January 7, 2015

As the United States ends its combat mission in Afghanistan and President Ashraf Ghani concludes his first hundred days in office, there are reasons for cautious optimism about the country’s future as it enters a new phase of its history. President Obama’s strategic drawdown of forces in Afghanistan has ended the 13-year-long Operation Enduring Freedom while effectively preserving a U.S. security presence in the country and creating the strongest political ties with Kabul in years. Though Afghanistan’s government and people remain under constant threat, the country has made considerable gains in its development, political stability, and security. With continued international support, this progress can be consolidated and maintained.

Afghan security can be preserved with continued support from the international coalition. As Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.) wrote this week, “the security situation and performance of the Afghan security forces is not as bad as reports make them out to be. While attacks are up, and there are some regions of the south and east where Taliban influence is growing, there has not been the kind of whole-scale collapse of the security forces which occurred in Iraq. The difference is the steadying presence of the coalition advisors and trainers; the higher degree of competence of the Afghan senior leadership; the lower ability of the Taliban insurgents, generally; and the logistic and financial support of the coalition. With 48 troop-contributing nations and roughly 15,000 troops in the ISAF mission, many will shift over to Operation Resolute Support the follow-on training effort. With over 350,000 Afghan army and police members and the continuing flow of recruits, the overall advantage accrues to the government forces — with the important caveat of the presence of advisors, trainers, and financial assistance.” [James Stavridis via Foreign Policy, 1/5/15]

President Ashraf Ghani has demonstrated a break from the worst elements of the Karzai Administration, but must do more to overcome national divisions and institutional dysfunction. Ghani entered office after reconciling with his political rival, Abdullah Abdullah, who now serves as the national chief executive. Though they were able to end the electoral dispute, Ghani has so far been unable to form a cabinet. While it will be tremendously challenging to overcome the political and ethnic divisions that make forming a cabinet so difficult, it is critical to continuing Afghanistan’s political progress. Ghani has followed through on several campaign promises, including signing security agreements to continue working with NATO, reopening the Kabul Bank case to get to the bottom of hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud, and firing powerful corrupt officials previously considered untouchable, according to the BBC. However, he may be proceeding too quickly in other respects. The New York Times editorialized on Saturday that Ghani is rushing to nationalize control of the fund for the Afghan National Police, currently managed by the U.N. Development Program. “Mr. Ghani, a former World Bank executive, understands how donor funds are handled,” the Times notes. “He has spoken out candidly and forcefully about the need to battle corruption in Afghanistan. What he has yet to do, though, is propose a credible alternative to improve the delivery and spending of Western aid. To accomplish that, Mr. Ghani, who assumed office in September, must first focus on getting a cabinet in place.” [New York Times, 1/3/15]

There is political and popular support for a negotiated end to the fighting with the Taliban. As Adm. Stavridis notes, support for the Taliban is a scant 10% among Afghans, but there is growing public support for measures that could end the fighting with the Taliban and reintegrate insurgents into the country. “After years of fighting that have taken an awful toll, most Afghans appear to be supportive of a peace process,” the New York Times noted in its editorial. “A State Department poll conducted in late October found that a growing number of Afghans favor amnesty for Taliban leaders…The poll found that 66 percent of Afghans would be amenable to amnesty for insurgents if it paved the way for a peace deal. Strikingly, 62 percent of women voiced support for that idea, up from 45 percent in 2010.” There is some indication that Afghan politicians may be interested in moving towards negotiations as well. As the Los Angeles Times reports, “In mid-December, the government’s High Peace Council, charged with outreach to Taliban insurgents, said it was ready to reopen talks with Taliban representatives in Qatar – which Ghani had pledged to do – only to retract the offer a week later.” If public support continues to grow and Ghani can form a government, the Council may reconsider its position again. [New York Times, 1/3/15. Los Angeles Times, 1/6/15]

Progress in Afghanistan, on issues from security to economics, still requires international support. As NSN Senior Advisor Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.) said this morning, “The United States will certainly continue to export its military and security expertise to Afghanistan, but we should balance that export with our huge capacity to export our economic expertise, in particular agriculture. Further, only the United States can deploy the diplomatic and political power to work the regional as well as internal political and diplomatic challenges.” [Paul Eaton, 1/7/15]

Photo Credit: Afghan President Ashraf Ghani speaking at the London Conference on Afghanistan co-hosted by the governments of the UK and Afghanistan. [UK Department for International Development, Patrick Tsui/FCO, 12/4/14]

The post Afghanistan at a Crossroads: Preserving Progress with International Support appeared first on National Security Network.

