American Security Project

Bangladesh at Crossroads

A Political and Security Outlook Conference:

Session Two- Threat of Rising Militancy and Terrorism

 Session Two included a discussion on the profiles of various terrorist groups in Bangladesh and their connection to other parts of the region.

Click below to listen:

Moderator: MGen Muniruzzaman

Panel:

Shafqat Munir

Biographies of all the conference speakers can be found here

 

Bangladesh at Crossroads

A Political and Security Outlook Conference:

Session One – A Political Outlook

Session one included a discussion on the current political developments in Bangladesh and relate them to the potential for instability and conflict in the region.

This included:

* An update on the current political situation

* The current political impasse and potential for political confrontation

* Possibility of political instability

* Possible ramifications of political instability for Bangladesh and the wider region

Click below to listen:

 

Moderator: BGen Stephen A Cheney USMC (Ret.) 

Panel:

Ali Riaz

Dilara Chowdhury

Col. Brian Lamson

Biographies of all the conference speakers can be found here

 

podcast

 

On this latest American Security Project podcast , ASP’s Senior Fellow Andrew Holland discusses with Brian Marrs, a power markets specialist, and Robert Petroski, a nuclear engineer, the future of nuclear power.

Holland asked how nuclear has changed in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. They said that the nuclear power today is far different than plants built in the 1960s (as the Fukushima plant was). Marrs notes that the market environment for nuclear power is very difficult right now, but that there will be a wave of plant retirements coming up that could alter that. Petroski notes that next-generation technologies like fusion or breeder reactors could essentially be renewable energy, providing power for millennia.

All three are members of the “Emerging Leaders in Energy and Environmental Policy,” a Transatlantic Network of young professionals.

Click below to listen

Read more about our energy work on ASP’s Energy Security page

 

 

 

This morning, the American Security Project hosted “The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Implications for Global Security & Western-Chinese Relations,” a discussion regarding the proposed American-European trade agreement and the effect it may have on China.

The panel was moderated by the Honorable Glenn Nye, a former congressman and senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Geoffrey Harris of the European Parliament Liaison Office with the U.S. Congress, ASP fellow and consultant Dan Grant, and ASP CEO BGen. Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) also participated in the panel discussion.

Following a brief introduction from the moderator, Dan Grant explained the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. Discussions on a comprehensive U.S.-EU trade deal are the consequence of both an effort to stimulate the world economy following the global recession and recent World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations stalling in Doha, Qatar.

Grant reminded us that the TTIP has not received a significant deal of press coverage and has not been to controversial, “in stark contrast to how things unfolded with NAFTA twenty years ago.” This is the consequence of the relatively open transatlantic trade relationship that already exists, and the similarities between the American and European economies. The agreement has been pretty well-received, with almost universal support from government officials, businesses, and labor groups.

So if everyone agrees that the TTIP will be beneficial, why is it worth discussing? Grant emphasizes that in the modern economy, it is “regulatory power that really makes the difference.” Consequently, the impact of trade regulations on the world’s largest developing economy, China, will be noteworthy. While it is challenging for the United States alone to combat China on rules and regulations, it will be more successful with the European Union on our side. Moreover, with the potential to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as well, the United States will have more regulatory influence over China.

Geoffrey Harris added that China does not have to miss out on the economic benefits of the trade agreement. By joining in on the trade liberalization process, China can turn a “win-win arrangement” for the U.S. and EU into a “win-win-win” affair. Harris emphasized that while seeing an agreement among China’s two largest trading partners may seem like an attack, it was not at all a motivation for the TTIP. The purpose is simply to encourage economic growth in Europe and the United States.

Harris also emphasized Europe’s commitment to all of its allies. While the TTIP will be beneficial to the EU and the U.S., it may potentially have an adverse effect on third countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Australia. The impact on these allies, he noted, will certainly be on the European agenda.

Stephen Cheney pointed out that universally supported policies, such as the Law of the Sea Convention, are often unable to get passed, but is “far more optimistic about TTIP.” He referenced America’s declining competitiveness and the security advantages of completing the trade deal. Cheney reiterated Harris’s belief that the TTIP is not a threat to China.

This afternoon American Security Project in conjunction with Development Transformations hosted “Yemen’s Political Transition and National Dialogue: Progress and Challenges,” a panel discussion on the current issues facing Yemen and the efforts thus far, both internationally and internally, to address them.

Participating in the discussion were Mohammed Albasha, spokesman for the Embassy of the Republic of Yemen in Washington, DC; Tim Fairbank, Managing Director of Development Transformations; Ambassador Barbara Bodine, former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen and lecturer at Princeton University; Danya Greenfield, Deputy Director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East; and moderator BGen. Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.) and ASP CEO.

After an introduction of the panel, Albasha began by emphasizing the importance of Yemen’s current National Dialogue process, yet stressed the need to look beyond the dialogue and develop a foundation for long term stability. He maintained that the political transition process thus far has accomplished much, especially given that just two years ago he “would have said [Yemenis] were definitely heading for a civil war.”

