American Security Project

This week we discuss the security impacts of the changing climate, from Pakistan, to Africa, to the Pacific – and how all this could have major effects on U.S. national security.

Click here to listen 

Featuring:

Andrew Holland, ASP Senior Fellow for Climate and Energy Security

and Special Guest: Lisa Friedman

Lisa is deputy editor of Climatewire, Washington’s leading source of news on climate change and energy policy.

She covers international policy, including the global climate change negotiations and the intersection between climate, international security and development.

Moderated by:

Paul Hamill, ASP Director of External Relations

 

Click Below to Listen:

 

Listen to other podcasts :

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

This morning American Security Project hosted “Nuclear Terrorism: What’s at Stake,” a panel discussion examining the nature of the threat that nuclear terror poses and potential opportunities for the U.S. to secure vulnerable ports and combat the risks of a nuclear event. The discussion built upon issues discussed in ASP’s recently published Fact Sheet on shipping container security.

Participating in the discussion were the Honorable Jay M. Cohen, a retired Admiral of the U.S. Navy and current Principal of The Chertoff Group, David Waller, former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Stephen Flynn, Co-Director of the George J. Kostas Research Institute at Northeastern University, Dr. Stanton Sloane, CEO of Decision Sciences International Corporation, and moderator BGen. Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.) ASP CEO.After an introduction of the panel, Adm. Cohen began by framing the conversation within the context of a “threat roadmap” that graphs the relative likelihoods and consequences of different terrorist attacks. Some in the audience may have had qualms with the ordering, but he assured that the image was meant to be dynamic.

Given the progress made in non-proliferation and the safeguarding of nuclear materials since the Nunn-Lugar legislation passed in 1992, Cohen notes obtaining nuclear material has grown increasingly difficult. The threat of nuclear terrorism remains “inconceivable but not impossible,” and potentially disastrous.

Waller continued by describing the IAEA’s role in securing ports across the globe. He argued that “international cooperation is essential” for any effort to combat nuclear terrorism and effectively approach the so-called “nuclear dilemma.” Nuclear technology holds incredible potential for a wide array of industries, yet the same material and technology required can be harnessed for catastrophic destruction.

He thus highlighted the support that the IAEA offers to all governments through the International Nuclear Security Advisory Service, which assesses states’ nuclear security capabilities and offer assistance. U.S. ports are only the end points in a global shipping and transportation system.

Taking a more systemic approach, Dr. Flynn looked at the broader ramifications of a nuclear attack to the US and global economy. He points out how any attack carried out through a U.S. port, regardless of the scope, would create a “problem of risk looking unbounded.” Nobody would know the true extent or nature of the threat. Flynn remarked that “we’ll have put the entire global intermodal transportation system into gridlock” with catastrophic economic consequences and “no plan today for how to get it back up and running.”

The panel offered the entire city of Boston shutting down after the recent bombings and the grounding off all air traffic for a week following the September, 11th attacks in 2001 as telling examples of this phenomenon.

According to Flynn, the tools that exist today cannot effectively address this threat, and little effort has been made to examine how to respond to attacks that could easily cripple global transport.

Finally Dr. Sloane discussed what role technology should play and how the U.S. can foster an environment that encourages the development of port security technology in the private sector. As long as the government creates the proper environment,

ASP hosted a conversation with Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, the former Premier of Somalia.

The last two years in Somalia has seen militant Islamists in retreat and a country rise from the ashes of chronic conflict and chaos. At the helm during this transformative period, the former Prime Minister argues that security and political progress in Somalia has boosted US national security interests.

The former Prime Minister discussed the key issues in the U.S. -Somalia relationship,; the progress already made in his country; as well as the political, economic and military challenges still ahead.

You can listen to the event by clicking below:

 

 

 

 

 

or here:

Listen – U.S. National Security and the New Somalia: Reflections from the Former Prime Minister

Publishing Software from YUDU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Americansecurityproject’s photostream on Flickr.

On Monday, April 15, ASP was honored to welcome former Ambassador and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Linton Brooks, for an event titled “The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent: A Conversation with Amb. Linton Brooks.” After a short introduction from ASP CEO Stephen Cheney and ASP Nuclear Director Terri Lodge, Mr. Brooks began the event with  a brief talk, outlining the prospect for disarmament and his take on the key elements of the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Although broadly supportive of disarmament efforts, Mr. Brooks gave a frank assessment of the barriers that stand between the world today and large scale nuclear reduction. Mr. Brooks argued that Russian lack of cooperation, cost inefficiency, and international obligations, would all contribute to an environment in which total or complete elimination is unlikely for many decades to come.  On the lack of Russian enthusiasm for disarmament, Mr. Brooks explained how the Russians perceive their nuclear arsenal. With their influence and power declining in other areas, including conventional capabilities, the Russian leadership sees the arsenal as a way of maintaining Russian relevance on the international stage.