Tomorrow, the new Congress is set to begin its first session amid a flurry of near- and mid-term foreign policy challenges that it will have the ability to affect for better or worse. Issues looming large include negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program as conservatives once again consider new counterproductive sanctions, the war against the Islamic State as American forces are being exposed to increased risk, the fate of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as the transfer of prisoners picks up pace, managing America’s security interest in sustained nonproliferation cooperation with Russia even as Moscow misbehaves in Eastern Europe, and potentially divisive trade agreements under negotiation. On all of these issues, an effective relationship between Congress and the Obama Administration could prove the difference between success and failure.

Heading into 2015, the top issues are:

Reaching a nuclear deal with Iran and avoiding congressional action that would lower the prospects of successful negotiations: As the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran continue, further extending the freeze of Iran’s nuclear enrichment, members of Congress are threatening again to derail the talks by imposing new sanctions. “I think we’ll have a supermajority, a veto-proof majority, to impose additional sanctions on Iran and to require the administration to come before Congress for approval of any deal,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told NPR last week. This weekend, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) also urged new sanctions if the talks fail, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said last week that the Senate could vote on new sanctions legislation this month. The push for sanctions comes despite the warnings of the Obama Administration, which has consistently stressed that such a bill could eliminate the chances of reaching a deal. As National Security Advisor Susan Rice warned last month, new sanctions would “blow up” negotiations. “The P5+1 would fracture, the international community would blame the United States rather than Iran for the collapse of the negotiations, and the Iranians would conclude that there’s little point in pursuing this process at the negotiating table,” said Rice. [Marco Rubio via the Hill, 12/31/14. Susan Rice via the Hill, 12/2/14]

Debating and voting on an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as operations against the Islamic State escalate and expose U.S. troops to risk: Last week, it was reported that Iraq’s Ayn al-Asad airbase in Anbar Province came under repeated attack by Islamic State militants. Approximately 300 U.S. forces were stationed at the facility and were withdrawn by helicopter without incurring any casualties. The event, however, highlights the need for Congress to deliberate and vote on an AUMF so that U.S. forces exposed to risk are operating fully within the rule of law and with maximum political legitimacy. NSN has repeatedly outlined options for a responsible and effective counter-Islamic State AUMF that would be specifically tailored for the conflict, and experts and policymakers have picked up on or cited this work. During debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) at the end of last year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said,“Many have made the argument that we’ve added too many limitations, there should be no limitations, they’ve argued historically that we haven’t done this. Well, the National Security Network looked back at all of the uses of authorization of force since the beginning of the republic, and they found that 60% of those actually did have a geographic limitation on them.” At the end of last year, the Democrat-led SFRC did pass a resolution containing limitations but the process must now start over in the new Republican-controlled Congress.

Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and stopping its needless damage to American power and wasting of resources: The transfer of 15 cleared detainees to three countries in December brought the total number of transfers in 2014 to 28, and the Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration is looking to accelerate the transfer of the 59 remaining cleared inmates in 2015. This is long overdue and a strong step towards closing down the prison. As Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.) wrote last month, “For a variety of reasons, we should close the detention facility…While the facility today is thoroughly inspected (including frequent visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, media, legislators), it retains a highly negative reputation around the world. With fewer than 200 detainees remaining, it is increasingly difficult to justify the manpower and expense of keeping the facility open.” [James Stavridis via Foreign Policy, 12/19/14]