Albasha highlighted the purely inspirational quality of the dialogue and the culture of unity that it has begun to engender nationwide. However he cautioned that the National Dialogue should not be seen as an endgame solution, nor should it be heralded as a model for the rest of the region. Yemen will require both diplomatic and economic support as it navigates this transition, and President Abdo Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s meeting this Thursday with President Obama and this past week with Secretary Kerry and other U.S. officials should increase the visibility of Yemen’s current struggles in Washington and worldwide.

Fairbank continued by arguing that the National Dialogue offers the ideal time for U.S. policy to look beyond counter-terrorism strategies. The enduring, fundamental challenges facing Yemen and ultimately that threaten long-term U.S. interests rest in a much wider range of concerns than terrorism and extremism.

Fairbank did note that he saw significant warning signs in Yemen’s progress to date since the 2011 revolution, particularly that no mechanisms existed to institutionalize any of the agreements made during the actual National Dialogue process. Moreover, while the various facets of the Southern secessionist movement are represented in the dialogue, the process does not directly address the grievances and disenchantment that exists among the actual Southern population.

Ambassador Bodine echoed the sentiments of the previous panelists, emphasizing the “importance of the National Dialogue but not the sufficiency of the National Dialogue.” Officials wishing to glean lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan when approaching the transition in Yemen should avoid short-term solutions that “establish all the architecture” without really offering a legitimate system into which the population can buy. The ambassador argued that as Yemen undergoes a “negotiated revolution,” efforts must focus on redefining the social contract between a governmental system and the Yemeni citizens before the government can function both legitimately and effect...

This week ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate, Andrew Holland, spoke with General Muniruzzaman, the President of the Bangladesh Institute for Peace and Security Studies about the impacts of climate change on security in the South Asia region. They discussed the recent heavy floods in India’s Uttarakhand Province,  and that this disaster should more precisely be called a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF). Changes in precipitation, water usage, and the regional environment – all of which are impacted by global climate change – have real impacts on the national security of countries in the region.

 

Click here to listen 

 

Featuring:

Major General Muniruzzaman (Ret.), a former Senior Officer of the Bangladesh Army and President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS). BIPSS is a non-party, non-profit think-tank focused on peace and security in South Asia.

Andrew Holland, ASP Senior Fellow for Climate and Energy

Click Below to Listen:

 

 

 

 

Listen to other podcasts :

American Competitiveness

The Military and Public Diplomacy 

Energy Security & Global Oil Production

Nuclear Security

Climate Change and Global Security

American Competitiveness and National Security

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The changing climate and its implications for our nation security

America and Central Asia

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

Last November, ASP released a white paper outlining how America’s competitiveness is essential to its national security. A few months  later in February, Dr. Michael Porter and Dr. Jan Rivkin of the Harvard Business School released an unrelated report with results and analysis of a survey of over 7,000 business leaders on American competitiveness. Although the two studies were done independently, they reach strikingly similar conclusions: American competitiveness is slipping, and this requires urgent attention.

Our slipping competitiveness was the subject of ASP’s panel discussion (in collaboration with the HBS Club of Washington, D.C.) on Wednesday entitled, “Restoring American Competitiveness: A National Security Crisis.”

The panel featured Dr. Porter and Dr. Rivkin, as well as Dante Disparte of the HBS Club of D.C., and ASP board members Norman Augustine and Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.). The discussion was moderated by ASP CEO Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret).

Although the experts come from varying backgrounds, from military experience to academia, their analyses of American competitiveness echoed analogous concerns.

First of all, the panel discussed how competiveness must be defined.

It cannot only be measured by the success of domestic businesses in the global market, but also by the quality of life for American citizens. Mr. Augustine explained that “competitiveness is an acronym for jobs,” an idea additionally espoused by Dr. Porter and Mr. Disparte. Dr. Porter emphasized that the jobs are affected are those filled by semi-skilled, middle class workers. The high-skilled workers, he noted “are going to be fine.”

The panel additionally emphasized the fact that America’s slipping competitiveness is “not just a hangover from the Great Recession,” as Dr. Rivkin explained. Instead, our global position is indicative of a structural challenge within the United States.

The problem lies in the depletion of America’s once-rich “commons,” according to Dr. Rivkin. The “commons” encompasses our crumbling infrastructure, our limiting high-skilled immigration, and our corporate tax policy, which he called “the worst of all worlds.”

Norman Augustine offered a national security perspective on the importance of American competitiveness. He outlined three ways in which diminishing competitiveness hurts our national security. First, if our economy is weak, then we cannot afford a strong military. It also means that we have no clout in the geopolitical world. Finally, if we do not remain competitive, our quality of life will decline. Mr. Augustine recommended we improve the American education system by finding “teachers who are qualified to teach” and increase investment in basic research.

