American Security Project

In ASP’s Geopolitics of Energy Security in the Eastern Mediterranean event’s second panel, ASP hosted Sir Michael Leigh, a senior fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Ms. Anne Korin, the Co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, and Mr. Emre Tuncalp, the managing partner of Sidar Global. The panelists discussed the role of energy relationships in the Eastern Mediterranean for building cooperation, as well as what barriers are present to developing these relationships.

Speaking first was Sir Michael Leigh, who set the framework for the discussion on energy issues in the Eastern Mediterranean:

“When Noble Energy began drilling offshore from Cyprus, we heard the first challenging or even threatening words from Turkey on this. This really rang a lot of bells with me, as these were countries that I knew very well from previous involvement, and I saw the risk of these resources, which really ought to be for the benefit of all the peoples in the region, instead becoming a source of conflict and exacerbating longstanding disputes.”

Sir Michael explained that energy cooperation is never a source of peace, but it does reinforce peace. Leigh emphasized the need for Israel and its neighbors to find cooperation on issues that are nonpolitical in order to create lasting relationships which will foster further cooperation. Speaking from an EU perspective, Leigh explained that there is great potential for the energy in the Eastern Mediterranean to help the EU and other countries move away from their reliance on Russia, and that the EU has strong interest in seeing successful energy development in the Mediterranean.

 

Next was Ms. Anne Korin, who spoke on the realities of energy company interests in the Eastern Mediterranean:

“Until there’s confidence established that we know what the rules are, and we know that they’re not going to change, and we can safely invest, and know what our return will be—assuming we overcome technical hurdles and other risks—until we know that the government won’t change the rules of the game, none of that potential can be realized.”

Ms. Korin spoke of the biggest barrier to energy development in Israel, the issue that the Israeli government has attempted to “socialize the reward while privatizing the risks,” speaking of the issue where the companies which are taking on the biggest risks are already having their rewards taken from them, and there is very little incentive for them to enter the market when they have no confidence in a return on their investment.

 

Last was Mr. Emre Tuncalp, who spoke on how Turkey plays a role on energy in the Eastern Mediterranean:

“Turkey has a decades long ambition to become a transit country, and an energy hub; taking advantage of its geopolitical position and its strategic location between the supply centers and the demand centers.”

Mr. Tuncalp stressed Turkey’s desire to see development of energy in the region for its economic prosperity, since it is almost entirely reliant on foreign energy (importing roughly 98% of its consumed energy). Turkey is also well positioned to be a hub for energy, enhancing its role in regional politics. So despite Turkey’s rhetoric that it wants Israel to change its policies before doing business, private investment between Turkey and Israel has been on an upward trend and Turkey has a strong interest in seeing the success of energy cooperation.

In ASP’s Geopolitics of Energy Security in the Eastern Mediterranean event’s final panel, ASP hosted Steve Lutes of the US Chamber of Commerce, David Gillers of the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Ben Dillon, VP of Communications and Government Relations for Noble Energy. The panel discussed the US interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and its role in promoting energy cooperation and investment opportunities.

David Gillers spoke first on the US’ role in promoting regional stability through energy investments and projects. He emphasized the commercial and strategic aspects of US interests in the region. Commercially, Gillers said the US is “interested in American companies succeeding abroad” through initiatives like trade agreements and export promotion. Strategically, regional stability was key:

“The Eastern Mediterranean is an area of the world where regional dynamics are very delicately balanced. The US should take any opportunity to strengthen or balance commercial ties for matters of regional stability.”

Gillers spoke on the ability of these energy initiatives to promote regional cooperation. He cited the recent letter of intent signed between Israel and Jordan for a pipeline that would run between the two countries, the first cross-border project since the 1994 peace accords. Gillers was clear:

“Energy is a very special commodity. It’s the great equalizer.”

Ben Dillon spoke next, focusing on Noble Energy’s role in Eastern Mediterranean energy. Current Israeli domestic political issues have stifled Noble’s  progress in the country, where the company wants to provide excess gas from Tamar field- Israel’s only currently producing field- to Egypt and Jordan. Tamar field also provides half of Israel’s electric power and Dillon refers to the project as an “amazing example of what can occur when all the pieces come together.”