Although the US nuclear arsenal was built to face the challenges of a different era, the end of the Cold War has not reduced its significance completely. Despite the current, relatively good U.S.-Russian relationship, Mr. Brooks cautioned the audience about trying to predict the future. However unlikely the prospect of a more aggressive Russia is, it remains a frightening prospect to the new US allies from the former Soviet Union. These regional partners feel much safer under the US nuclear umbrella, and their opposition to US reductions without Russian reciprocity is significant.

On the topic of disarmament, Mr. Brooks discussed the paradox that while keeping aging weapons and delivery systems in operation can be costly, it may be more expensive to decommission them, especially in the short term. The nuclear capable bombers, used as an example, plays an important part in the conventional arsenal, and although their non-conventional capabilities may no longer be vital for national security, eliminating it will not bring about substantial savings.

During the Q & A session, Mr. Brooks covered a broad range of topics, including balance of forces with Russia, the implications of life extension programs, the challenges of unilateral disarmament and missile defense.

 

To listen to the event click below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On April 16, the American Security Project hosted an event on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports entitled, “The Geopolitical Implications of U.S. Natural Gas Exports.” The panel included Marik String,  former Deputy Chief Counselor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Toshi Okuya, Director of the Japanese External Trade Organization (JETRO); and Peter Mollema, Deputy Chief of Mission for the Embassy of the Netherlands.

Marik String provided some initial context. With the shale gas “revolution,” natural gas prices have reached historic lows in recent years due to a surge in production. Low prices have sparked a debate within the United States about what to do with the glut of supply. High prices for LNG in Europe and Asia create an opportunity for the U.S. to take advantage of what is seemingly an easy arbitrage opportunity.

Currently, the U.S. can export to countries with which it has a free-trade agreement. Proponents of liberalizing LNG trade argue that exports will be a boon for the economy. Opponents criticize this idea for the potential negative impact on consumers from higher prices. However, the debate has lacked a focus on the geopolitics.

String noted that while the U.S. has hitherto limited LNG exports, the U.S. shale gas “revolution” has nonetheless had significant geopolitical effects already. Qatar had ambitious plans to export LNG to the U.S., but essentially rerouted it to Europe after U.S. import demand vanished. This has given Europe more options. Before the U.S. has even decided on the LNG exports question, shale gas production has already had an impact.

String listed two main effects more U.S. LNG exports would have: effects on dependency and prices. For U.S. allies in Europe and Eurasia, more exports would reduce Turkey’s dependence on Iran for natural gas, for instance. Turkey depends on Iran for about 20% of its natural gas, and Turkey is becoming worried that its rising dependency puts its economy at risk to potential international sanctions on Iran’s natural gas industry.

For Central Europe, String explained, natural gas imports are at times, “an existential question.” With overwhelming dependency on Russia for energy, supply disruptions imperil their economies. Several nations have plans to build new LNG import facilities to diversify away from Russia. The other effect is on prices. More U.S. LNG entering the market would put downward pressure on prices, easing the burden for importers in Europe and Asia.  A more liquid market with additional energy suppliers would also give American allies enhanced leverage in negotiations.

Next up was Toshi Okuya, Director of JETRO. He mentioned that Japan experienced its first trade deficit in three decades in 2011, largely due to a surge in imports for fuel after shutting down all but two of its 54 nuclear reactors. Japan is burning more LNG, coal, and oil to make up for the shortfall. He unequivocally stated that U.S. LNG exports would be a huge help to Japan’s economy and energy security.

Okuya emphasized a big problem for Japan is the oil-linked pricing contracts for natural gas, which make natural gas significantly more expensive in Asia. He praised the Henry Hub spot market that exists in the U.S., which does not link natural gas to oil. “We need to introduce this pricing system in Asia,” he stated, noting that more U.S. LNG exports could create the conditions for that transition.

Lastly, the Deputy Chief of Mission for the Embassy of the Netherlands, Peter Mollema, gave the Dutch and European perspective. Mollema said that while the economics of large quantities of LNG exports from the U.S. are questionable, if they move forward the Netherlands would be a key destination. The port of Rotterdam, as a gateway to Europe, imports a large amount of hydrocarbons already, and the Netherlands is seeking to establish itself as the “gas hub” for Europe.

Noting that “European security” is best served when ...

There are times when the best policy solution should be the easiest to achieve, but remains stubbornly out of reach. Nowhere is this more evident than in the challenges with improving American competitiveness.

