Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography North America

361. National Security Update 4: The Implications of China’s Actions in the South China Sea and U.S. Options

Author:
Jack Kelly
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA)
Abstract:
This IFPA National Security Update addresses the potential consequences of China’s strategy to control the South China Sea and possible U.S. and allied responses. In early 2017, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis initiated an online series entitled National Security Update. Its purpose is to examine key foreign policy/defense issues and to set forth policy options. These updates are made available to the broad policy community within and outside government, including key policy makers in Washington, D.C.; members of Congress and their staffs; academic specialists; and other members of the private-sector security community. Future National Security Updates will address a range of topics in an effort to provide timely analyses and policy options.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Territorial Disputes, Grand Strategy, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, South China, and United States of America

362. The Global Exchange (Fall 2018)

Author:
Adam Frost, David J. Bercuson, Andrea Charron, James Fergusson, Robert Hage, Robert Huebert, Petra Dolata, Hugh Segal, Heidi Tworek, Vanja Petricevic, Kyle Matthews, and Brian Kingston
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Global Exchange
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The fundamental rules of conventional sovereignty are that states will refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other states, are afforded the right to determine their own domestic authority structures and are freely able to decide what international agreements they choose to enter or not. In principle these concepts have been widely accepted, but are often violated in practice. While conventional sovereignty would appear favourable in theory, realistically, the domestic affairs and foreign policy decisions of states can and do have consequences for others. Poor governance in one state can produce regional instability, from uncontrolled migration across borders, uncontrolled arms trade and other illicit trafficking or the rise of militant nonstate actors. Economic, environmental and health policies of one state can affect the food, water, health and economic security of another. These transnational issues are increasingly complex because the world is more globalized than ever before. No state exists in a vacuum. Therefore, it is often within a state’s interest to influence the policy decisions of its neighbours. Pragmatism often trumps abstract theoretical ideals. The lead package of this issue examines the challenges of securing Canada’s sovereignty from modern threats. When discussing Canadian sovereignty the Arctic will invariably be mentioned, and indeed is the focus of fully half of this edition. David Bercuson, Andrea Charron and James Fergusson argue that the perceived threats to Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic are overblown, resulting in alarmist rhetoric. Robert Hage, Rob Huebert and Petra Dolata, however, content that Canada must be vigilant if it does not wish to erode sovereign control of its Arctic territory. Going beyond the arctic circle, Hugh Segal and Heidi Tworek discuss the challenges of defending against hybrid threats and outline possible steps in response to such perils. From coordinating with our closest allies to no longer tolerate attacks against the integrity of our most valued institutions, to increasing transparency of activities and strengthen public trust in Canadian democracy via domestic measures. Finally, this package concludes on the issue of border control. Vanja Petricevic discusses the shortcomings of Canada’s current management of asylum seekers and how the concept of sovereignty is being adapted to address modern migration challenges. While Kyle Matthews asserts the importance of holding Canadian citizens responsible for their actions abroad because to do otherwise is not only dangerous, but an affront to Canadian ideals. Contemporary transnational challenges are complex and dynamic. The climate is changing, technology is enabling previously unimaginable feats, and global demographics and migration are creating new points of contention. If Canada is to navigate these issues, and defend its sovereignty, it must work closely with its international partners and ensure that it is capable and willing to stand on guard for thee.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Sovereignty, Immigration, Governance, Elections, Islamic State, Diversification, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
China, Canada, North America, Arctic, and United States of America

363. The Global Exchange (Spring 2018)

Author:
Adam Frost, David J. Bercuson, Andrew Rasiulis, Ross Fetterly, Lindsay Rodman, Lindsay Coombs, Stephen M. Saideman, Eugene Lang, David Perry, Alan Stephenson, Ian Mack, Adam Lajeunesse, Charity Weeden, and David Higgins
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Global Exchange
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
“Canada is a fireproof house, far from inflammable materials.” These were the naïve words of Canadian Senator Raoul Dandurand during his 1924 address to the League of Nations. Ironically, his speech took place between the two most devastating global conflicts in human history, and Canada was an active belligerent in both. However misguided Dandurand’s statement may have been, its sentiment has been woven into Canadian psyche by virtue of geographic reality. Canadians enjoy the privilege of a tremendously productive relationship with the United States, which remains the global hegemon. With geographical ties, Canadians and Americans also share a common history and broad cultural kinship. The strength of this relationship has afforded Canada a degree of security that would otherwise be unattainable, which affects Canadians’ perception of national security. It is an exceptional privilege of circumstance that defence is not required to be frequently in the forefront of public dialogue. However, while it is unlikely Canada will be confronted with an existential threat in the foreseeable future, it would be foolhardy for Canada to become complacent about preserving the means to defend its national interests when necessary. The 21st century international arena is rife with instability and change. These conditions create uncertainty. Canada’s armed forces are charged with the task of safeguarding and advancing Canada’s national interests when called upon, often in the most challenging of circumstances and environments. In order for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to be successful, the government of the day must adopt and implement pragmatic defence policy, and provide the CAF with the appropriate resources to meet expectations. This issue contends with the questions of how best Canada can enable the CAF to succeed in its assigned tasks, and outlines what some of those tasks ought to be to defend against contemporary threats in our era of increasing uncertainty. Policy-makers must consider the evolving threat environment in order to enable the CAF to effectively defend Canada’s interests. The proliferation of long-range ballistic missiles and offensive cyber capabilities poses significant threats to Canada and its closest allies. Climate change is also exposing Canada to new challenges in our Arctic territories, creating a growing need for surveillance and governance in the high Arctic to protect Canadian sovereignty. These are only a few of the emerging threats addressed in this issue. For the CAF to be capable of adapting to the multiplex of eventualities that it must be prepared to confront, it requires sufficient personnel and materiel. The mix of skills required in today’s armed forces is very different than in bygone eras. Personnel must also be properly equipped if they are to be effective in their roles. Therefore, recruiting and retaining people with expertise in diverse trades and the efficient and timely procurement of vital equipment are paramount if the CAF is to be a capable, adaptable and effective force.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, Budget, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

364. Preventing Endless War Requires Real Congressional Oversight—Not New War Authority

Author:
Ken Gude and Kate Martin
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Congress needs to do real oversight about how and whether the current wars should continue before considering any new AUMF.
Topic:
Defense Policy, War, Military Strategy, Legislation, Federalism, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

365. The Dual-System Problem in Complex Conflicts

Author:
Robert D. Lamb and Melissa R. Gregg
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Conflict and fragile environments are increasingly complex and unpredictable, but the U.S. policy system itself is much more complex and unpredictable than most leaders appreciate. In this monograph, the authors argue that until we get a grasp on this “dual-system problem,” the United States will fall further and further behind in its strategic ambitions.
Topic:
Defense Policy, War, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Society
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

366. NATO's Adaptation in an Age of Complexity

Author:
Denis General Mercier
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Next year NATO will celebrate its 70th anniversary. Through decades of a sometimes tumultuous existence in an ever-evolving and challenging security environment, the transatlantic Alliance has managed to remain a cornerstone of stability, peace, and security in the Euro–Atlantic region. Comprising 29 nations since the accession of Montenegro in 2017, NATO is grounded on the same values that presided at its creation, to: safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law, to promote stability and well-being in the North-Atlantic area.1 In the aftermath of World War II and in the early phases of the Cold War, this preamble could be read as an unambiguous will to preserve peace and security by all means necessary, and to prevent the resurgence of massive conflicts such as those that had twice ravaged Europe and the rest of the world during the previous 30 years. The menace to peace then identified has changed and evolved ever since, but the principles still stand as valid. The 1949 Treaty of Washington is quintessential in this regard, because it goes to the absolute essentials of what an alliance is—should it have to be rewritten today, changing a single word would probably be close to impossible. Though its values have remained constant, NATO the organization has evolved to meet new challenges and to adapt to a changing security environment. Indeed, NATO’s durability is closely connected to its ability to change, and to the collective resolve of its members to preserve the Alliance as an international security hub.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

