American Security Project

On Tuesday, December 15, the American Security Project hosted Understanding What’s Next in Fusion Technology – an event that featured prominent scientists from nuclear fusion labs and companies.

ASP’s Andrew Holland began by briefly explaining the fundamental science behind fusion energy and the developments that have taken place thus far. “It’s something that’s happening right now in labs in this country and all across the world,” he stated.

The first speaker, Dr. Dennis Whyte of MIT, followed up by discussing the need for more R&D research. Doing so, he argued, would make reliable magnetic fields within reach. Dr. Whyte predicted that a modest 5-year investment could potentially lead to a small-size demonstration. He then discussed his planned ARC reactor and noted that the science for the reactor is proven, but the risk is in developing the technology for such a break through.

Mr. Michael Delage of General Fusion supplemented Dr. Whyte’s input by highlighting the progress the Canadian company has made so far utilizing magnetized target fusion. “The technology for making the plasma that we need has come a long way… so we can actually start to build these things at large scale,” he claimed.

Likewise, Dr. Douglas Witherspoon of HyperV Technologies Corp. discussed the progress his company has made using plasma jet magneto inertial fusion. He explained the plasma liner experiment (funded by ARPA-E), which will see its first experiments next year. He also noted that improvements still need to occur, especially with engineering.

Lastly, Dr. Richard Barth of Tri-Alpha Energy talked about the company’s methodology, including the proposed usage of boron isotopes in order to ensure that there is no leftover radiation. The work so far has garnered much attention, though more research will occur after modifying and rebuilding their equipment.

The Q&A session followed Barth’s presentation.

The first question dealt with an issue that resonates with most investors: timelines. Delage remained hesitant to give a concrete timespan, noting the uncertainties generated by development risks. They key, he argued, is to get the rest of the energy sector excited about fusion energy. Doing so would possibly set a timeline of about 10 years, though he cautioned that this requires complete participation of the energy sector.

Whyte added that a variety of approaches will definitely help, and that we should not wait too long on fusion.

When asked about the fossil fuel industries’ response to fusion energy, Holland stated that he has not seen any mischief. Mr. Delage went further, noting that one of General Fusion’s investors is a Canadian oil company.

When asked about funding, Dr. Witherspoon admitted that attracting private funding remains difficult, as the payoff does not occur in only a few years.

This might signal competitiveness among the companies, which certainly exists; however, the panel unanimously expressed their desire to see any company succeed, hence the collaborative efforts seen among the companies and laboratories.

This is also why they want fusion to serve as a viable discussion topic regarding energy security. The more attention and funding fusion projects receive, the more likely a project somewhere in the world will succeed.

On Friday, December 11, the American Security Project hosted the Department of Defense Action on Climate Change event. It featured a distinguished panel discussing the Department of Defense Climate Adaptation Roadmap and the results of ASP’s National Climate Security Tour.

The first speaker, Ms. Maureen Sullivan from the DoD, explained why climate change concerns the department.

“Climate change is a risk… We deal with risks,” she stated, noting that the military must have a resilient infrastructure in order to conduct successful operations. Issues caused by climate change, such as flooding, can damage military and civilian infrastructure as well as increase the difficulty in operations.

The DoD’s Roadmap addresses these risks. It lists three major goals: (1) identify and assess the risk of climate change; (2) integrate climate change into the decision-making process; (3) collaborate with internal and external stakeholders, which would ideally allow the department and local governments to better manage the risks.

The next step involves institutionalizing the roadmap into a formal DoD directive. She expects that directive to be published next week. The policy section of this directive acknowledges the necessity of adapting to climate change by anticipating future risks.

Ms. Sullivan expanded on this point by discussing the screening level vulnerability survey, which aims to look into 7,000 sites worldwide. This may involve analyzing construction projects on flood plains and determining whether or not to shift locations. It may also look at extreme weather events that could threaten military base stability and the surrounding community.