Managing an increasingly complex relationship with Russia and preventing backsliding on critical nonproliferation agreements: In addition to Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, concerns in Washington are likely to continue to focus on Russia’s apparent violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads that have ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles – a class of weapons that are cheap, precise, and effective. Russia has apparently violated the INF Treaty by limited testing – but not producing or deploying – a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile. In the last Congress, a number of conservatives called for the United States to potentially abandon the INF Treaty. However, as James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment explains, “If the United States were to withdraw from the treaty now – or develop its own prohibited weapons and thus hand Russia the perfect excuse to abrogate – it would be doing Moscow a big favor. With the INF Treaty out of the way, Russia would probably go on to deploy its new cruise missile, causing serious alarm amongst U.S. allies in Europe and possibly in Asia, too.” Instead, as the New York Times editorializes, “the Obama administration should continue pursuing a diplomatic solution to the treaty dispute and resist the growing pressure in Congress for quick retaliation, which could make the situation worse. And it should explore other forms of pressure, like economic punishment and deployment of new defenses against cruise missiles.” [James Acton, 8/6/14. New York Times, 1/1/15]

Modifying and approving trade deals likely to arise during this Congress, and ensuring that any deals effectively address domestic concerns about growing income inequality: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) are the flagship initiatives of the Obama Administration’s economic statecraft strategy towards sustaining American global economic advantage. The trade and investment agreements are broad, with the TPP encompassing roughly 40% of global trade and the T-TIP encompassing about half of global GDP. While both agreements are still being negotiated, final deals would require congressional approval. But a good deal that strengthens America’s economy will require significant labor protection. It’s unclear that the Administration is negotiating with U.S. labor fully in mind – but it’s even more doubtful that a conservative Congress can advocate on labor’s behalf, though the room for constructive engagement remains. Speaking on the T-TIP, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka voiced his union’s point of view, “Trade policy for the privileged few must end. TTIP must work for the people, or it won’t work at all.” On the TPP, the AFL-CIO has laid out that they have “provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%… And while negotiations are not yet complete, the publicly available information is concerning for workers.” The AFL-CIO has expressed more specific concerns about the TPP as well, for example, that “It is not yet clear that all the TPP countries will commit to enforceable labor standards. But America’s workers can’t go backward: we expect labor commitments that significantly improve upon the Bush-era deals.” [Richard Trumka, 5/21/14. AFL-CIO statement on labor rights and the TPP, accessed 1/5/15]

Photo Credit: [Flickr, Architect of the Capitol, 12/15/14]

The post Top Five Foreign Policy Challenges for 2015 appeared first on National Security Network.

By Tobias Gibson, NSN Non-Residential Senior Fellow
December 24, 2014 | The Washington Post

In a recent piece here on The Monkey Cage,  Michael Colaresi discussed the need for change in oversight of the CIA and by extension the entirety of the intelligence community. He suggests that in the wake of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture issued Dec. 9, “current and former CIA officials, as well as President Obama, seem bent on missing the relevant lessons to improve governance of national security. The CIA needs more, not less, oversight” (my emphasis).

He then offers details–based on his recent book Democracy Declassified, which I highly recommend—of the benefits of this additional oversight:

…democracies with strong oversight of national security policy win more of their foreign policy crises against non-democracies as compared to democracies that empower their executives with secrecy, but lack strong oversight powers.

Colaresi offers international examples of “expert-led intelligence oversight bodies outside of the executive” that can serve as models for a Congress that lacks experts in intelligence. His book states that “extra-executive bodies that do not rely on the president or prime minister for legitimacy and political power are the only reliable engines of oversight” (133; my emphasis).

But by focusing on oversight beyond the executive branch, Colaresi excludes some other important sources of oversight. For example,inspectors general in the United States, including those within the intelligence community, have been granted increased powers in the same period of times that Colaresi studies. IGs are expected to conduct investigations and audits in order to prevent abuses of power within their agencies. John Rizzo in Company Man notes that “…when the [Central Intelligence] Agency learns about a possible violation of U.S. law… even by someone not affiliated with the CIA, the Office of General Counsel prepares a ‘crimes report’ letter to the head of the DOJ criminal division” (pp.149-150).

