the birth of our flag, which is the symbol of our country, the symbol that is seen all around the world as the helper, the people who won’t leave you out in the cold.”

READ MORE: A beginner’s guide to celebrating Juneteenth

Why Waubeka?

On June 14, 1885, Bernard J. Cigrand, an 18-year-old Waubeka native teaching at Stony Hill School, put a flag in his inkwell and assigned his students an essay about what the flag means to them. Cigrand left the next year for dental school in Chicago, but he never gave up his advocacy for a national day dedicated to the flag.

Cigrand realized his dream in 1916 when Wilson issued his proclamation.

Although he died in 1932, Waubeka never forgot Cigrand and in 1946, community leaders established the town’s Flag Day celebration, which has run continuously since then.

Any other ‘first’ Flag Days?

Yes. The earliest mention of Flag Day involves a man named George Morris who organized such a commemoration on June 14, 1861, in Hartford, Connecticut, marked by a patriotic program and prayers for Union Army success in a young Civil War. But apparently, the festivities were never repeated.

Pennsylvanians will challenge Cigrand’s coronation as “Father of Flag Day.” Pittsburgh native William T. Kerr began his advocacy in 1888 and a year later became national chairman of the American Flag Day Foundation, holding that position for a half a century. Kerr was among those standing beside Truman when he signed the Flag Day law.

As for the expected friendly rivalry, Janik said his father, the late Jack Janik, “took care of that.” The elder Janik traveled to Washington and lobbied Congress, which in 2004 adopted a resolution naming Waubeka “the birthplace of Flag Day.”

What about the essays?

Along with the parade, the bands, the patriotism awards, the military honor guards and a dog named Harlow who turns 8 on Flag Day and sported a red, white and blue boater on her head, there are the essays.

In the spirit of Cigrand and his students of 139 years ago, the Waubeka Flag Day celebration includes an annual essay contest and draws entries from across the nation — this year from New York to Nevada and Wisconsin to Texas.

The Stars and Stripes “represent a nation where immigrants like my grandparents are welcomed, where diversity is celebrated and where justice is present for all,” wrote Neel Sood, a 4th grader from Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Adell, Wisconsin 7th grader Ryan Spang wrote that “the American flag represents unity. We are one nation, united by our similarities and differences. We support people in our communities in times of need and we cheer them on in times of achievement.”

Why isn’t it a day off?

Flag Day isn’t like Thanksgiving, Memorial Day and a smattering of other federal holidays that generally mean Americans can spend the day off work.

Instead, it’s officially recognized nationwide, and government services are still open and the mail still gets delivered. Only Pennsylvania marks it as a state holiday, allowing residents to stay home from work and school.

But another backyard barbecue isn’t required to feel the love in Waubeka.

“Our passion for the flag here is very deep,” Janik said. “The flag is the symbol of our country — it symbolizes individualism, success, loss, daring, chivalry. People need a compass to guide them, and the flag is a great compass.”

O’Connor reported from Springfield, Illinois.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Support PBS NewsHour:

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Chiquita Found Liable for Colombia Paramilitary Killings

National Security Archive Schedule of Chiquita’s Paramilitary Payments Evidence at Trial

Jury Awards Banana Company Victims $38.3 Million in Landmark Human Rights Case

Washington, D.C., June 10, 2024 – Today, an eight-member jury in West Palm Beach, Florida, found Chiquita Brands International liable for funding a violent Colombian paramilitary organization, the United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), that was responsible for major human rights atrocities during the 1990s and 2000s. The weeks-long trial featured testimony from the families of the nine victims in the case, the recollections of Colombian military officials and Chiquita executives, expert reports, and a summary of key documentary evidence produced by Michael Evans, director of the National Security Archive’s Colombia documentation project.

“This historic ruling marks the first time that an American jury has held a major U.S. corporation liable for complicity in serious human rights abuses in another country,” according to a press release from EarthRights International , which represents victims in the case.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro reacted to the news on X (formerly Twitter) by asking why Colombian justice could not do what had been done in a U.S. court.

¿Por qué la justicia de EEUU pudo determinar en verdad judicial que Chiquita Brands financió el paramilitarismo en Urabá?. ¿Por qué no pudo la justicia colombiana? Si el acuerdo de paz del 2016, que ya sabemos es una declaración unilateral de estado que nos compromete ante el… https://t.co/pT2l86cuyH — Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) June 11, 2024

In 2007, Chiquita reached a sentencing agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in which it admitted to $1.7 million in payments to the AUC, which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 2001. Chiquita paid a $25 million fine for violating a U.S. anti-terrorism statute but has never before had to answer to victims of the paramilitary group it financed. In 2018, Chiquita settled separate claims brought by the families of six victims of the FARC insurgent group, which was also paid by Chiquita for many years.

This trial focused on nine bellwether cases among hundreds of claims that have been brought against Chiquita by victims of AUC violence. The nine plaintiffs were represented by EarthRights, International Rights Advocates, and other attorneys who years ago agreed to consolidate their claims against Chiquita and collaborate in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida. Today, the jury found Chiquita liable in eight of the nine cases presented to them.

Plaintiffs contended that Chiquita willingly entered into “an unholy alliance with the AUC,” a group responsible for horrible atrocities and grave human rights abuses, at a time when the banana company was buying land and expanding its presence in Colombia’s violent banana-growing region. Attorneys for Chiquita argued that the company was “clearly extorted” by the AUC and had no choice but to make the payments. [1]

Jurors found that the AUC was responsible for eight of the nine murders at issue in the case; that Chiquita had “failed to act as a reasonable businessperson”; that “Chiquita knowingly provided substantial assistance to the AUC” that created “a foreseeable risk of harm to others”; and that Chiquita had failed to prove either that the AUC actually threatened them or that there was “no reasonable alternative” to paying them.

Testifying on May 14, Evans described the “1006 summary” he created for the plaintiffs tracking ten years of Chiquita’s paramilitary payments and based exclusively on thousands of internal records produced by Chiquita in the case. Evans explained how he sorted through thousands of payment request forms, security situation reports, spreadsheets, auditing documents, depositions, legal memoranda, and other documents from Chiquita’s own internal records to create the summary, which tracks over one hundred payments to the AUC, most of them funneled through “Convivir” self-defense groups that acted as legal fronts for the paramilitaries.

Importantly, Evans found Chiquita payments to Convivir groups beginning in 1995, two years earlier than Chiquita had previously admitted, and several other Convivir payments not included on the list proffered by Chiquita in the case that resulted in the 2007 sentencing agreement. Other notable items in the schedule include payments that were funneled through an armored vehicle service run by Darío Laíno Scopetta, a top leader of the AUC’s Northern Bloc who is now serving a 32-year sentence in Colombia for financing paramilitary operations.

Since 2007, the National Security Archive has obtained thousands of internal records on Chiquita’s “sensitive payments” in Colombia through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and through FOIA litigation, even overcoming Chiquita’s “reverse FOIA” attempt to block the release of records by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Key revelations from these FOIA releases are featured in numerous publications from the Archive’s Chiquita Papers collection. Since most of these records and many related documents were also produced during the discovery phase of this case, plaintiffs asked Evans to summarize them in the schedule that was presented at trial.

The schedule of paramilitary payments was also one of the last images left in the minds of jurors as plaintiffs closed their case-in-chief several weeks ago. After discussing the details of some of Chiquita’s more unusual paramilitary transactions, lead counsel Marco Simons of EarthRights walked the jury through the text of a document that was featured in the Archive’s first-ever Chiquita Papers posting in 2011 . Written by Chiquita in-house counsel Robert Thomas, the handwritten memo described assurances from Chiquita staff in Colombia that payments to a paramilitary front company were necessary because Chiquita “can’t get the same level of support from the military.”

Plaintiffs also relied on the Chiquita Papers records during the cross examination of key defense witnesses who were involved in making the illicit payments. In one example, plaintiffs drew from an internal report on the conflict situation in Colombia in 1992 ( originally published here ) to help elicit important admissions about the origins of the paramilitary payments from Charles “Buck” Keiser, the longtime general manager of Chiquita operations in Colombia. The report from Chiquita’s Colombia-based security staff said that among the armed groups then getting payments from Chiquita was one, the Popular Commands, that was considered a “paramilitary” group. Prompted by documents and other evidence, Keiser steered the jury through the process by which voluntary payments to the Popular Commands became payments to the AUC. (See our previous posting featuring key documents about Keiser and 12 other Chiquita officials accused of crimes against humanity in Colombia.)

Crucially, Keiser also admitted that a supposedly pivotal meeting with top AUC leader Carlos Castaño that has long been one of the pillars of Chiquita’s duress defense had virtually no bearing on the company’s decision to pay paramilitary groups and that, in fact, the company had already begun to pay paramilitary-linked Convivir self-defense groups long before the Castaño meeting. Several witnesses, including Keiser, also admitted that the company had never actually been threatened by the AUC or been the victim of AUC violence, according to trial transcripts.

A future Electronic Briefing Book will focus on some of the key evidence that was brought forward in this case. In the meantime, those interested in reading more about the case and the entire episode can start at our Chiquita Papers page.

[1] David Minsky, “Chiquita Capitalized on Colombia’s War. Victims’ Families Say,” Law360 , April 30, 2024.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

A Chinese military buff inadvertently bought 4 books of military secrets for under $1

FILE - Military delegates chat before the closing session of the National People’s Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Monday, March 11, 2024. Chinese state media said Thursday, June 13, 2024, that a military history buff found a collection of confidential documents related to the country’s military in a pile of old papers he bought for under $1. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

A man past by a mural calling for Military Civilian Unity in Beijing, Thursday, June 13, 2024. Chinese state media say that a military history buff found a collection of confidential documents related to the country’s military in a pile of old papers he bought for under $1. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

A municipal worker collects scrap cardboard near a mural calling for Military and Civilian Unity in Beijing, Thursday, June 13, 2024. Chinese state media say that a military history buff found a collection of confidential documents related to the country’s military in a pile of old papers he bought for under $1. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

• Copy Link copied

BEIJING (AP) — A military history buff in China appears to have made an alarming discovery after picking up four discarded books for less than $1 at a neighborhood recycling station: They were confidential military documents.

The country’s Ministry of State Security told the story in a social media post on Thursday, praising the retired man for calling a hotline to report the incident. It identified him only by his family name, Zhang, and did not say what the documents were about.

“Mr. Zhang thought to himself that he had ‘bought’ the country’s military secrets and brought them home,” the post reads, “but if someone with ulterior motives were to buy them, the consequences would be unimaginable!”

The post, which was reposted on at least two popular Chinese news websites, was the latest in a series by the powerful state security agency that appears to be trying to draw in new audiences with dramatic stories. Some have been told in comic-book style.

The campaign seems designed to raise awareness of the importance of national security at a time when confrontation with the U.S. is rising and both countries are increasingly worried about the possible theft or transfer of confidential and secret information.

The post describes Zhang as a former employee of a state-owned company who likes to collect military newspapers and periodicals. It says he found two bags of new books at the recycling station and paid 6 yuan (about 85 cents) for four of them.

State security agents rushed to the station after Zhang reported what had happened, the post says. After an investigation, they found that two military employees charged with shredding more than 200 books instead got rid of them by selling them to a recycling center as paper waste — 30 kilograms (65 pounds) in all — for about 20 yuan ($2.75).

The agents seized the books and the military has closed loopholes in the handling of such material, the post says.

China’s opaque state security bodies and legal system often make it difficult to tell what is considered a state secret.

Chinese and foreign consultancies operating within the country have been placed under investigation for possessing or sharing information about the economy in an apparent broadening of the definition of a state secret in recent years.

Associated Press video producer Penny Wang in Bangkok and researcher Wanqing Chen in Beijing contributed.