She also noted that the DoD has three 2-year pilot programs that aim to develop a replicable process that allows one to work with the community. The first program looked into the Mountain Home air-force base in Colorado and the issue of water access. The second one analyzes the risk extreme heat and flooding events have on the Michigan National Guard. The last one examined the different geological and infrastructure problems that plague the Norfolk military base.

Ms. Sullivan concluded by briefly noting the DEIC Program, which supports international engagement and establishes partnerships to mitigate the risks of climate change. This all supports her overarching premise: “Climate change is a risk we must address.”

The next speaker, ASP CEO BGen Stephen Cheney, discussed the recent tour the think tank went on to discuss climate change from a national security perspective. He reiterated the notion that climate change serves as a “threat multiplier,” and how it has exacerbated terrible situations in nations such as Mali and Syria.

Cheney highlighted some of the many things he learned from the tour. One of the most impressive feats involved a cooperative effort in the southwest – the Colorado River Compact, which now serves as a model for international water discussions. As a result from this deal, Phoenix greatly reduced its water consumption to 1950s levels, despite hosting a much larger population.

Another highlight involved Charleston’s Boeing assembly plant, which now generates more energy than it consumes. Projects such as these highlight the desire for local officials to take action.

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, the American Security Project hosted an event featuring Minister Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands. He discussed the devastating effects climate change is already having on the islands, as well as the international cooperation needed to tackle this problem quickly and effectively.

Minister de Brum began by noting, “A country’s security is a function of its location.” As a “large ocean nation,” not a “small island state,” de Brum explained the general fears the island population has in the coming decades if the world does not act on climate security.

“We are literally at the mercy of rising waves,” he exclaimed.

The rising oceans in an area lying just two meters above sea level pose as only one risk. Already the nation has experienced two national emergencies since 2013, leading Mr. de Brum to claim, “We are living in a warzone.”

This has caused economic costs, such as a major typhoon wiping out 3% of the Islands’ GDP. Things can only get worse, and this situation is not unique to the Islands, de Brum stated.

That is why the Paris negotiations in December can serve as a major inflection point – a “force multiplier.” He also calls upon the United States to do what it can to defend the Marshall Islands.

“If my country goes, so too will your military bases,” declared the minister.

Mr. de Brum also expressed the importance of global cooperation in combating climate change, noting that over 150 countries – including the Marshall Islands – have joined the United States and submitted their INDCs, effectively covering more than 90% of global emissions.

To ensure the best success, the minster stated that Paris needs to have (1) practical terms, and (2) a mechanism that allows countries to adapt to new technological advances every 5 years. Cheaper solar technology, for example, allows countries to set even bigger emission goals.

The Green Climate Fund must be secured, urged the minister. With this, accelerated adaptation can create resilience to the most vulnerable states. In addition, increased coordinated effort can reduce IMO emissions, another policy the minister called for.

Minister de Brum went on to explain the actions the Marshall Islands have taken themselves to reduce emissions. They have established a 99% solar energy rate in the outer islands and have been working with a French firm to reintroduce OTEC. The Islands have also begun introducing fish farming techniques that can better help the environment. Mr. de Brum did note, however, that while short-term solutions such as purchasing land and building platforms remain on everyone’s mind, the real goal is still to reduce net emissions to 0 by mid-century.

The takeaway from these revelations is simple: “If we can do it, so can you.” This mentality could hopefully influence other nations to take action. Small nations such as the Islands face the most risk, hence the urgency of these nations to push larger nations to take action. They also face the most challenges, as their resources are noticeable smaller than other countries’.

As such, saving the Marshall Islands serves not only as a moral and national security imperative, it also serves as a motivational factor. Saving the Islands implies that the world has coordinated effectively and established policies that can assist even the most vulnerable countries.