I would be cautious about creating new institutions to oversee the intelligence community, as Colaresi suggests. As I have previously written:

the more committees, institutions and individuals share oversight duties, the more acute the collective action problem becomes, leading to a preference that oversight occurs by another actor. Because oversight is costly, increasing the number of principals can decrease the incentive for any one of the institutions to actually perform an oversight role, because each prefers the others to bear the cost of auditing the agent.

Thus, creating new oversight bodies may actually backfire and diminish the influence of the legislative branch on the intelligence community.

To continue reading, click here. 

The post Effective Oversight of the CIA Depends on Congress | Tobias Gibson appeared first on National Security Network.

December 24, 2014 | Council on Foreign Relations

A Jordanian fighter pilot crashed while flying a mission over northern Syria (BBC) and has been captured by Islamic State militants, the government of Jordan confirmed on Wednesday. It is the first coalition aircraft to be lost in ISIS territory since the beginning of the air campaign in September, and the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claims that ISIS used an anti-aircraft missile (NYT) to down the plane.

Analysis

“Immersing the United States deeper in Syria’s civil war was a bad idea three years ago, it was a bad idea in August, and it’s a bad idea today. America has one vital interest in Syria: preventing the Islamic State from staging a terrorist attack against the United States or its allies,” writes J. Dana Stuster in the National Interest.

“The complex, confounding and constantly evolving series of facts on the ground is precisely why the Obama administration did not want to enter the Syria conflict and why many in the administration worried that any U.S. involvement in Syria could bring more harm than help,” writes CFR’s Gayle Tzemach Lemmon at Defense One.

To continue reading, click here. 

Photo credit: Freedom House Flickr, 11/23/12

The post CFR Features NSN Brief on Arming Syrian Rebels appeared first on National Security Network.

By Horward Koplowitz 
December 22, 2014 | International Business Times

President Barack Obama’s declaration Sunday that the North Korean attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment was an act of “cyber vandalism” and not an act of war has far-reaching implications for the U.S. response to the crippling hack that led Sony to cancel the release of the comedy film “The Interview.” Not only was the president correct in his assessment of the incident, experts said, but characterizing the attack as “cyber vandalism” and not war minimizes the chances of escalation between the two countries.

The North Korean cyberattack wasn’t an act of war because no violence was inflicted and Americans’ physical security wasn’t in danger by Sony having its computer systems attacked and emails leaked, national security experts said. Even the hackers’ threatening 9/11-style attacks if theaters played the movie didn’t constitute an act of war, regardless of whether they had that capability, the experts said.

“At least in the Western tradition … war and acts of war have to involve violent acts that are designed to compel enemies to accept your will,” said Bill French, a policy analyst at the National Security Network, a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C. “It’s certainly true that there was some threat of violence, but the threat of violence isn’t an act of war. If there was an act of violence, it would be an act of war.”

To continue reading, click here. 

Photo Credit: Flickr Calflier001, 10/23/12.

The post Bill French Quoted on North Korea Cyberattack by IBTimes appeared first on National Security Network.

Diplomatic normalization with Cuba removes obstacles to U.S. interests across the region and internationally.

 Improving the U.S. position vis-à-vis Venezuela: Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez of the Comparative Constitutions Project explains in Foreign Policy that the regime in Venezuela will find it harder to use anti-Americanism to prop itself up, writing “this is a particularly awkward   moment for his country’s closest regional ally to be making nice with his country’s greatest foe, the much-maligned ‘Northern Empire.’ The United States serves as his perennial bogeyman, blamed for everything from Venezuela’s poor credit rating and the collapsing price of international crude to his own recent cold and the death of his hallowed predecessor Hugo Chávez from cancer last year.”