367. Examining Complex Forms of Conflict: Gray Zone and Hybrid Challenges

Author:
Frank G. Hoffman
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
The Joint Force, and the national security community as a whole, must be ready and able to respond to numerous challenges across the full spectrum of conflict including complex operations during peacetime and war. However, this presupposes a general acceptance of a well understood taxonomy describing the elements that constitute the “continuum of conflict.” The U.S. security community lacks this taxonomy, despite its engagement in a spate of diverse conflicts around the globe from the South China Sea, to Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and beyond. Partially as a result of this conceptual challenge, we are falling behind in our readiness for the future. Understanding our future security challenges demands that we reflect and interpret the past, understand the present, and think rigorously about what lies over the horizon in order to adapt to the changing character of conflict. This requires keeping an open and informed mind about the breadth of the various modes of conflict that exist. The wars of the 21st century may take many forms. As conflict reflects a greater degree of convergence and complexity, so must our mental models and frameworks.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

368. Learning and Innovation: Jordan at the "Crossroads of Armageddon"

Author:
Beth Ellen Cole
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
A recurring feature of the past few decades is the presence of the nation’s three principal national security institutions (the 3Ds)—Department of State (DOS), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and Department of Defense (DOD)—operating in complex environments abroad marked by conflict, crisis, and state fragility. This paradigm, dubbed the “new normal” by many, begs a few questions. What are we learning from these critical missions undertaken in pursuit of national security? Are we adjusting our strategies to maximize the prospects for prevention of conflict based on that learning? Is innovation occurring that enables us to work better together to address challenges in these environments? Of keen interest is what the 3D did to address the unique challenges in Jordan, and how. Understanding both the “what” and the “how” might reveal if we are learning and innovating.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Governance, and Innovation
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

369. Sending in the Cavalry: The Growing Militarization of Counterterrorism in Southeast Asia

Author:
See Seng Tan
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Philippines, which lasted from May to October 2017, constitutes a watershed moment in the evolution of the terrorist threat in Southeast Asia. Pro–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants threatened to turn Marawi into “the Mosul of Southeast Asia,” with their astounding ability to operate large groups capable of controlling territory and exposing the inadequacy of the region’s security services. Although member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had pondered the question of possible participation by their armed forces in counterterrorism well before the Battle, it is undeniable that Marawi has become the catalyst behind the regional drive to militarize counterterrorism efforts in Southeast Asia. Cooperative frameworks furnished by ASEAN have since taken on added significance, especially the defense-oriented arrangements that bring together the defense establishments and armed forces of the ASEAN countries as well as those of external powers including China, India, Japan, and the United States. The growing militarization of counterterrorism efforts will neither be easy nor straightforward, given longstanding regional sensitivities and the potentially diversive ramifications that excessive securitization could have for democratic life within ASEAN countries.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, Philippines, North America, United States of America, and ASEAN

370. Why Cyber Operations Do Not Always Favor the Offense

Author:
Rebecca Slayton
Publication Date:
02-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Bottom Lines: Creating unnecessary vulnerabilities. Making offensive cyber operations a national priority can increase instabilities in international relations and worsen national vulnerabilities to attack. But because the skills needed for offense and defense are similar, military offensive readiness can be maintained by focusing on defensive operations that make the world safer, rather than on offensive operations. Managing complexity. The ease of both offense and defense increases as organizational skills and capability in managing complex technology improve; it declines as the complexity of cyber operations rises. What appears to be offensive advantage is primarily a result of the offense’s relatively simple goals and the defense’s poor management. Assessing kinetic effects. It is often more expensive for the offense to achieve kinetic effects—for instance, sabotaging machinery—than for the defense to prevent them. An empirical analysis of the Stuxnet cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities shows that Stuxnet likely cost the offense more than the defense and was relatively ineffective.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Security, Nuclear Power, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Middle East and North America