As the minster declared,

 

In panel 3 of its conference on cyber security, ASP hosted Michele Markoff, Deputy Coordinator for Cyber Issues at the U.S. Department of State (DOS), Colonel Jon Brickey, National Capital Region Liaison and Assistant Professor at Army Cyber Institute at West Point, and Hon. Bijan R. Kian, Chairman of the Board of Directors for iCelero.  William G. Lay, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Information Assurance and Chief Information Security Officer for DOS, moderated the panel. The two panels prior focused on “Lessons from the OPM Attack” and “Consequences for the Military,” whereas this panel highlighted the roles of the U.S. government, the military, and the private sector in maintaining cyber security.

Michelle Markoff began by highlighting the need to establish international peacetime norms and laws that will direct states on how to respond to cyber threats, the U.S. government’s stance regarding the UN charter that guides states’ use of kinetic military tools and how it also applies to cyber-attacks, and how the U.S. government is taking “Confidence Building Measures” (CBM) to preserve cyber security

“Norms are not for disrupters, per se, the bad guys.  The norms are for the vast majority of peaceful states who rally around us [the U.S.] and agree when the acceptable line of behavior has been crossed and permit us to take action against disrupters.”

 

 

 

COL John Brickey quoted the current U.S. national security strategy for cyber threats and noted that it describes U.S. defensive capabilities, but does not discuss U.S. offensive capabilities beyond prosecuting violators to the fullest extent of the law.

 

“We’ll defend ourselves, consistent with U.S. and international law, against cyber-attacks and impose costs on malicious cyber actors, including through prosecution…and that’s it.”

 

Afterwards, he described the idea of a cyber escort for vulnerable things as similar to the concept of how a Navy escort ensures safe passage for unarmed vessels along a given route.  Although the idea sounds good in theory, real world solutions do not work the same way for cyber-world problems.

 

 

To round off the panel, Bijan Kian stressed the need to outpace the ever-changing tech cyber-world with viable countermeasures.

 

“Countermeasures take time to build…By the time a system is in place, that system is obsolete.”

 

Kian also called for the need to expand relationships between the public sector and the private sector in order to better craft viable countermeasures.  He also emphasized that the private sector businesses should objectively observe the rules regarding cyber security.  We cannot rely on just one mean of securing our networks.  Cooperation is the key.

 

“Sometimes merely convincing a state of the benefits of following the rules is not enough to deter them from being malicious.  In this case, other measures are necessary to confront them.”

 

At the conclusion of the panelists’ speeches, William Lay asked them two questions to gauge their opinions on matters relating to cyber security.  Summaries of panelists’ responses will be indicated as such.

 

First, Lay asked about the role of the private sector.

 

Bijan Kian said that there is a grey area when it comes to who [public/private sectors] assumes responsibility for protecting infrastructure.  He said a partnership of all institutions is essential in order to have shared a responsibility for infrastructure.  It comes down to cooperation and incentives for cooperation.  Intellectual incentives are just as important, if not more important, as financial incentives.

 

Michele Markoff is quoted as saying,

Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy Security spoke with David Ferris, a reporter for EnergyWire and E&E Publishing about Cuba’s energy system.

In the recent ASP report “Potential Areas of Cooperation Between the U.S. and Cuba,” Holland and ASP Adjunct Fellow Philip Rosetti identify energy as an area of cooperation.

Ferris recently returned from a trip to Cuba, where he attended a conference on renewable energy deployment. Cuba has ambitious targets for renewables, and Ferris said that, because Cuba is a command economy, they may actually meet them.

On the other hand, he discussed how polluted Havana seemed, citing how power plants on the island burn crude oil directly (instead of cleaner-burning refined fuel) and how the old cars in Cuba have almost no pollution controls.

For more on Cuban energy, read his two articles, “Cuba wants clean energy. Can the U.S. deliver?“ and “Inside the retro world of Cuban energy” through EnergyWire.

Listen to the full podcast above, and follow David on Twitter at @DavidFerris.

On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday – March 25th through 27th – representatives of the American Security Project visited Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana for a series of meetings, public events, and briefings on how climate change is affecting security, how institutions in the region are planning for it, and how that will impact the careers of military and civilians working on national security in the future.