 Stratfor adds, “With Cuba openly engaging the United States, [President of Venezuela] Maduro may have an additional incentive to seek his own rapprochement with the United States. In fact, several hours after the          U.S.-Cuba prisoner swap was announced, Maduro publicly said Venezuela would be willing to improve its stagnant political ties with the United States.” [Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez, 12/18/14/. Stratfor,          12/17/14]

Removing an obstacle to U.S. leadership across Latin America: Dan Drezner of Tufts University explains, “U.S. policy on Cuba has been, literally, isolationist — as in, it isolates the United States…Improving ties with Havana ameliorates a long-standing source of friction between the United States and Latin America. That’s called      ‘good diplomacy.’” The New York Times reports that U.S. efforts at         diplomatic engagement across the region were often side-tracked by lengthy discussions about America’s unpopular Cuba policy and that  already a number of leaders across Latin America have praised            President Obama and the United States for its mature decision,   including the leaders of Brazil, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Andrés Pastrana, a former president of Colombia, explained, “I think that to a large extent the anti-imperialist discourse that we have had in the region has ended. The Cold War is over.” [Dan Drezner, 12/18/14. Andrés   Pastrana via New York Times, 12/19/14]

Ending the international isolation of the United States on Cuba:     Erik Voeten of Georgetown University explains, “The United Nations   General Assembly has voted since 1992 on an annual resolution on the ‘necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.’ In 1992, with the Cold War just ending, fewer than 50 percent of all member states voted in favor of the resolution (more than half       abstained)…In its latest iteration only Israel joined the Americans in voting against the resolution, although, to its credit, the United States did get the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau to abstain.” [Erik    Voeten, 12/17/14]

Eventually dropping sanctions on Cuba provides economic and national security benefits to the United States.

Economic and strategic resource benefits: The Harvard Political    Review explains: “The Cuban economy wouldn’t be the only one to benefit from opening up trade. The American losses from the embargo add up to as much as $1.2 billion annually. Many businesses favor an    end to the embargo; in fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one the strongest opponents of the embargo. Studies on the subject believe that ending the embargo could create 6,000 American jobs, predominantly in agriculture and telecommunications. Additionally, trade with Cuba could be lucrative to the United States for developmental reasons. Cuba has the 3^rd largest nickel reserves in the world that could be used in various technology products. The country is also estimated to have  expansive oil deposits in its territorial waters that are just beginning to be explored.” [Harvard Political Review, accessed 12/19/14]

Increasing U.S. leverage over Cuba: Dan Drezner of Tufts University explains, “If trade, tourism and investment takes off between the two countries, Cuba will quickly become the more asymmetrically dependent actor, no matter how hard the Cuban government tries to     resist. This won’t make it much easier for the United States to affect regime change — but it will nudge Cuba towards a less confrontational foreign policy.” [Dan Drezner, 12/18/14]

Normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba can only increase the chances of further reforms in Havana. Dan Drezner explains, “By switching course, the United States reaps a few benefits…the odds of orderly liberalization and democratization in Cuba have increased. Not by a lot — maybe from 2 percent to 10 percent. But that’s still an improvement. Even if full-blown regime transition doesn’t happen, economic liberalization does make a society somewhat more free. Today’s Post editorial points to Vietnam as the worst-case outcome for the Cuba policy. But Vietnam now has a considerably more liberal climate than before the US opening, so I don’t think that’s the best example.” Moreover, as the Washington Post Reports, the U.S. move may benefit U.S. democracy promotion programs in Cuba, “Senior U.S. officials said Wednesday that the move will not end the democracy-promoting USAID programs that Gross was working for at the time of his arrest in December 2009. Instead, they will operate from within a future U.S. Embassy in Havana…” [Dan Drezner, 12/18/14. Washington Post, 12/18/14]

President Barack Obama talks with President Raúl Castro of Cuba from the Oval Office. White House Flickr, 12/16/14.

The post The Strategic Benefits of Ending the Cold War with Cuba appeared first on National Security Network.

In the aftermath of President Obama’s announcement that the United States will begin to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba after 53 years, NSN Executive Director John Bradshaw appeared alongside Senior Associate at the Latin America Working Group Mavis Anderson in an interview with Thom Hartmann.  When asked what positive changes could come out of this development, Bradshaw responded that the most positive changes will be for the Cuban people, as well as for the economies of both countries.  Further, he stated that reengagement with Cuba will take away the Castro regime’s ability to blame the U.S. for the nation’s economic woes, which may prompt greater political change in Cuba.  As for the many Republican politicians, particularly of Cuban-American heritage, who have come forward to denounce Obama’s actions, Bradshaw believes that these critics are locked in a Cold War-mindset which fails to recognize that Cuba is no longer a security or economic threat to the U.S.  To illustrate this thinking, Bradshaw pointed out that in Florida the majority of those over 65 supports the Cuba embargo, while those younger are generally against it.  As a progressive, Bradshaw said, “It’s time to finally put an end to the Cold War,” and he concluded by lauding the effects of “smart diplomacy” and expressing hope that Obama can be just as bold in seeking to close Guantanamo in the near future.

