Our ability to compete in a global economy, attract the world’s brightest workers and nurture a functional political system is slipping. This weakness is now at a point where it threatens to erode the pillars upon which America’s national security rests. America’s competitiveness is now a matter of national security. We need to acknowledge that current policies and objectives in the public and private sector, taken together, dangerously undercut America’s current and future global position through instability, inefficiency and risk. America’s political and business leaders must understand that improving our nation’s competitiveness is an urgent priority with much higher stakes than is acknowledged today.
The Oceans - A “Common Heritage of Mankind.”
They play an important role in our Nation's transportation, economy, and trade, and they are critical to the global mobility of our Armed Forces. The oceans and the seas are a key part of the maintenance of international peace and security.
Since before our country's founding in 1776, America has been a maritime power. As such, our economic well-being and our national security has always rested on the oceans. In our early years, America's growth rested on the protection that both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans afforded our country. In the 21st Century, we know that no ocean can protect us from global challenges like terrorism, nuclear security, or in cyberspace. However, how we manage the oceans is a signal about how our country can manage the world’s commons.
America has a unique role to secure the oceans for the benefit of mankind. Unlike territory on land, no army can take and hold the oceans. Securing the oceans does not come from military might alone. Instead, it comes from strategic foresight, planning, and international cooperation. America needs a strategic vision for how to manage common challenges. ASP’s work on the Law of the Sea Treaty, in the Arctic, and on Climate Change are a part of our work on the oceans.
United States faces many challenges around the world that are complex because they are asymmetric in nature. Asymmetric challenges are those where the different players and components have different interests, resources, and capabilities, but nevertheless interact in complex ways to make policy extremely difficult.
At the American Security Project, we think navigating asymmetric challenges begins with a clear articulation of U.S. interests. From there, the role American power should play becomes clear, and from understanding that role we can craft good policy to support our interests. Without dogma or partisanship, we seek long term solutions to the challenges facing the nation.
There are many different ways ASP understands and analyzes asymmetric challenges and operations effect national security.
“Egypt’s political and economic success is important, of course, not only for Egyptians, but it’s important for the region, for the United States, and the international community.” - John Kerry, Secretary Of State
Egypt is the most populous and traditionally one of the most influential countries in the region. The United States has had long-term military, cultural and economic links with the country.
Recently, due in part to lack of knowledge and understanding of political change in Egypt, that relationship has faltered.
Energy security is a function of predictable price and availability. For the United States, energy security comes from global markets, plentiful domestic supplies, and variety.
Energy becomes a national security and foreign policy issue when energy insecurity affects a country's governing policies are affected by how it uses and imports energy.
‘Energy security’ is not ‘energy independence’ in the sense that all of the energy used in a country must comes from within its own borders without international trade. This is neither obtainable nor desirable in a globalized world. Energy security does not depend on the percentage of supply that is imported. In a world of globally traded commodities, it is no longer possible to be truly energy independent: even domestically produced energy sources are subject to fluctuations in global commodity markets.
Over the last decade, the United States has experienced an Energy Revolution, which has allowed it to increasingly use energy as a tool of statecraft. While the United States does not have an "Energy Weapon," American policy can blunt the weapons that other countries think they have built.
Helicopter and SoldiersIn 2014-2015, the American Security Project (ASP) is undertaking a grassroots effort to build a consensus among Americans around the country from left to right, and especially among the non-political, that climate change is not simply a low-priority ‘green’ issue: it is a pressing national security threat, and should be treated as such.
At present the Unites States is reliant on Russian rocket engines to launch our reconnaissance satellites.
Not only does this reliance have direct implications for our national security launch capabilities, it also means we are funding Russian space and missile technology, while we could be investing in US based jobs and the defense industrial base.
The American Security Project is examining these key issues, educating the public and policy makers of the implications of our present approach as well as suggesting ways to further enhance our national security.
We live in a time when the threats to our security are as complex and diverse as terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, failing states and economic decline.
Many of these national challenges will require responses that go beyond military might and utilize all the tools at our disposal. The American Security Project is leading the development of a new national security vision and strategy that will create a New American Arsenal for the twenty-first century that is responsive to the challenges and opportunities we face as a country.
The spread of nuclear weapons and increasing numbers of nuclear forces worldwide represents the greatest danger to mankind.
Since President Eisenhower first proposed an Open Skies Treaty with the Soviet Union, successive American presidents have sought to advance U.S. nuclear security through international treaties and agreements to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and to create strategic stability.
ASP seeks to build upon that legacy and educate the public about the leadership needed to build a new international consensus for nuclear security.
U.S. policymakers are taking a serious look at the future of our nuclear deterrent and the size of the future nuclear. Reportedly, the proposals for a 21st century nuclear force ranges from reducing to a few hundred to the status quo deployed force of 1550. Most agree that it’s time to take a hard look the nuclear force the U.S. wants and needs.
The American Security Project defines public diplomacy as: Communication and relationship building with foreign publics for the purpose of achieving a foreign policy objective. Public diplomacy is a vital aspect of our national security strategy and must also inform the policy making process. Paraphrasing Edward R. Murrow, President Kennedy's Director of the United States Information Agency (USIA), public diplomacy must be in on the take-offs of policy and not just the crash landings. In the 20+ years since the end of the Cold War, the United States has yet to establish a defining role for public diplomacy in the context of its foreign relations.
With the exception of major arms control agreements like New Start, the course of US-Russia relations over the past 20 years has spiraled in the wrong direction. While some have declared Russia an enemy of the United States, others have called for working closer with the Russian Government. Neither view completely satisfies the requirements for an effective strategy. America needs a new plan to steer relations with Russia towards the right course. A comprehensive and effective strategy will deter Russian aggression, encourage it to contribute positively to international norms, and build closer ties between the people of Russia and the United States. Lessons of the Cold War and the 10 years following should serve as a guide to preventing a decay of relations which threatens US national security, while protecting the national interests of America and her NATO allies. Read More >>