Center for a New American Security

This morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its third hearing on the Law of the Sea Convention that will focus exclusively on the economic benefits of ratifying the treaty. The hearing will include testimony from business representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and Verizon Communications. (Watch the hearing live here beginning at 9 AM).

Although the hearing will focus mostly on the economic benefits of ratifying the treaty, including securing rights to offshore energy and mineral resources, it is important to remember that securing rights to these resources has attendant benefits for U.S. national security as well. Increased production of domestic energy resources bolsters U.S. assured access to energy, which helps reduce the vulnerability from energy choke points in the Middle East and elsewhere. Meanwhile, ratifying the convention and putting U.S. companies in a position to secure recognized claims to offshore mineral resources such as rare earth metals that are used in a variety of high-tech applications, including defense platforms, helps reduce the U.S. vulnerability to relying heavily on Chinese exports of rare earths. (China produces 95 percent of the global supply of rare earths but only has 50 percent of the global reserves.)

On a related note, the American Security Project has published a short primer on the Law of the Sea that separates fact from fiction. (Check it out here.) And the Department of Defense has launched a new webpage on the Law of the Sea Convention akin to the State Department’s website. The DOD page includes speeches and testimony from the Secretary of Defense and senior military officials on the national security benefits of ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention. 

According to a new study released Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change, sea level rise is expected to affect the U.S. East Coast at a faster rate than the rest of the world. “U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile swath [between Cape Hatteras, NC and Boston] a ‘hot spot’ for climbing sea levels caused by global warming,” The Washington Post reported on Sunday. “Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three times to four times faster than the global average since 1990.”

“Computer models long have projected higher levels along parts of the East Coast because of changes in ocean currents from global warming, but this is the first study to show that’s already happened,” The Washington Post added. “By 2100, scientists and computer models estimate that sea levels globally could rise as much as 3.3 feet. The accelerated rate along the East Coast could add about 8 inches to 11 inches more.”

The new study confirms findings that are well known to some East Coast communities, particularly Norfolk, Virginia, home to the world’s largest naval base. According to a report by The Washington Post last Sunday, Norfolk has spent the last several years battling storm surge made worse by sea level rise. Some have proposed buying up property in flood prone areas of the city to move people back away from the encroaching sea, while spending hundreds of millions of dollars in other parts of the city to build flood walls, tide gates, raised roads and flood pumps to protect critical infrastructure, including the Norfolk naval station.

From The Washington Post @washingtonpost: “Japan approves bringing first nuclear reactors back online since last year's tsunami: wapo.st/KIkt3v.”

The Washington Post reports that Japan has approved a plan to restart two reactors at the Ohi nuclear plant to avoid potentially crippling blackouts this summer.

From Andrew Holland @TheAndyHolland: “Why the RAND Report on Biofuels and the U.S. Military has it Wrong -americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/why-… My @ConEnergyReport post up via@amsecproject.”

Andrew Holland of the American Security Project reviews a new RAND study on biofuels and argues that the report misses the strategic importance of developing alternatives to conventional petroleum fuel.

From the New Security Beat @NewSecurityBeat: “#Burma at a Crossroads for#Peacebuilding and Natural#Resource Governance ow.ly/bEcBzvia @earthinstitute.”

The New Security Beat cross posts to an article by Kirk Talbott on the Columbia University Earth Institute’s State of the Planet blog on the prospects for improvements in peacebuilding and natural resource governance in Burma.

From the Blogs of War @BlogsofWar: “Tense Iran Nuclear Talks Resume in Moscow news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&….”

Blogs of War links to a report from The New York Times on the nuclear negotiations between Iran and other world powers in Moscow. 

Burma’s Shwe Pipeline project could begin delivering oil and natural gas to China as early as 2013, providing China some relief from its so-called Malacca Dilemma and potentially changing its strategic calculus with respect to energy resources in the South China Sea.

The Strait of Malacca has long posed a strategic vulnerability to China. Up to 80 percent of China’s Persian Gulf and African oil imports pass through this energy chokepoint nestled between Indonesia and Malaysia, fomenting anxiety in Beijing that any obstruction of the strait or neighboring sea lanes could have an immediate impact on the Chinese economy and stability.  “[I]f the Malacca Strait were closed for just one day, the disruption in energy supplies might cause social unrest in China, according to a well-placed officer of the People’s Liberation Army,” wrote Patrick M. Cronin and Robert D. Kaplan in a January 2012 CNAS study on the South China Sea.

China’s Malacca Dilemma has exacerbated fears over assured access to energy resources and could be influencing Beijing’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea. Despite the uncertainty over how much oil and natural gas actually lays beneath the South China Sea, policymakers in Beijing appear to be making a bet that those energy resources could provide some strategic relief from its energy problems elsewhere, particularly the Strait of Malacca. Moreover, China’s vast infrastructure of overland energy pipelines from Central Asia carries strategic risk as well. Those energy resources must cross through vulnerable transit states like Pakistan and are delivered to western China, where Beijing’s influence waxes and wanes.