As Norman Augustine, the retired chairman and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin and American Security Project board member, sees it, “in many cases we know what needs to be done, it just takes leadership and it takes courage to do difficult things.”

Augustine, who has held numerous senior leadership positions in a variety of organizations, including as chairman of the American Red Cross, the Defense Science Board and the Aerospace Industries Association, said in an interview “many of the issues that relate to competitiveness have long-term payoffs. They don’t have payoffs tomorrow morning.”

Education and investment in research are such areas, he pointed out, where the current short-term mindset is hurting the country. A particular area of concern to him is that many U.S. states have decided to “disinvest in education.”

“We as a nation are becoming less and less competitive and this has enormous consequences for our standing in the world, for our standard of living, for our national security,” he said.

The political tension around near-term needs and long-term improvements to American competitiveness will be on full display in the coming days as the White House rolls out its fiscal 2014 budget. A lot of attention will be on the Defense Department’s budget request. Yet the measure of national power, and competitiveness, in the 21st Century is much broader than any one Pentagon funding account.

“It all comes back to having a strong economy. To me, that’s what competitiveness is about,” he said. “Candidly, we’re on a path to being a second-rate nation sooner than we would like to think.”

Big policy changes are needed. Measurable and meaningful progress, however, will continue to be elusive until attitudes and expectations begin to change. This means having the fortitude to step back from the tit-for-tat approach to policy in Washington. Instead, leaders need to think strategically about the country’s national security, and the array of decisions that can either make our country weaker or make it stronger. Doing so will put improvements to American competitiveness well within reach.

Listen to the full interview with Augustine, click below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check out ASP’s White Paper on American Competitiveness that discusses these issues further:

 

Read our Blogs and Listen to our other podcasts in the series:

Podcasts:

Interview – Debt ceiling again looms large for states, city government

American Competitiveness – Interview with former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman

Adm. William Fallon (Ret.) on sequestration and American Competitiveness

Sequestration – what’s happening in the States

American Competitiveness and National Security – Podcast

In Hollywood, the summer film season is marked by big-ticket blockbuster movies that can make or break a studio depending on how well they fare at the box office.

Washington is following a similar pattern. Lawmakers are already preparing for another cliffhanger over America’s debt ceiling limits. The upper limit on federal borrowing, currently allowed by Congress to rise above $16.4 trillion, will need to be officially raised by mid- to late- summer after a temporary exemption expires in May. Failing to do so would wreak havoc in the credit markets and risk the U.S. defaulting on its debts.

The prospect of another go-around is a troubling one. The politics of the 2011 fight over raising the debt ceiling essentially led to the current across-the-board government spending cuts, or sequestration. Those cuts, and other federal spending shifts, created budget headaches for governors, mayors and city co

uncil members around the country.

“They’re frankly very worried,” said Lisa Lambert, a journalist with Thomson Reuters, in an interview for the American Security Project’s Flashpoint blog. Lambert, who covers such state and local issues, said the politics of the debt ceiling and other high-stakes fiscal issues are changing the dynamics between Washington and the rest of the country.

America’s competitive position has state and local roots, even if most of the policies that impact our standing are decided inside the Beltway.

“When we start coming up against the debt ceiling again this summer, the mayors are on guard, the governors are on guard to make sure that the federal government once again doesn’t come up with a compromise that creates cuts for them or creates difficulties for them,” she said.

It also forces state and local officials to be resourceful, and to look farther afield for investment and growth. China is one increasingly popular alternative, Lambert pointed out.

A group of U.S. governors is heading to China where they will meet with Chinese officials, as well as Governor Gary Locke, former Washington State and the U.S. Ambassador to China. In the District of Columbia, officials recently visited China as well and met with technology and real estate executives as part of a trade mission in support of the District’s five-year economic plan.

Even if the debt ceiling fails to incite another political fight over federal spending this summer, expect more such missions as state and local governments aim to boost their own competitive position without help from Capitol Hill or the White House.

If lawmakers can take one thing from Hollywood’s experience with do-or-die blockbuster films, they should remember that a sequel rarely gets as good of a review as the original.

 

Listen to the full interview below:

 

 

 

 

Check out ASP’s White Paper on American Competitiveness that discusses these issues further:

 

Read our Blogs and Listen to our other podcasts in the series:

 

 

Podcasts:

American Competitiveness – Interview with former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman

“To Bangladesh, climate change is not a theory but a reality on the ground.” With this opening statement, Major General Muniruzzaman, a Bangladeshi career military officer with 38 years of service for his country and in peace-keeping missions for the United Nations, removed all doubt of the seriousness of climate security from his audience’s minds.