Attending were Lieutenant General Arlen Jameson, USAF (Ret.) and Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.). Cheney is the CEO of the American Security Project, and a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps. His career includes a wide variety of command and staff positions, including Inspector General of the Marine Corp and Commanding General at Parris Island. Jameson served in the Air Force for more than three decades, most of them in strategic missile forces; since retirement, the lifelong Texan has been involved in military and commercial space businesses and has served as Executive Director of the Texas Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. Porter Brockway, ASP’s events manager, rounded out the delegation.

 

Sit-Down Interview with The Advocate

Hours after ASP’s delegation landed in Baton Rouge, Generals Cheney and Jameson sat down with reporter Amy Wold of The Advocate. The generals discussed with Ms. Wold the national security implications of climate change as well as some of the impacts to the Louisiana area. Gen. Cheney noted that many people do not see climate change as a national security issue but that hopefully this stop on the national tour will bring about more visibility to the issue.

Read the full article from The Advocate

Louisiana State UniversityThe first public discussion on the tour was at Louisiana State University, where Generals Cheney and Jameson spoke to a crowd of faculty, students, and local residents. Their 6:00 PM speech started with General Cheney laying out the facts about climate change in a presentation and drawing upon personal stories to relate this to the audience. Then General Jameson discussed how climate change is going to change the operating environment for the military, and continued to discuss some of the threats stated by Cheney.Together, the two generals drew upon their years in intelligence and planning to discuss how the military views all threats: they identify a risk, then take measures to reduce that risk – unlike the politically charged process in which climate and energy policy is made today.The event was organized by Dr. Christopher D’Elia, Dean of the School of the Coast and Environment for Louisiana State University.Audio of the Louisiana State University Presentation.

 

Tulane University

The next stop on the tour brought Generals Cheney and Jameson to the campus of Tulane University in New Orleans, a small private University in the heart of the city.

At this event, ASP spoke to a group of 50 students and faculty during a midday presentation. Similar to LSU, General Cheney and Jameson presented the case that climate change is not only real, but a national security priority that the U.S. military is confronting. With the dangers of climate change being an ever present threat in New Orleans, it was not difficult for the audience to relate to what Gen.

Lilianne Ploumen, Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation for the Netherlands, addressed a crowd of roughly 75 on Thursday, April 16th on the importance of transatlantic cooperation at ASP’s conference entitled “The Geopolitics of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.” Minister Ploumen discussed the potential benefits of TTIP, citing her own countries economic success as an example.

Minister Ploumen opened her speech with a brief history of the Netherlands, saying that cooperation is what has directly attributed to the country’s history of economic successes. She describes the need for cooperation as “engrained in [our] genes.” Suggesting that cooperation is key to long-term economic success, Ploumen views TTIP as a crucial instrument in promoting that success.

TTIP would promote what Ploumen calls “inclusive economic growth,” benefitting all parties involved. Together, the US and EU account for roughly half of the world’s GDP and almost one third of world trade. The Minister continued:

“Every day, $2.7 billion worth of goods and services go back and forth over the ocean, employing 15 million people. Dutch trade and investments alone account for some 700,000 US jobs. It’s fair to presume that this number will rise as a result of TTIP.”

Minister Ploumen also discusses the humanitarian value of TTIP, discussing universal rights, equality, and an inclusive global community. In addition to its economic parameters, TTIP would establish “basic norms and standards,” on issues like consumer safety and intellectual property rights. Further, while TTIP is an agreement between the US and EU, it is seen as a building block toward global cooperation, what Ploumen referred to as “Mundus Lieber,” or Free World.

In advocating for TTIP, Ploumen also spoke on improvements than can be made dealing with issues like arbitration and investment protection standards:

“To sum up: the rules on investment protection must be tightened up and made clearer so that everyone knows where they stand. [T]he goal must always be a solid, sustainable and socially just system.”

