Search

10951. Transforming Military Technology Through Aquisition Policy

Author:
Rabia Altaf
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) emphasized the need for continued technological modernization of the U.S. Armed Forces.324 This notion, first brought to light by the Obama administration, is underlined by the military’s inability to adapt and modernize at the pace necessary to restore the United States’ military dominance. At the root of this issue is the relationship between the Pentagon and the defense industry, which currently operates with an inadequate military technology acquisition process. Acquisition allows the Department of Defense (DoD) to communicate its strategic vision and shape the military to meet current and future threats. As it stands, this deficient process results in the mis-regulation of the defense industry. Improving the acquisition process by clearing hurdles, creating policy with innovation in mind, and carefully crafting regulation is critical for the United States to regain its competitive military advantage to tackle the global security issues of the coming decades. The Pentagon must also rethink its relationship with the private sector to induce more companies to join its supply chain and provide fresh solutions and perspectives to problems the United States has never faced before. As a notoriously difficult customer, the Pentagon must remove unnecessary roadblocks to attract a more diverse group of companies to supplement the defense industrial base.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Armed Forces, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
United States of America and north amer

10952. Bringing Down the Hammer On Chinese Tech

Author:
Dawn M. K. Zoldi
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Law is what you must do; policy is what you should do. With regard to country-of-origin bans on technology, either one has the effect of the proverbial hammer. Of late, the U.S. government has been wielding that hammer consistently against China in what amounts to an all-out tech war. The most visible fronts have involved Huawei, ByteDance (TikTok), and TenCent (WeChat). However, a lesser-known conflict relating to the commercial drone sector involves Da Jiang Innovations (DJI), a Chinese technology company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong. It is a three-pronged assault based on cybersecurity, national security, and human rights concerns. Will the U.S. commercial drone ecosystem get hammered in this conflict?
Topic:
Human Rights, National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Drones
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10953. Russian New and Experimental Nuclear-Capable Missiles: A Short Primer

Author:
Christopher Mihal
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Russia has tested a wide variety of new weapon systems in an effort to modernize and upgrade its nuclear forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been shy about publicly discussing these new weapon systems or the capabilities of several of them, though a few are not currently feasible for any sort of deployment. More of a threat, however, are the two weapons that Putin did not boast about: the SSC8 and SSC-X-31, both of which were almost certainly in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. While these missiles represent a threat in and of themselves, a far greater threat is the indication that Russia does not feel bound by international agreements. These missiles have already had their first successful casualty in the death of the INF Treaty, and they may have also dealt a mortal blow to the New START Treaty. To adequately understand Russia’s new nuclear arsenal, one must simultaneously look at the weapon systems themselves as well as the context in which they are being developed. Russia continues to view both the U.S. and NATO as supreme existential threats. Unfortunately for Russia, both the U.S. and NATO have greater military, political, and economic power, and so Russia has long sought avenues to achieve its national objectives without conventional military confrontation.386 Russia has turned to two primary means of ensuring supremacy: enhancing its nuclear arsenal, which it views as a powerful deterrent that is cheaper to maintain than a large conventional military, as well as ‘hybrid’ war, which encompasses a number of techniques just shy of war including cyber warfare, informatsionaya voyna (information warfare) and a large amount of maskirovka (deception) in both military and non-military realms.387 Putin has emphasized information control and manipulation since coming to power, ranging from direct methods such as election interference and masking the identity of irregular forces in Ukraine, to more subtle methods of dezinformatsiya (disinformation), of which the exaggerated capabilities of Russia’s new nuclear weapons are prime examples. Dezinformatsiya is using false or misleading information and disseminating it to credible news outlets. This causes opponents to either act upon the incorrect information, thus wasting time and resources, or it undermines the credibility of the news outlet when it is proven false.388 Both of these goals of dezinformatsiya are being met with the current furor regarding Russia’s new nuclear weapons. This primer aims to dispel some of the false or misleading claims regarding these weapons and present a factual foundation from which to react to Russia’s new weapon developments and how they fit into Russia’s strategic vision.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Cybersecurity, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and United States of America

10954. "Systemic Risks": A Conversation on Nuclear Technology and Deterrence with Dr. Vipin Narang

Author:
Dylan Land
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Fletcher Security Review (FSR): What do you perceive as the greatest threat to global nuclear security? Where do you see the greatest potential for the outbreak of nuclear war? ​ Vipin Narang (VN): Rather than focusing on regions, I see three trends which I think we should be concerned about. One is the return of a great power arms race, and a lot of this was exacerbated in the Trump administration. Even as we head into the Biden administration—which extended the New START Treaty with Russia for five years—Russia and China are modernizing their nuclear forces at breakneck speed. They are worried primarily about U.S. missile defenses, which at this point are unconstrained. The United States has a variety of missile defense systems at the regional level which work pretty well, as well as the national missile defense system, which doesn’t…yet. You will often hear that the national missile defense system does not work very well and that is true—the success rate is around 60 percent in simulated tests. It may be difficult to ever get it to work perfectly or even well, but it is the prospect that the United States might get it to work that really drives modernization efforts in Russia and China..... ​
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Risk, Deterrence, and Interview
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Global Focus, and United States of America

