Combating Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

esolved before the meetings occur. Supporters of this option cite several programsthat have benefited from Vice Presidential authority, such as the Space Council(since the time of Vice President Johnson) and the Reinventing Government programof Vice President Gore. Others point out that Vice Presidents are often chosen forreasons having nothing to do with their interest in or qualifications for leading a majornational security effort. Moreover, there is a danger in building a staff structure underthe Vice President that is separate from the NSC.8. Assign responsibility for proliferation to a National Director for CombatingProliferation within the National Security Council, with the rank of DeputyAssistant to the President. This model establishes a senior individual inside thenational security apparatus with the authority and responsibility to coordinate thedevelopment and implementation of interagency policies and programs bearing onproliferation-related threats. It embeds this effort within the NSC structure to ensureintegration with our overall security and foreign policy and to take advantage of theNSC’s traditional role of bringing relevant agencies together at all levels, from theworking level up to the Principals. It elevates the stature of proliferation-relatedefforts in the NSC and assigns a correspondingly enhanced role in resolvingdifferences between agencies, setting priorities for agency activities, and allocatingresources within existing congressional authorities. Execution of programs wouldremain with agencies.Critics of this model express doubt that a member of the NSC staff, even one with therank of Deputy Assistant to the President, can direct Cabinet agencies or resolvedisputes between Cabinet secretaries. Moreover, they point out that directiveauthority without control over budget resources is tenuous, but that the NSC shouldnot be involved in executing budgets. In addition, such direct budget authority wouldlikely require that the official be appointed by the President with the advice andconsent of the senate.9. Work to improve the present system and organizational structure. TheCommission was mindful of the first rule of any effort to change organizations andsystems: do no harm. Some felt the disadvantages inherent in each of the proposalsconsidered by the Commission argued in favor of leaving the existing system inplace, on the theory that individuals of good will can work together in the existingframework through both formal and ad hoc interagency mechanisms. Theysuggested that the interagency process works well and is getting better at dealingwith the emerging threats of proliferation, terrorism, and infrastructure protection.Finally, advocates of this view note that there are other important issues that cutacross several agencies and require coordination, and that it is impractical to seek tosolve each such cross-cutting issue with a new interagency organizational structure.12