In closing, Minister Ploumen spoke on the importance of creating universal standards and legislation regarding TTIP. This would greatly benefit developing countries, where compliance with separate US and EU standards is simply too costly. Ploumen noted an example of this

“It will be a relief for them to abolish the absurd situation of an African farmer with two fields, one of which complies with US legislation and the other with EU legislation.”

 

At ASP’s Geopolitics of TTIP Conference, was chaired by ASP President and President of McLarty Associates Nelson Cunningham, and featured: Mr. Kurt Tong, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs at the State Department; Lt. Gen. Dan Christman USA, Ret., Senior Vice President for International Affairs at the United States Chamber of Commerce; Dr. Daniel Hamilton, Director for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies; and Ambassador Charles Ries, currently a Vice President at RAND Corporation. These experts spoke on the importance that TTIP will have on future U.S.-EU relations.

Speaking first was Mr. Kurt Tong, who spoke on why TTIP and TPP specifically are important trade agreements for U.S. policy:

“The way to be competitive when you are a high-value added economy is fair rules and clear rules, and an operating environment which is not to the disadvantage of U.S. companies or U.S. workers and farmers.”

Mr. Tong emphasized that TTIP will enhance the U.S.-EU relationship by creating commonality in agenda setting, and explained that broad multilateral trade agreements are ideal for the U.S. since it takes a lot fewer political resources to get one large agreement through Congress rather than numerous small ones. Mr. Tong predicts that TTIP will make the U.S. and EU function more as a team, and present a stronger unified force on security and economic issues.

Speaking next was Lt. Gen. Dan Christman USA (Ret.), who spoke more with an emphasis to the security benefits of a large free trade agreement with Europe:

“[TTIP] is the equivalent of a forward deployed armor brigade in Poland, or the Baltics. There are huge geostrategic movements on the European continent, and I think you know from where they derive, and U.S. forward presence, especially ground troops, have enormous impact. I judge TTIP in those terms.”

General Christman spoke of the importance of TTIP as a tool to enhance Europe’s hard security through economic security, specifically declaring that TTIP would help European nations to “fill the coffers” and put them in a better position to reinvest in their flagging military spending. In addition to this military strength through economic strength, Christman referenced the importance of TTIP in making Europe less reliant on Russia for strategically important resources like energy. Perhaps most importantly, he emphasized that Russia fears strengthened U.S.-EU ties, and wants to undercut those relationships. The U.S. should not allow that to happen.

Speaking more on how TTIP will play into U.S. grand strategy was Dr. Hamilton:

“It’s about repositioning the United States for the world it’s facing, not the world it left behind, and to do that with a whole set of other partners. In terms of the transatlantic piece of this it’s about the U.S. and Europe repositioning themselves for a world with much more diffuse economic power and intensified global competition that reaches far beyond the economics.”

Dr. Hamilton expressed that TTIP and TPP are about setting the terms for economic integration, and creating a set of standards that brings issues to the table which are not being discussed in the WTO. Dr. Hamilton said that TTIP was about, “maintaining standards—not lowering them,” and described TTIP and TPP as a “WTO Plus” which will set the terms for our economic cooperation globally. On a more regional level, Dr. Hamilton supported TTIP as a means of creating an anchor for coopera...

The afternoon’s final panel, “TTIP, Emerging Markets and the Multilateral Trading System,” examined TTIP as a potential catalyst to liberalize trade, how to ensure the final agreement is truly inclusive and strengthens multilateral trade systems like the WTO, and the impact of TTIP and related negotiations on emerging markets like BRIC nations.

Daniel J. Ikenson, Director of the CATO Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy, opened with the suggestion that a final deal is, “truly several years off.” While there are shared perspectives on many components of the deal between the EU and US, Ikenson indicated that the shifting of key agenda items like GMOs, privacy and intellectual property, makes a comprehensive, long-term agreement unlikely in the immediate future. Suggesting that the TTIP negotiations are foremost an incentive for individual states to tackle their own governance reform issues, he said

“Most countries are not looking for a US-hegemonic system. I would like to see us go for the low hanging fruit every two years rather than a grand trade agreement.”

