by Daniel Korski | Jul 29, 2008 | Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, North America, UK
National security reform is, I guess, one of the leitmotifs of this blog and both Charlie and I have written about this in its U.S and British forms.
Now, the U.S Project on National Security Reform (full disclosure: I advise the project pro bono) is about to publish its first report, Ensuring Security in an Unpredictable World: The Urgent Need For National Security Reform.
Based on research and analysis by more than 300 national security experts from think tanks, universities, federal agencies, law firms and corporations – it identifies the following major problems in in the national security system:
- Frequent feuding and jurisdictional disputes between cabinet secretaries and other agency heads that force the president to spend too much time settling internal fights, waste time and money on duplicative and inefficient actions, and slow down government responses to crises.
- Too much focus by the president and his top advisers on day-to-day crisis management rather than long-term planning, allowing problems to escape presidential attention until they worsen and reach the crisis level.
- An increasing number of political appointees who serve only briefly in top national security posts.
- A budget oversight process in Congress focused on individual agencies, crippling efforts to move quickly to fund emergency operations by multiple agencies.
- A Congress increasingly polarized along political party lines on vital national security issues.
PNSR member Thomas R. Pickering – who served as under secretary of state, ambassador to the United Nations and in other top posts in the State Department – has said:
Our national security system is broken and needs fixing. Agencies need to cooperate rather than compete with each other as they work to protect the United States from a broad range of new dangers never imagined when the National Security Act of 1947 was signed into law. This isn’t a Democratic or a Republican issue, but a challenge facing our country that must be met by America’s leaders on a bipartisan basis.
PNSR is scheduled to issue a final report in October recommending actions by Congress and the next president. The project is also expected to prepare draft presidential directives and a new National Security Act to replace many of the provisions of the one enacted 61 years ago. Now out of the presidential race, Senator Hillary Clinton is said to have taken a keen interest in sheparding legislation through Congress whilst both the Obama and McCain teams have had de facto representatives on the Project.
In other words: read the report available on here and watch this space…
by Alex Evans | Jul 28, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
It’s been his campaign’s policy since October last year, but in case you needed reassurance, here’s what Obama’s July 15 speech on foreign policy had to say about energy security (one of five national security priorities – the others being “ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; … and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century”):
One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.
This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.
This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern – this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security – and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump – we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that’s exactly what I’ll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won’t do. I’ll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We’ll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy – solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.
Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We’ll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.
It’s a much more progressive target than the G8 was able to come up with: at Hokkaido, the most leaders could manage was “at least 50%”. It’s more in line with the IPCC, too, which says that to limit temperature increase to between 2.0 and 2.4 degrees C, the 2050 reduction needed is between 50 and 85 per cent: so assuming you want 2.0 rather than 2.4, and adding in the rate of sink failure as well, we should certainly be looking at closer to an 85 than a 50 per cent reduction by 2050 (see page 15 of this).
And lest you wonder, yup, he’s talking about 80 per cent below 1990 levels, rather than the 2000 levels (which would be a lot less demanding). Here’s his campaign’s full energy policy brief.
by Daniel Korski | Jul 27, 2008 | East Asia and Pacific, North America, South Asia
Bill Emmott, the former editor of The Economist, has a great – if glibly-titled – piece in The Times today, articulating what I have thought for a while (OK – what I should have thought): that while Fareed Zakaria talks about a post-American order where U.S influence is giving way to the power of the “Rest” (China, India etc.) both Barack Obama and John McCain seem to live in a decidedly Euro-centric world.
Look at Senator Obama’s stops on his recent trip – Europe, the Middle East and, of course, Afghanistan. The itinerary is hardly any different from what Bill Clinton’s would have done in 1992 – that is, go to Europe, the Middle East and to where U.S forces are deployed. But, as Emmot says, the future of the U.S may be determined in Asia, not Europe or even the Middle East:
Three issues in Asia will be, or should be, high on the new president’s briefings when he enters office in January. In order of immediacy they are inflation, climate change and the balance-of-power politics.
So what do Obama and McCain say about a rising China, a resurgent Russia, rivalry between India and Pakistan Asian countries? Very little. Or, at least very little compared to what they say about other issues.
At the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama said:
In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges.
To deal with these, Obama will “forge a more effective regional framework in Asia that will promote stability, prosperity and help us confront common transnational threats such as tracking down terrorists and responding to global health problems like avian flu.”
Nothing wrong with this, but a profound policy statement it is not. Nor does it deal with many of the gremlins in the U.S-China relationship like the trade balance.
McCain has been more forward on how he would deal with China and Russia. He has meet with the Dalai Lama and urged China to address human rights concerns and free Tibetan prisoners.
His tough-guy stance is even tougher on Russia. The U.S, says McCain, should respond harshly to Russia’s anti-democratic actions, and warns of the “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia”. On the campaign trail, McCain jokes that when he looks in Vladimir Putin’s eyes, he sees three letters: KGB.
But while the Arizona senator’s stance is tough and clear, he can hardly have thought through the implications of such a stance against Moscow, given the price of oil, the views of America’s allies etc.
Bottom-line is that while both candidate have talked about U.S relations with the “Rest”, both lag behind today’s leading foreign policy intellectuals in developing a serious set of U.S. policies towards the new powers and seem more comfortable in a Euro-centric mindset. That may be good for Europe in the short-term, but bad in the long-term. For the way in which the U.S and Europe relate to these new powers will determine how the world looks in the next 10 years.
by Alex Evans | Jul 24, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, North America
Last year, while she was still working as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and chair of international security at West Point – and shortly before she went to the State Department as deputy head of policy planning – Kori Schake wrote a pamphlet for the Center for European Reform entitled The US Elections and Europe: The coming crisis of high expectations.
In it, she argued that in order to avoid such a crisis, and to capitalise on the change of leadership in the US,
Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to adjust their sights. Any changes that the new American president introduces on issues that matter to Europe – Iran or climate change – will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Europeans and Americans will need to find a way to talk about Iraq in terms that resonate with both sides and do not belittle the continuing US involvement. The US feels alone in bearing the burden of Iraq, and Americans tend to gloss over the political price their European allies paid for supporting the war.
Europeans will also need to find ways of reminding the US of their comparative value as allies. Americans are likely to enter into one of their periodic fits of searching for better allies than the Europeans.
As Europe waits breathlessly for Obama’s set-piece speech in Berlin, this sounds like sage advice (particularly given the gentle dressing down that the Germans can apparently expect on troop commitments in Afghanistan). But there’s another reason to read Kori’s pamphlet, too: she’s now one of the key foreign policy advisers to John McCain.
by Alex Evans | Jul 21, 2008 | North America, UK
Sam Coates points us to this from the Sunday Times:
[Obama] will have a 45-minute meeting on Saturday morning with Gordon Brown followed by a press conference, which Obama will conduct on his own outside Downing Street in a blatant departure from the usual protocol.
There will be no Brown at his side to spoil the No 10 backdrop for American voters, even though it would be unthinkable for a British prime minister to appear in the White House Rose Garden without the president. Brown will say a few words later in the day, once Obama has gone.