Lt. General Castellaw stressed that “it’s certainly not military power alone” that determines American security. Unfortunately, American veterans, he added, are not coming home to the jobs they deserve to keep rural communities competitive. The lieutenant general emphasized that we must revitalize our small businesses and middle class jobs to “strengthen the fiber” of the United States.

This week we keys issues around America’s Competitiveness and how they impact national security. The United States ranked 7th in the World Economic Forum’s 2012/2013 global competitiveness report, just a few years after being ranked first – and this has big impacts on our national interest and overall security.

Over the last year both ASP and Harvard Business School have published separate reports into American Competitiveness – one from the national security perspective, the other from business. Both these reports came to very similar conclusions –  and remarkably similar priorities – we as a country need a genuine, integrated strategy for tackling our competitiveness challenge. 

Click here to listen

Featuring:

BGen Stephen A. Cheney USMC (Ret.), ASP CEO

August Cole, ASP Adjunct Fellow

Moderated by:

Paul Hamill, ASP Director of External Relations

Click Below to Listen:

 

Find out more about American Competitiveness here:

 

 

 

 

Listen to other podcasts :

The Military and Public Diplomacy 

Energy Security & Global Oil Production

Nuclear Security

Climate Change and Global Security

American Competitiveness and National Security

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The changing climate and its implications for our nation security

America and Central Asia

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Two days ago Joel Wit, a former State Department satellite imagery analyst now with 38 North, spoke here at the American Security Project on North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and his observations about American policy in regards to these programs.  Previously, I wrote about Mr. Wit’s conclusions regarding his imagery analysis of North Korean nuclear and missile facilities including its testing sites and its reactors. Today I will be discussing his policy observations and opinions.

Mr. Wit pointed out that recently the U.S. has been heralding China’s increasing dissatisfaction with North Korea and cooperation with the U.S. on sanctions as a success that shows increasing diplomatic solidarity against North Korea’s nuclear program. Unfortunately, he points out that this does not accurately describe the current state of world affairs in regards to North Korea and that the American diplomatic establishment may be very close to failing to recognize the danger of its current approach to North Korea.

Mr. Wit stated that the current U.S. approach to dealing with North Korea, which he called “strategic patience 2.0,” is unintentionally moving the U.S. and the international community closer to tacitly accepting North Korea’s new status as a nuclear state, instead of further seeking to denuclearize the regime. In “doubling down” on our disinterest in diplomacy with North Korea the current prevailing belief is that China will now begin to apply pressure on North Korea to denuclearize; Mr. Wit stated that he believed this to be an “overly optimistic reading” of the situation.

As he noted during the imagery analysis, North Korea has been undeterred from building up and expanding its nuclear test facilities, despite China’s apparent push for denuclearization of the peninsula.  This is in spite of what the American public is often told; that China is the key player who has leverage over North Korea.

It should be understood that China is probably not working with U.S. because of American diplomatic efforts, but out of frustration with North Korea.  China wants more diplomatic engagement with North Korea, as opposed to the U.S.’s expressed interested in strategic patience 2.0. The U.S. may lose China’s support if it continues with its current diplomatic approach.

Furthermore, while China appears to be bringing pressure to bear on North Korea, China is still engaging in activities with North Korea on several levels that make the American initiative to denuclearize the peninsula more difficult.  These activities include the recent high level visits by envoys of both countries and satellite imagery that seems to confirm the building of a new joint Chinese-North Korean industrial center in a free trade zone over the past few months since North Korea’s most recent nuclear test.

South Korea and Japan are also beginning to negotiate with North Korea without sticking to the conditions of denuclearization, a worrying sign that the U.S. lead diplomatic bulwark against North Korea is increasingly shaky.

The issue, as Mr. Wit puts it, is “coercive diplomacy” is very important in dealing with North Korea, but the U.S. needs to embrace the diplomacy component of this.  The U.S. needs to signal to North Korea that it is willing to talk about talks, not negotiations or appeasement, in an effort to find an opening.  Through such talks the U.S. might also be able to gain a better understanding of the current North Korean regime, how to negotiate with Pyongyang, and what its major legitimate concerns are.

Mr. Wit concluded his remarks on policy by stating the U.S. needs to lead from the front of the diplomatic pack on North Korea,

This week we discuss the ways in which the U.S. military conducts public diplomacy, tactical and strategic effects, as well as how the DOD and State Department work together on this vital capability.

 

Click here to listen

Featuring:

Matthew Wallin, ASP  Fellow for Public Diplomacy

Moderated by:

Paul Hamill, ASP Director of External Relations

 

Click Below to Listen:

 

 

 

 

Listen to other podcasts :

Energy Security & Global Oil Production

Nuclear Security

Climate Change and Global Security

American Competitiveness and National Security

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The changing climate and its implications for our nation security

America and Central Asia

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

Afghanistan: Are We Winning

Covering Conflict as a Journalist, Libya and Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Central & South Asia – energy, mining and private sector development