Research Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School’s Institute of International Economic Policy Dr. Susan Aaronson addressed the audience next.

“TTIP could become the gold standard, making western [human, labor, and environmental rights] standards universal.”

Aaronson identified transparency as key to negotiations, except when discussing issues of national security or the intellectual property of firms.

“The internet has completely altered the informational flow. The trade negotiations of 20th century do not need to be the strategies of now.”

Aaronson closed by stating that for TTIP to be successful, “USTR needs to take a leading role in being accountable,” during negotiations. She also suggested more interaction with the general public, through crowdsourcing initiatives, as an opportunity to ensure a comprehensive and supported final deal.

 

 

Peter S. Rashish, Senior Advisor for Trade and Transatlantic Relations for Transnational Strategy Group, followed, stating

“As globalization increases, so does complexity as a result of diversity amoung economic systems. TTIP is a natural response to this diversity.”

Addressing TTIP’s impact on emerging markets, Rashish suggested the agreement catalyzed the renegotiation of existing trade and customs deals involving Brazil, Turkey, and other key markets.

“TTIP has had at least a neutral, if not a positive, impact on BRIC nations and emerging markets.”

Dr. Joshua Walker, Director Global Programs for conference-sponsor APCO Worldwide, supported the conclusions of his fellow panelists and hinted at the sequencing of TTP and TTIP before highlighting what he characterized as a “serious communications problem,” that stands to get in way of TTIP negotiations. Citing the criticism of TTIP in Turkey as an example, Walker argued the domestic political discussions surrounding the agreement have not been separated from the clear positive economic impact it stands to make. This trend is a major concern, argues Walker.

“While Turkey is not a member of the EU and cannot prevent TTIP from happening, it can be a real spoiler.”

Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for International Economic Affairs for the  National Security Council Christopher Smart carried Dr. Walker’s comments on TTP, TTIP and TPA, discussing the “coordinated strategic effort of the Administration” on TTIP....

In ASP’s Geopolitics of Energy Security in the Eastern Mediterranean event’s first panel, ASP hosted Tim Boersma, Director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy and Security Climate Initiative and Zack Gold, ASP Adjunct Fellow and Visiting Fellow for the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy & Climate, moderated the panel. The panel laid the groundwork for the rest of the event, discussing the current geopolitical atmosphere regarding Eastern Mediterranean Energy. ASP CEO BGen Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.) opened the event.

Tim Boersma spoke first, saying energy issues in the Eastern Mediterranean have received “very significant attention” in recent years. Focusing on Israel, he cited domestic politics as a “major factor” in shaping the country’s energy outlook. While the discovery of gas fields may have resolved Israel’s energy problems internationally, it opened up an entirely new series of debates domestically. The discovery of the Tamar and Leviathan fields galvanized debates about raising the country’s energy tax and reexamining their export policy. Boersma summarized the Israeli domestic situation with respect to energy:

“Domestic politics has greatly complicated the development of gas discoveries in Israel. It is uncertain when and whether Leviathan will be developed. Complex political relations in the region also complicate matters greatly in terms of the development and extractive distribution of resources.”

Zack Gold spoke next on the prospects for energy in promoting regional stability, particularly between Egypt and Israel. He opened optimistically:

“In terms of economics, it’s cost effective to export energy to the region. It simply makes sense to export to your neighbors when you’re a gas producing state and they are giant energy producing companies.”

Gold noted, however, that “economic interests don’t always defeat political interests.” This is especially true concerning Egyptian-Israeli relations, with the two countries having a complicated past. Regardless of past relations, the need to protect existing energy infrastructure is present. Gold cited the attacks on the Sinai pipeline, which travels from Egypt to Israel and Jordan, as an example. This is one example of what Gold called “burdens that will be shared.”

Additionally, the Tamar and Leviathan fields may bolster Israel’s regional influence moving forward. Gold stated:

“Israel’s interest sale of natural gas is more than simply financial. They want influence in region, and this push has often been led by Israel’s business community.”