To watch the full interview, click here.

To view the full image, click here. 

The post John Bradshaw Discusses U.S.-Cuba Prisoner Transfer with Thom Hartmann appeared first on National Security Network.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 17, 2014 

Washington, DC — Along with the release of  USAID contractor Alan Gross and an unnamed U.S. intelligence asset, President Obama announced today sweeping changes in U.S. policy with Cuba, normalizing relations after half a century of Cold War isolation.

National Security Network’s Executive Director John Bradshaw today issued the following statement:

President Obama’s bold action in restoring relations with Cuba is more likely to lead to positive changes in the lives of the Cuban people than current policy. The new opening gets beyond rigid Cold War mindsets of the past and looks at the practical realities of the current situation, recognizing that our estrangement from Cuba is not changing the regime but is providing it with an excuse for its failures. Engagement with Cuba should emphasize the need for greater freedom, respect for human rights, and increased democratic participation. More travel to Cuba by Americans and the increased flows of information that should result from the new policies will gradually lead to a more pluralistic, open society in Cuba. Those in Congress who are already trying to block the President’s plans should listen to the voices of younger Cuban Americans who are able see that re-integrating Cuba into the life of the hemisphere is in America’s bests interests.    

For Media Requests
Contact: Kate Brown
202-213-7051
kbrown@nsnetwork.org 

Photo Credit: Alan Gross news conference after his release by Cuba, C-SPAN 12/17/14

The post NSN Statement: Plans to Normalize Relations with Cuba appeared first on National Security Network.

By Ryan Goodman

December 16, 2014 | Just Security

It is unclear how the Post derives its understanding of the proper role of Congress—but if its assessment is based on a sense of historical practices, that view is deeply misguided.

Consider the history of AUMFs. According to a recent study by the National Security Network, “Of the 35 instances that Congress has authorized the use of military force, 60 percent contained geographic limitations, 43 percent named the enemy, 37 percent limited the kinds of military operations or forces authorized to be employed, and 23 percent contained an expiration date.”

As one example: in the 1983 AUMF for Lebanon, Congress stated that the force “shall be limited to performance of the functions, and shall be subject to the limitations, specified” in a 1982 agreement between the United States and Lebanon (which capped the number of troops and stipulated that “the American force will not engage in combat”).

What is more, even the National Security Network’s study undercounts congressional limitations on Presidents’ engagement in military operations.

First, the data include only explicit conditions in AUMFs. Curt Bradley and Jack Goldsmith explain in a leading article in the Harvard Law Review that AUMFs have historically also included a host of implicit conditions and qualifications—and that such limitations have been well-understood and well-accepted by the three branches of government.

To read the full article, click here. 

To read NSN’s “Ending the Endless War: An Incremental Approach to Repealing the 2001 AUMF,” click here. 

The post NSN’s AUMF Paper Discussed in Just Security appeared first on National Security Network.

Agreement at the Lima climate talks showcases the value of American leadership on climate change.  

The U.S.-China climate deal paved the way for success in Lima: The Guardian editorializes, “The prospects for Lima looked particularly         bright in the wake of the agreement between the US and China on carbon emissions that was announced by Presidents Obama and Xi in    November. Once, the reluctance of China – now the world’s biggest polluter – to accept emissions targets gave Congress an excuse not to      sign up to Kyoto. Without them both engaged, there could never be a             real global agreement. So it was a cause for optimism that, in the        November deal, China abandoned its argument that emissions should    be estimated on the basis of population – a system that favoured      developing countries – and accepted it should be on the basis of        national aggregates. In turn, President Obama committed the US to        tougher reductions in emissions.” [The Guardian, 12/14/14]