Listen to the event here. Images of the event can be found here.

General Muniruzzaman joined the American Security Project’s CEO Brigadier General Stephen Cheney and Senior Energy & Climate Fellow Andrew Holland onstage yesterday for a discussion of the effects climate change wreaks on national security both in Bangladesh and around the world. As the newly- elected Chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACC) and President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies, General Munir lent an expert perspective on the dangers climate change posed to his country’s national security planning.

The General cited a recent study that suggested 30 million Bangladeshi citizens would be displaced due to climate change inspired sea-level rise in 2050. “And where will they go?” General Munir asked. “They will go to India, where the border is fenced,” causing a huge national security problem for both countries. Water scarcity, the salinization of fresh water resources, tsunami-level floods caused by melting glacial lakes in the Himalayas and even arsenic leaking into drinking supplies were just a few other examples the General presented.

The conversation then turned to the importance of governments and citizens around the world understanding climate change not just as an environmental challenge but a security threat as well. “Fear of the securitization of climate change has to go away” the General said. The security community “cannot solve climate change by itself,” but with adequate preparation the military can be an effective reactionary tool.

General Cheney highlighted the vulnerability of the American naval base on the island of Diego-Garcia in the Indian Ocean to sea-level rise, and General Munir pointed out that if the island became submerged climate change will have literally destroyed American sovereign territory. The disappearance of the Pacific islands would vastly complicate maritime boundaries set by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the possibility of war between India and Pakistan over the Indus Water Treaty was not out of the question, according to General Muniruzzaman. Climate change “does not respect our natural borders or the invisible lines we have drawn on our maps,” the General said. “Coastal areas of the United States are just as vulnerable to climate change as Bangladesh.”

Senior Climate Fellow Andrew Holland wrapped up the event by asking General Muniruzzaman if Bangladesh was truly prepared for the national security challenges of climate change, and if so what other countries could learn from his nation. “Bangladesh’s military is very ready for natural disasters, but not climate change,” he answered. However, a whole of government approach from every country in the world is the only way to comprehensively address the issue. Climate change, he argued,

“The best branding is good policy,” said Sir Martin Sorrell, founder and CEO of the world’s largest advertising and communications company, WPP. Sir Martin was the main speaker at ASP’s event on Nation Branding and Global Politics earlier today, where he shared perspectives on country and city branding. Stephen Cheney, ASP’s CEO, joined the panel alongside Nelson Cunningham, ASP board member and president of McLarty Associates.

Listen to the event here

Some of Mr. Sorrell’s companies are behind several nation branding campaigns, including Mexico, India, Qatar, and the United States among others. And while most people understand the importance of branding to further a country’s national goals, he said, few know how to implement them successfully.

Although America’s image abroad has suffered in the past decade, he stressed the power it still commands and will continue to, despite the emergence of countries like China. “It’s always dangerous to underestimate America…It is in a much more powerful position than some want to recognize,” he added. However, as it faces budget constraints and a slow economic recovery, the United States must be more strategic with its investments, he said.

Particularly on resources for defense and foreign aid, the U.S. government must prioritize to be more effective. Message coordination is also key for the success of these efforts, he added. That is what makes China and Singapore so effective in managing their global brands. Their governments, he observed, synchronize messages across different ministries and departments.

Even amidst tightening budgets at home and abroad, WPP’s fastest growing client segment is still governmental, which highlights the worldwide perception of the importance of communication strategies.

Questioned on the best way to reach out to countries and groups that see the U.S. as an enemy, or that have “extreme opinions,” he maintained that neither propaganda nor force can win alone. Alongside those efforts must be economic programs to help countries, especially in the Middle East. “The Arab Spring was about unemployment” and the poor economic state of those countries, he said.

But according to Sir Martin, the audience can’t be lied to, and he believes good branding builds on the truth of a good product. “You can only sell a bad product once,” he said, and so nations must be sure they are selling their positive aspects and good policies to begin with.

For him, the future of nation branding lies, partly, with cities and states in the way of sub-state diplomacy. Sir Martin sees an increase on city branding which is poised to continue, since 50% of the world’s population lives in cities, with that number expected to rise substantially in the upcoming years. Because of their size, cities and states can at times be more successful as it is easier for them to coordinate messages.

Even as national governments grapple with how to present their international images, he pointed to the fact that what is done at the government level can be negated by what happens in the private sector. Companies and their products can shift foreign audiences’ perspectives of a country. In a globalized age, nations must understand they may not be able to control their messages entirely but should strive to shape global narratives regardless.

Click below to listen to the event:

 

Video:

flickr gallery: