The decline of arms control as an instrument of policy in the Bush Administration is charted in a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service, which surveys the evolution of the field over the last several decades.
“The Bush Administration has altered the role of arms control in U.S. national security policy,” the CRS report states.
“The President and many in his Administration question the degree to which arms control negotiations and formal treaties can enhance U.S. security objectives.”
“Instead, the Administration would prefer, when necessary, that the United States take unilateral military action or join in ad hoc coalitions to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
“The absence of confidence in arms control has extended to the State Department, where the Bush Administration has removed the phrase ‘arms control’ from all bureaus that were responsible for this policy area.”
See “Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements,” January 29, 2007.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.