Overview
Title
To require the United States Government to assist in the establishment of national security councils in specified countries.
ELI5 AI
The CONVENE Act of 2023 asks the U.S. to help three small countries, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, create special groups to help everyone work together on staying safe, especially against bad things like hackers or illegal fishing.
Summary AI
The CONVENE Act of 2023 (S. 3547) instructs the United States Government to help establish national security councils in the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The goal is to improve these countries' coordination with the U.S. on various security matters, including disaster response and maritime security. The bill outlines standards for equipment and services to protect against cyber threats and espionage and requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress on progress and challenges. The bill also covers homeland security activities like combating illegal fishing and responding to national emergencies.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, known as the "Connecting Oceania's Nations with Vanguard Exercises and National Empowerment Act of 2023" or the "CONVENE Act of 2023," aims to support the establishment of national security councils in three specified countries: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The bill proposes that the United States Government, primarily through the Secretary of State, may assist these countries by advising and facilitating the development of such councils. The objective is to enhance coordination on security, disaster response, and other relevant activities with the United States. Additionally, the bill mandates that the Secretary of State submit reports to Congress assessing the progress and impact of these efforts.
Summary of Significant Issues
One key issue with the bill is the significant discretion granted to the Secretary of State, which could result in inconsistent or inefficient implementation. The involvement of the U.S. in the internal security coordination of other countries raises concerns about sovereignty and the balance of power. Furthermore, the assumption that each specified country will or can establish a national security council might not be realistic or applicable in every context, leading to potential issues with applicability.
The language used in the bill is sometimes vague, particularly regarding the 'other relevant Federal departments and agencies' and 'security standards' for cybersecurity. Such ambiguity could lead to accountability issues and insufficient cybersecurity measures. There are also concerns about overlapping responsibilities and inefficiencies with existing governmental agencies in these countries. The bill does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a 'malign actor,' which could lead to inconsistency in identifying external threats.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, the bill represents an effort by the United States to extend its influence and build stronger security alliances in the Pacific region. If successful, it could lead to enhanced security and disaster response capabilities in the specified countries, benefiting the residents in terms of safety and resilience against threats. However, there are possible implications regarding the use of U.S. resources and the extent to which U.S. involvement might affect the autonomy of these nations.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the specified countries—Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau—the act could provide valuable support in developing coordinated security and disaster response systems. This assistance could lead to improved infrastructure and human resource capabilities. However, there may be concerns regarding over-reliance on external assistance and the implications for national sovereignty.
For the U.S. Government, particularly the Department of State, the bill involves a commitment to strategic partnerships in a region of geopolitical interest. It aims to build stronger alliances and counteract external influences. However, the use of vague language in the bill could pose challenges for government agencies tasked with implementing these provisions, potentially leading to inefficiencies.
For Congress, the bill presents a chance to oversee U.S. involvement in enhancing security in the Pacific region. However, the lack of specific metrics and accountability measures for evaluating progress and costs could hinder effective oversight of the bill’s implementation.
Overall, while the bill presents opportunities for strategic partnerships and improved security collaboration, careful consideration must be given to the ambiguities and potential challenges identified.
Issues
The bill grants the Secretary of State broad discretion in consulting and engaging with national security councils of specified countries, which could lead to uneven or inefficient implementation of assistance. This is particularly significant from a political and operational perspective. (Section 3(a))
The definition of 'national security council' assumes the existence of such a body in the 'specified country', which might not be applicable or feasible for all countries listed. This might raise issues of applicability and relevance. (Section 2(2))
The use of vague language in referring to 'other relevant Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate' could lead to a lack of accountability or clarity on which agencies are involved in the execution of the act. (Section 3(a))
The bill does not clearly define the cybersecurity 'security standards' that must be met, which may lead to gaps in ensuring adequate cybersecurity measures, raising both legal and technical concerns. (Section 3(c))
The enumeration of activities such as dealing with transnational criminal enterprises and natural disasters might overlap with existing governmental responsibilities, leading to potential inefficiencies and redundancies. (Section 3(e))
Subsection (d)(1)(F) refers to 'a malign actor' without defining what constitutes such an actor, which can lead to interpretations issues and inconsistencies in identifying threats. (Section 3(d)(1)(F))
The rationale behind excluding other countries with similar contexts as 'specified countries' is not provided, which might raise ethical and political questions about strategic interests and decision-making criteria. (Section 2(3))
A lack of clear criteria or metrics for assessing whether the national security councils or coordinating bodies meet objectives at acceptable costs could result in ineffective monitoring and evaluation of the act's implementation. (Section 3(d)(1)(A))
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill provides its short title, stating that it can be referred to as the "Connecting Oceania’s Nations with Vanguard Exercises and National Empowerment Act of 2023," or simply the "CONVENE Act of 2023."
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines key terms in the Act, including "appropriate committees of Congress", which are specific committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; "national security council", referring to an intergovernmental body responsible for security cooperation in a given country; and "specified country", which includes the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
3. National security councils of specified countries Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill allows the Secretary of State to work with certain countries to set up or assist their national security councils, or similar bodies, to improve coordination on security and humanitarian issues, ensure compliance with security standards, and enhance cooperation with the United States. A report on these efforts, including challenges and progress, is required to be submitted to Congress within 180 days and annually for two years.