Anti-trust and energy tax issues are among several obstacles facing Noble at present day. Dillon reaffirmed the company’s commitment to cooperating with Isreal, however, saying they “look forward to working with the new government.” Addressing these issues will be key in bringing in other investors. As Dillion notes:

“Capital needs confidence and confidence must be earned.”

Steve Lutes of the US Chamber of Commerce spoke last, outlining the prospects for US and regional business partners via energy cooperation:

“Increased regional cooperation [in the Eastern Mediterranean] creates a better business environment for the US across all sectors, not just energy.”

Lutes also discussed the importance of working toward interests for the region in addition to the US. Increased cooperation and an emphasis on energy diplomacy can increase revenues and create jobs for these regional governments. It can bring stability.

“We support this idea of energy cooperation and are working not only with our own government but also with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and elsewhere.”

On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, November 17, 18, and 19, representatives of the American Security Project visited Orlando and Tampa, Florida 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 Don Kerrick, USA (ret.) and Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.). Kerrick was a 30 year veteran of the Army. He served in the White House as the Deputy National Security Advisor to the President, and served as a principal negotiator on the United States Balkans Peace Delegation that negotiated an agreement ending the Bosnian War. Kennedy, a 30 year veteran, was the first woman to achieve the rank of three-star general in the United States Army. She served as the senior intelligence officer for U.S. Forces Command, Deputy Commanding General for the Army Intelligence Center and School and completed her Army career as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. Both are members of ASP’s Consensus for American Security. Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate, and Porter Brockway, ASP’s events manager, rounded out the delegation.

University of Central Florida

The first stop on the tour was at the University of Central Florida, where Generals Kennedy and Kerrick served as the joint keynote speakers for the 7th Annual International Breakfast to kick off “International Education Week” at UCF. Their 8:30 AM speech started when Holland laid out the facts about climate change in a presentation, and then Generals Kerrick and Kennedy discussed how climate change is going to change the operating environment for the military, and discussed some of the threats that poses. They 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. They spoke to about 500 people, mostly a mix of UCF faculty and students.

UCFs “Global Perspectives” office is a University partner of ASP; their director, Dr. John Bersia, facilitated the event. The entire event is available as a podcast, so take a listen.

Audio of University of Central Florida Keynote Address

After the event ended, ASP participants went to lunch with a select group of faculty and graduate students involved in the UCF Global Perspectives program. This allowed a deeper discussion of the issues around climate change and national security.

Global Perspectives Television Interview

After lunch, the two Generals proceeded to a televised interview with Dr. John Bersia, Director of the UCF Global Perspectives office, on his television show, “Global Perspectives.” The show airs on WUCF, the Public Television affiliate in Central Florida. Each had their own interview, and discussed their careers in the Army, and why they believe the military is planning for climate change. The interviews aired on WUCF on February 8 and February 15, 2015, and are available through WUCF’s website: Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick and Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy. Their interviews are embedded below.

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the American Security Project hosted Dr. Seyom Brown in a discussion of President Obama’s national security policy. Dr. Brown sat down with ASP CEO BGen Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret) and examined key questions regarding the current Administration’s national security policy choices and highlighting key resemblances to the past policies of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. This is the central argument in Brown’s newest book, Faces of Power: Constancy and Change in United States Foreign Policy from Truman to Obama.

Dr. Seyom Brown is an Adjunct Senior Fellow for ASP. He has also held senior research and policy analysis positions at the RAND Corporation, Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Belfer Center at Harvard University. He has also served as a Special Assistant in the Office of International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense and a Special Assistant to the Director of Policy Planning in the Department of State. Dr. Brown has taught at numerous universities, including: Harvard, Brandeis, SAIS, Columbia, Chicago, UCLA, and SMU. In addition to his newest book, he is the author of twelve books on U.S. foreign policy and international relations.

Brown opened optimistically:

“There can be no doubt that Obama has been completely dedicated to serving US national interests.”

He began by posing key questions regarding Obama’s national security policy at the outset. Some of these questions included Obama’s policy regarding the use of force, his beliefs about the biggest threats to national security, and his emphasis on human rights and democracy. Highlighting notable foreign policy decisions of past administrations (Eisenhower in the Suez Crisis, Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs, etc), Brown argued that the national security policies of the Obama’s administration in his second term closely mirror the policies of the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations in terms of action and ideology.