10955. Transitions in Global Health Diplomacy: Views of Donors During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author:
Cynthia Buckley, Ralph Clem, and Erik Herron
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Sickening and killing people worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting national and international economies and creating enormous human suffering. Current and future geopolitical implications are substantial, requiring long term attention by national security policymakers in the United States and elsewhere.245 Central among these foreign policy concerns is the capacity of states across the globe to deliver health care (and other services) to their populations and the role of health and human security in promoting national security.246 Prior to the pandemic, interest in Global Health Diplomacy (GHD) as a foreign policy tool was growing, reflecting the recognition of border crossing health concerns and the effectiveness of health-focused development aid. Health assistance provided through GHD enables improvements in the quality of life, expansion of infrastructure, and strong donor-recipient ties, each of which can contribute to recipient state capacity. Emerging impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic increase the importance of international health assistance.247 The value of health assistance in generating grassroots aid recognition, thereby capturing “hearts and minds,” is a potent means of building international recognition of both a state’s humanitarian mission and building a positive reputation in recipient state public opinion. In the American context, the four years of the Trump administration were marked by a decline in American bilateral and multilateral engagement in terms of GHD, specifically its stated intention to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).248 Importantly, this coincided with a period of rising efforts in this area by China and Russia. These changes highlight the importance of understanding how changes in GHD participation emerge and enable stronger linkages between GHD studies and global rivalries (more common in the field of International Relations).249 We set out to explore how transitioning patterns of GHD engagement inform the positioning priorities of the United States, Russia, China, and multinational organizations such as the European Union. How have the acute health, economic, and in some cases political crises of the global COVID-19 pandemic altered donor engagement in GHD? What are the effects of changes in the perceptions of their engagement in recipient states? We incorporate data from three strategically important post-Soviet countries—Estonia, Ukraine, and the Republic of Georgia—to illustrate how major players in GHD are viewed on the ground. Situated on a long arc from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and beyond to the Caucasus, these states neighbor Russia proper. Proximity to Russia itself implies a core national security problem: Moscow has actively undermined the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, seizing parts of both via kinetic warfare while causing massive infrastructure damage (including healthcare infrastructure), thousands of deaths, and the internal displacement of millions.250 Estonia has been the target of cyberattacks emanating from Russia, and all three countries must cope with relentless disinformation campaigns intended to destabilize their governments and societies. These three cases provide insights into how citizens in recipient states view GHD engagement in a time of crisis.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Pandemic, COVID-19, Donors, and Global Health
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10956. Win-Win Cooperation: Welcoming Hong Kong Refugees Would Benefit the United States

Author:
Emily Young Carr and Zack Cooper
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
In his first address to employees of the U.S. State Department, President Joe Biden promised to “take on directly the challenges posed [to] our prosperity, security, and democratic values by our most serious competitor, China.” One of the best ways for the United States to show support for democratic values is to welcome victims of repression in Hong Kong to America. Such a step would not only signal America’s commitment to protecting freedom and democracy abroad, but would also strengthen the U.S. economy. Over the last few years, the Communist Party of China has systematically unwound the freedoms the people of Hong Kong once enjoyed. The United States and likeminded partners have responded by placing sanctions and other economic and financial restrictions on the Chinese officials who direct this repression. Yet, Beijing continues to undercut the “one country, two systems” model, which was supposed to guarantee that the rights and liberties of Hongkongers would be protected after the 1997 handover. Indeed, in the last days of the Trump administration, Chinese authorities arrested over 50 key figures in Hong Kong, including an American lawyer and numerous politicians and activists. Although these arrests were appalling, they did not come as a surprise. Since the passage of the national security law on June 30, 2020, the Chinese government has engaged in a series of increasingly harsh crackdowns on pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong. In August, media mogul Jimmy Lai, social activist Agnes Chow, and other prominent dissidents were swept up in a series of arrests. Months later, the central government dismissed four pro-democracy lawmakers from the city legislature, prompting the remaining 15 to resign in protest. This repressive campaign is aided by the vague language of the national security law, which gives mainland authorities great leeway to define the now criminal acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Immigration, Authoritarianism, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Asia, Hong Kong, and United States of America

10957. The Climate-Security Century: Three Climate Hotspots

Author:
Mark Nevitt
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The climate-security century is here. With global temperatures rising, climate change is poised to massively destabilize the physical environment. This century may well be defined by our ability (or inability) to reduce our collective greenhouse gas emissions. We must also adapt and respond to climate change’s multivariate security impacts. From raging wildfires in Australia and California to melting ice sheets and permafrost in the Arctic, climate change acts as both a threat accelerant and a catalyst for conflict. Climate change is also unlike any other traditional security threat. It accelerates and exacerbates existing environmental stressors—such as sea level rise, extreme weather, drought, and food insecurity—leading to greater instability. Climate change impacts are already taking center stage this century, forcing us to think more broadly about climate change’s relationship with human security and national security. Complicating matters, climate-driven temperature increases do not rise in a neat, uniform fashion around the globe. The pace of climatic change unfolds unevenly and erratically. Some parts of the world—such as the Arctic—are warming at a rate two to three times faster than the rest of the world. Three specific climate-security “hotspots” foreshadow greater destabilization and serve as climate “canaries in a coal mine”—a sneak preview of our climate-destabilized future.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, National Security, and Human Security
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10958. Forget China: A Policy for an Interconnected Region

Author:
Scott McDonald
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The United States (U.S.) must approach the growing assertiveness and revisionism of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by deemphasizing its importance to U.S. policy formation. Although this will seem counterintuitive to most observers, it is an important first step in placing the very real challenges posed by the PRC in their appropriate context. Neither is this to suggest the intentions and actions of the PRC do not pose a serious threat to the interests of the U.S., for in many areas they do. However, in crafting foreign policy, the U.S. government must first focus on promoting and defending its own interests. By contrast, the popular emphasis on “countering” other states is a second-handed approach that cedes the initiative and allows one’s adversary to control one’s policy. That is not to say that U.S. policy should not, where appropriate, be confrontational. Washington should not feel the need to kowtow or appease an increasingly aggressive Beijing. However, any action—cooperative or confrontational—must be taken in pursuit of a larger, positive purpose. The starting point for any policy towards the PRC, therefore, is a grand strategic approach to the Indo-Pacific as a region. It lies in a positive, provalue orientation towards building the world in which the U.S. wants to live.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

10959. The Siren's Song of Coast Guard Behavioral Norms in the Western Pacific

Author:
Marc Zlomek
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Since 2014, naval forces operating in the Western Pacific have agreed on the need to moderate operational assertiveness against the risk that a miscalculation on the water could lead to wider confrontation. Increased activity by coast guards in these waters dictates that the same considerations should apply to white hull vessels. In 2015, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China committed to developing behavioral norms for coast guards. The fact that six years later no such coast guard norms have materialized even though the naval services provide a readily adaptable blueprint is curious, to put it diplomatically. In April 2014, the 21 member-navies of the Western Pacific Naval Symposium approved the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) to promote communication and operational safety when their vessels met. In November 2014, the United States Secretary of Defense and the Chinese Minister of Defense signed a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding on The Rules of Behavior for Safety of Air and Maritime Encounters (The Rules or Rules of Behavior). The Rules, which took root during the 2013 Sunnylands Summit between President Obama and President Xi, are meant to reduce the risk of an incident at sea and to promote confidence building between the United States and Chinese military. CUES and The Rules are similar in many respects and share the same fundamental purpose of reducing the risk of an incident at sea. During the 2015 Sunnylands Summit, President Obama and President Xi committed to developing similar measures for coast guards. At the time, China took the position that the China Coast Guard was not covered by the existing instruments. While no such coast guard version of The Rules exists, the China Coast Guard’s astounding growth and militarization, combined with the United States Coast Guard’s increased regional presence, serve to underscore the need. As detailed in this article, the very bureaucratic reorganization that transformed the China Coast Guard into a military service now make the existing Rules of Behavior easily applicable. The two sides do not need a new coast guard specific agreement but could voluntarily apply the existing Rules of Behavior to white-hulled vessels as they do to gray-hulled vessels. The solution of adapting the Rules of Behavior used by the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) and the United States Navy (USN) to the United States and China Coast Guards is so simple that its failure to materialize begs the question of whether China wants shared expectations for coast guards or if it believes that operational unpredictability better serves its strategic interests.
Topic:
Armed Forces, Navy, Norms, and Coast Guard
Political Geography:
Asia-Pacific

10960. Adversaries or Competitors: A Conversation on U.S. - China Relations with David Dollar

Author:
Dylan Land and David Dollar
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Fletcher Security Review (FSR): How would you characterize the relationship between the U.S. and China today? Are the two countries adversaries or competitors? How might this change under the Biden administration? Dr. David Dollar (DD): The relationship is very complicated. In some ways, the U.S. and China are collaborators on a global order and global public goods, and they are obviously competitors in a healthy economic sense—the same way the U.S. competes with Japan or Western Europe—but then I would say the U.S. has legitimate security concerns about China. I don’t think China is an adversary, but there’s the risk that it becomes an adversary. China is really the only country in the world powerful enough to be a threat to the United States, so that potential threat colors the relationship. As far as the transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, some of the measures President Trump has taken are perceived as harsh toward China, but he has given them a pass on other things. He has not personally raised issues of human rights or democracy. Trump is perceived as someone who has respect for strongmen around the world, so I think in some ways the U.S. under President Trump has given China a pass, while being tough in other areas. I would expect the Biden administration to be more consistent; it will certainly raise human rights and democracy issues, and it will continue some of the sanctions that deal with national security. I’m hoping the Biden administration rationalizes the economic policy because clearly the trade war with China has not worked, so we need to try something different.
Topic:
National Security, Interview, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America