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened a hearing with top military officials to discuss the national security benefits of ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention. The panel of top military officials – referred to as the “24 star” military witnesses, with four Admirals and two Generals – voiced strong support for ratifying the convention.

The presence of several U.S. Geographic Combatant Commanders reinforced the message that the Law of the Sea Convention enables the U.S. military to safeguard U.S. interests in important maritime domains, such as the South China Sea and the Arctic.  

From left to right: Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; General William M. Fraser, III, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command; Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations; Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; and General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., Commander of U.S. Northern Command.

Photo: Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense

Tomorrow is our annual June conference, affectionately referred to by one of my colleagues as Woodstock for wonks.

We have a terrific agenda lined up, with a special address from The Honorable Kurt Campbell, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and a co-founder of CNAS, and a conversation with The Honorable Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank.

The program will cover a variety of our research issues, from Afghanistan and defense in an era of austerity, to the Middle East after the Arab Spring and veterans reintegration.

Like every year, the conference will feature a variety of CNAS reports released in recent weeks. Some of them are directly or loosely related to the work we do on natural security; the ones that are not are nevertheless great contributions to the national security and defense policy debate.

Here is a breakdown of some of the natural security issues woven into this year’s conference papers, in no particular order:

Sustainable Pre-eminence: Reforming the U.S. Military at a Time of Strategic Change

In this report, Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Dr. Nora Bensahel, Matthew Irvine and Travis Sharp argue that the Department of Defense should organize and operate America’s armed forces in new ways. According to the authors, one of the ways to do this is for the Department of Defense to increase leap-ahead research and development investments in important areas, including energy conservation and alternative energy.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton joined Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store on a tour of an Arctic research vessel while visiting Tromso, Norway on June 2, 2012. “The world increasingly looks to the North," Secreatry Clinton told reporters following the two-hour tour. “Our goal is certainly to promote peaceful cooperation,” she added.  

Photo: Courtesy of the U.S. State Department 

The United States is pushing for an Arctic agenda that promotes resource cooperation among Arctic and non-Arctic countries as part of a broader effort to foster diplomatic engagement in the High North. During a recent visit to Tromso, Norway in the Arctic Circle, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized that the United States is “committed to responsible management of those [Arctic] resources,” including oil, natural gas and other mineral resources. But while much attention is being focused on these lucrative mineral resources, there are significant opportunities for the United States and the other Arctic countries to enhance broader international cooperation, beginning with fisheries conservation.

The Arctic is emerging as one of the most important maritime domains in the world. Environmental change is giving rise to new sea lanes that will cut the transit time between the Pacific and Atlantic, and opening up new areas for commercial development, including for oil, natural gas and minerals extraction, as well as fishing. There is no doubt that the opening of the Arctic is leading today to increased military, commercial and scientific activities. As these activities increase, it will become ever more important for Arctic countries and non-Arctic countries to cooperate around a range of emerging trends, including offshore energy development that could generate environmental challenges, commercial activity that could contribute to greater demand for search and rescue and other law enforcement capabilities, and increased military presence from Arctic (and potentially non-Arctic) countries that could foment uncertainty and lead to misperceptions about other countries’ intentions in the region.

As U.S. policymakers look for opportunities to enhance cooperation in the Arctic Circle, it may be useful to begin with fisheries conservation. This rather low-politics area of engagement could get partners comfortably engaged in a discussion on Arctic issues that could then snowball into a broader conversation about cooperation around other security and foreign policy interests in the region.    

Here are a couple of ways that cooperation around protecting fisheries may serve broader foreign policy purposes in the Arctic Circle:

Iraq’s crude oil production has increased substantially this year despite sectarian violence, political infighting and modest recovery from years of war.

Increased oil production has contributed to a 20 percent rise in oil exports, bringing total exports to approximately 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, according to a report in The New York Times.  The increased production is owed largely to modest improvements in security as well as technical service contracts with experienced foreign oil companies. “The companies brought in modern seismic equipment and modern well recovery techniques to resuscitate old fields,” The New York Times reported. Baghdad claims that these production improvements will enable the country to produce an additional 400,000 barrels a day by 2013, a step on the road to an announced goal of producing 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2017.

Iraq’s resurgent oil sector is likely to have positive benefits for the country and the global oil market. On the one hand, increased oil production will provide Baghdad additional revenue to help the fledgling government strengthen its legitimacy. As The New York Times reported, “Oil provides more than 95 percent of the government’s revenues, has enabled the building of roads and the expansion of social services, and has greatly strengthened the Shiite-led government’s hand in this ethnically divided country.” Moreover, Iraq’s production increase comes as Libya’s oil production is nearing a full recovery. Last week, Libyan officials announced that oil production had reached 90 percent of pre-civil war levels, with the country producing 1.6 million barrels of petroleum a day. Taken together, Iraq’s and Libya’s oil recoveries could help offset the impact of Iranian oil sanctions that will come into full force beginning in July. This will provide the global oil market added volume to satisfy demand and insulate consumers from dramatic price spikes.