On the use of force, Brown emphasized Obama’s preference for “just war” as contributing to reasons for his “hesitancy” in committing troops abroad. The Administration, he argued, views war as a last resort and sometimes necessary condition to deal with conflict. Brown addressed this hesitancy:

“There are specific situations where the carrots or sticks of diplomacy need to be applied. In the toolbox of diplomacy, pressures have always been a part of foreign policy.”

When asked about changes in Obama’s foreign policy direction between his first and second terms, Brown noted an interesting comparison to the administration of Ronald Reagan. In his first term, Obama was focused on domestic well-being in the US, specifically battling unemployment and healthcare. International terrorism and conflict in the Middle East have dictated his second term’s focus, however. This runs counter to Reagan, whose first term was focused on foreign policy and defense spending while his second term had a domestic focus.

Brown hopes his book can “encourage a serious debate and dialogue about Obama’s national security policy” moving forward.

 

The American Security Project published a report on Thursday, February 12, entitled “Effective Measures for Tackling Climate Change: An Analysis of the Divestment Movement” at the National Press Club. Members from the media, US Government and advocacy groups were in attendance.

The report was presented by ASP’s Director of Strategy and Communications Paul Hamill and ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate Andrew Holland.

The report highlights the overall ineffectiveness of divestment as a way to fight climate change, instead calling for investment in innovative strategies to better combat the issue. Some potential solutions include carbon pricing and US Government investments in, and campaigns for, alternative and renewable energy sources. ASP maintains that climate change is a real and direct threat to our national security. Its effects act as an “accelerant of instability” and a “threat multiplier,” contributing to natural disasters and compromising our Homeland Security.

Holland spoke on the need to examine alternatives to fossil fuel divestment, stating that “the objectives are not wrong, but the tactics are not effective.” He went on to discuss the benefits of investing rather than divesting:

 “Over the next 30 years, the energy sector in the world is going to invest $70 trillion in energy, and there will be a choice about how that investment is going to be made. If you believe those investments should be made in a low or zero-carbon way, your voice has to be heard, and one of the best ways for your voice to be heard is to be an investor and raising your voice within the company.”

Hamill concluded:

“The effectiveness of the divestment campaign does not help to tackle our national security threats of climate change.”

 

For a summary of ASP’s report on Climate Change and Divestment, please click here.

The American Security Project hosted a half-day conference on Wednesday, February 4th examining energy security in the Caribbean. Nearly 100 experts from academia, International Financial Institutions, the US government, and private corporations attended the conference which consisted of three panels. These panels discussed the current geopolitical landscape of the Caribbean, policy challenges posed to the region, and potential solutions to alleviate dependence on fossil fuels. Introductory remarks were offered by Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate. He gave a brief overview of the Caribbean’s current energy situation and emphasized the importance of the recent American energy revolution and its role in reducing energy dependence in the region by providing affordable, available alternatives.

The panel was chaired by Dante Disparte, CEO of Risk Cooperative and Adjunct Fellow for ASP.

The final panel delineated the prominent energy issues facing the Caribbean and offered prescriptions for how to deal with these problems. Dr. Natasha Vidangos of the US State Department opened optimistically:

“The US cares a lot about prosperity in the Caribbean.”

Dr. Vidangos reaffirmed US commitment to achieving this prosperity, recalling the statements made by Vice President Biden last week. The US has an opportunity to use the energy revolution to help the Caribbean break from energy dependence. She placed heavy emphasis on the positive effects of public-private partnerships like the Blue Mountain Renewables in Jamaica.

Private corporations are also taking the lead on providing cleaner, affordable energy to the Caribbean. Luis Humberto Berrios, Vice President of Tropigas Puerto Rico, reaffirmed this commitment, stating that “the best way to bring about social and economic change is through low energy costs.” He goes on to mention the access to new forms of fuel created by the shale gas revolution, suggesting we “don’t look just at LNG, but other fuel sources as well.” These alternative sources are cheaper to produce and could provide returns on investments in as little as 120 days.

Chris Burgess of Carbon War Room echoed this sentiment, calling for an increase in tangible, sustainable energy projects. Referring to his organization as “the sharp end of the spear,” Burgess called for an increase of private investment into renewables. This would, Burgess argues, stimulate the islands’ economies and help remove the stigma of fossil fuel dependence. In summation, the panel agreed that any solutions to Caribbean energy security must be a process, not a series of “one-off projects” that produce limited results. This process, according to all panels, begins with US investment in the Caribbean. The energy revolution is happening now, and it’s time to spread the wealth. In closing, Dr. Vidangos summed up the theme of the conference:

“The Caribbean has a one of a kind opportunity here and we hope to help make that happen.”

Special thanks to Tropigas for generously sponsoring this event.   View the other Panel reviews here:

PANEL 1

The American Security Project hosted a half-day conference on Wednesday, February 4th examining energy security in the Caribbean. Nearly 100 experts from academia, International Financial Institutions, the US government, and private corporations attended the conference which consisted of three panels. These panels discussed the current geopolitical landscape of the Caribbean, policy challenges posed to the region, and potential solutions to alleviate dependence on fossil fuels.

Introductory remarks were offered by Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate. He gave a brief overview of the Caribbean’s current energy situation and emphasized the importance of the recent American energy revolution and its role in reducing energy dependence in the region by providing affordable, available alternatives.

The panel was chaired by Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate.

The second panel discussed policy challenges and viable energy alternatives to fossil fuels in the region in an effort to reduce energy dependence. Natacha Marzolf of the Inter-American Development Bank discussed her institution’s efforts in the Caribbean, including funding for infrastructure and green energy projects. Ms. Marzolf stated that these projects can potentially result “in a 20-25% reduction of fossil fuel dependence.”

Calls for US investment in the Caribbean amidst the American energy revolution and shale gas boom were also mentioned. Brian O’Hanlon of OPIC described the need for good governance, finance, and donor support concerning future US investments in the Caribbean. O’Hanlon also noted the potential difficulties of making investments in the region, namely the inability of some of the islands’ small markets to handle large infrastructure projects.

Concerning the proliferation of shale development and natural gas production in the US, Michael Zehr of HBW Resources noted that the Caribbean is a potentially huge investment opportunity. Zehr on the shale expansion:

“We know where the resources are. We’ve got the geological data to find it and go get it; we just need markets to sell it. It has introduced an entirely new element to investments in those places [Caribbean].”

In closing, the panel reiterated US commitment and interest to investing in Caribbean energy, both publicly and privately.

 

Special thanks to Tropigas for generously sponsoring this event.

View the other Panel reviews below:

PANEL 1

PANEL 3

The American Security Project hosted a half-day conference on Wednesday, February 4th examining energy security in the Caribbean. Nearly 100 experts from academia, International Financial Institutions, the US government, the media, and private corporations attended the conference which consisted of three panels. These panels discussed the current geopolitical landscape of the Caribbean, policy challenges posed to the region, and potential solutions to alleviate dependence on fossil fuels.

Introductory remarks were offered by Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate. He gave a brief overview of the Caribbean’s current energy situation and emphasized the importance of the recent American energy revolution and its role in reducing energy dependence in the region by providing affordable, available alternatives.

The panel was chaired by BGen Stephen Cheney, USMC(Ret), CEO of the American Security Project.

The first panel examined the complex overlap of geopolitics and the economics in the Caribbean. The panelists discussed the impact of falling oil prices, Venezuela’s spiraling economy, and Cuba’s potential role in the region moving forward. The panelists began by laying out just how dire the energy situation is in the Caribbean. Prosperity in the region is almost entirely dependent upon outsiders, with some islands importing as much as 99% of their total energy. They then went on to discuss the effect of declining oil prices on the Petrocaribe program, an oil partnership between Venezuela and numerous Caribbean states. Declining oil prices have greatly affected Venezuela, where oil and gas account for roughly 25% of the country’s GDP. Christian Gómez (Council of the Americas) described the situation in Venezuela as “precarious,” arguing that fall of the Petrocaribe program would have adverse effects on its Caribbean partner countries.

Cuba’s potential role in the region was also featuredin the first panel. Dr. Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado (University of Nebraska Omaha) discussed Cuba’s preparedness for alternative energy and emphasized the need for the country’s access to financial institutions to break from dependence on oil imports, 50% of which come from Venezuela.

Concerning US relations with Cuba, Dr. Benjamin-Alvarado was optimistic. Removing the embargo is the first step, he argues, in normalizing economic relations between the two countries in terms of funding and partnerships. On Cuba’s potential, he was clear:

“Economically, Cuba is a monster. It has the potential to be a true, regional juggernaut.”

Special thanks to Tropigas for generously sponsoring this event.

View the other Panel reviews below:

PANEL 2 

PANEL 3 

Nearly 20 percent of earth’s land area and over half the world’s population are exposed to at least one natural hazard. Increased demographic, social, and economic exposure to hazards together with climate change is rendering populations more vulnerable to severe disasters. Through their impacts on the environment, climate change-induced hazards will adversely affect our water and food resources, industries and societies, and public health.

Due to increasing global surface temperatures, rising sea levels and hot extremes, such as droughts, will become more frequent; the risk of flooding will increase in areas of heavier precipitation; tropical cyclones – typhoons and hurricanes, will become more intense, with higher wind speeds, and more precipitation. Climate change and the increasing severity of natural hazards are pressing global concerns that necessitate attention, action, and investment.

The American Security Project’s podcast on Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation featured Mr. Dante Disparte, founder and CEO of The Risk Cooperative and member of ASP’s Business Council.

Using the metaphor of a ‘frog in the boiling pot,’ Mr. Disparte discussed the urgency with which the private and public sectors need to adapt in order to address the risks posed by climate change hazards. He stressed the importance of not only preparedness, but of swiftly executed responses to natural disasters.  Mr. Disparte explored the notion of a moral hazard – the private sector’s risk-taking without risk-bearing, and illustrated the tensions it creates within disaster risk management. In addressing the major challenges to risk management in the future, he concluded by stating that accountability, transparency, education, and collaboration are absolutely essential.

On December 9th, ASP hosted a roundtable discussion sponsored by FTI Consulting with Admiral William Fallon, USN (Ret.); Mr. Daniel Grant, Assistant to the Administrator for Pakistan in the USAID Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs and Mr. Mark Thompson of APCO Worldwide, titled “Pakistan- Aid, Trade, and Security”.

The discussion was introduced by Mr. Edward Reilly of FTI Consulting and chaired by ASP’s Director of Strategy and Communications Paul Hamill.

The geopolitical significance of Pakistan is undeniable, as is the instability plaguing the country. The discussion opened with each speaker offering their perspective on the barriers facing Pakistan’s development and key strategies for improvement going forward. No issue was ignored; from Pakistan’s relationships with India and Afghanistan, the “youth bulge” in the population, the need for reliable electricity to spur development, to Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, China’s influence through investment and opportunities for US public and private investment to strengthen the US-Pakistan relationship were all examined in detail.

Admiral Fallon characterized the situation as, “bleak but with potential,” citing “continued political instability and serious issues of political economy, corruption” as the largest concern.

Joblessness among youth is another systemic problem, according to Grant. “Effectively 50% of the entire population is 22 years old.” The lack of meaningful work and income feeds a cycle of continued poverty and unrest. Grant also acknowledged the alarming energy deficit facing the country and the impact of unreliable power and rolling brownouts on economic development and security. Pakistan lacks the necessary transmission and wattage capabilities to meet the needs of its 300 million citizens. “If these needs were met, it would be a major economic engine for development and stability efforts.”

Mark Thompson of APCO focused on the importance of changing the perception of Pakistan in the global community, and the role of business diplomacy going forward. “Business diplomacy is key for Pakistan moving forward and is another method for the Pakistani community inside and outside the country to change the situation.” Private investment could also go along way to repair the fractured U.S-Pakistani partnership. Thompson cited Pakistani opinions towards China, which are largely positive, as an example of progress through investment.

The event in its entirety can be heard by clicking on the podcast link above. ASP looks forward to continuing the discussion on how development and US ,private sector lead trade and investment can support the security priorities of both Pakistan and the US.