Secretary Kerry’s speech in Lima highlighted global security         consequences of climate change, adding energy to the    negotiations. Last week Secretary of State John Kerry made the case to             delegates that, “Measured against the array of global threats that we      face today – and there are many – terrorism, extremism, epidemics,   poverty, nuclear proliferation – all challenges that know no borders –             climate change absolutely ranks up there equal with all of them. And I   challenge anyone who has thought about the science or listened –        actually listened carefully to national security experts tell us that these    dangers are real – I challenge them to tell us otherwise and to show us   otherwise.” According to journalist James Fahn, Kerry’s speech had an         impact on the proceedings in Lima: “One of our Latin American        journalist Fellows remarked to me how enthused she felt by Kerry’s        rousing speech. The reaction in the past to U.S. speeches has often        [been] between depression, anger or bewilderment.”

Kerry’s remarks on the connections between climate change and global security come in the wake of major U.N. and U.S. Department of Defense reports that likewise highlighted the links between security and climate change. [John Kerry, 12/11/14. James Fahn via New York Times, 12/14/14]

Unprecedented agreement was struck between every country in the world, creating the basis for a truly global climate change regime as countries take follow-up steps in the coming months ahead of a final deal.  The agreement was reached between 195 countries rather than past agreements’ limitation to mostly developed countries. Robert N. Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, explains, “By establishing a new structure in which all countries will state (over the next six months) their contributions to emissions mitigation, this latest climate accord moves the process in a productive direction in which all nations will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Now countries will develop and submit plans for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the next meeting in Paris where a final deal will hopefully be reached. Stavins continues, “within the next six months the other industrialized countries will announce their own contributions, and — more importantly – so will the other large, emerging economies – India, Brazil, Korea, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia. Coverage of 80% to 90% of global emissions can be anticipated, although major questions remain regarding what can be expected from some key countries, including India, Russia, and Australia.” [Robert N. Stavins, 12/14/14]

Ahead of the next meeting in Paris, obstacles remain to reach a clear and fully-effective agreement. A number of details remain to be hammered out ahead of continued negotiations in Paris on a final deal, including the overall goal of how much greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced. Reuters reports, “The talks agreed on a 37-page document of ‘elements’ that will form the basis of a negotiating text for Paris next year. But the range of options is very wide. One option, for instance, is to set a long-term goal of a cut in greenhouse gas emissions to ‘net zero by 2050,’ requiring a drastic shift from fossil fuels in coming years. Another long-term option for the same section would merely require ‘low-emission development strategies.’ Many developing nations want help to adapt to climate change, for instance helping farmers to grow drought – or flood – resistant food. One option, for instance, says: ‘Establish a global goal for adaptation’ – another the opposite: ‘No global goal for adaptation.’” [Reuters, 12/14/14]

As countries – including the United States – prepare their plans for greenhouse gas emissions ahead of meeting in Paris, they should listen to climate change and security experts who call for aggressive action to prevent ecological disaster. The Washington Post summarizes that “Scientists and policymakers have set a goal of restraining the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, on grounds that a higher increase would change the climate so dramatically that neither humans nor natural ecosystems could easily adapt.” Underscoring the need for decisive action now, the most recent U.N. climate change report finds that “Scenarios that are likely to maintain warming at below 2 [degrees Celsius] are characterized by a 40% to 70% reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions by 2050, relative to 2010 levels, and emissions level near zero or below in 2100.”

Against the backdrop of such stark scientific findings, The Military Advisory Board of the Center for Naval Analyses, which includes former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and 16 retired military flag officers, warns about the unnecessary political obstacles to change: “We are dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate. Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation. Each citizen must ask what he or she can do individually to mitigate climate change, and collectively what his or her local, state, and national leaders are doing to ensure that the world is sustained for future generations. Are your communities, businesses, and governments investing in the necessary resilience measures to lower the risks associated with climate change?” [Washington Post, 11/2/14. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report, 11/1/14. CNA, 5/14]

Secretary Kerry addresses the Lima Climate Change Conference. Department of State Flickr, 12/11/14.

The post U.S. Must Continue Leadership on Climate Security after Lima Talks appeared first on National Security Network.