Security and Peaceful Development
Admiral Dennis C. Blair
Commander in Chief
United States Pacific Command
Pleasure to be here with you today. This is a distinguished audience that can help me to advance the mission of Pacific Command - which is to promote security and peaceful development in the Asia-Pacific region.
I will discuss three propositions.
First is that economic prosperity and security are self-reinforcing. This means that governments, armed forces and commercial interests - all represented here - play a role in international security.
Second, is that the interactions between economic prosperity and international security are increasing - meaning that commercial interests are playing an ever-greater role in security issues.
Third, is that the way ahead for the region is in developing security arrangements that have characteristics similar to commercial interactions.
Economic prosperity and security are self-reinforcing. - That proposition is obvious to some, but it is important to keep reminding ourselves and others of its truth, and acting on it.
Prosperity gives people within a country and countries within a region greater stakes in each other's futures.
Security, whether it is the rule of law within a country, or peace among countries, allows national economies to grow, fueled by international commerce and finance.
On the negative side, economic hardship foments crime and other forms of civil violence, and breeds resentment across borders.
And domestic violence and war restrict economic growth, and cause economic hardship for most citizens.
I recognize that a stake in each other's future is not always enough to prevent conflict.
In 1913 proportion of international trade to the size of the world economy was roughly as large as it is now, and that level of interdependence did not prevent war.
However the generation that went through those wars emerged with the conviction that prosperity and security were intertwined. Their conviction is important to pass on to the new generation of leaders now coming to positions of responsibility - generations who have not had the direct experience of their grandparents.
Both the nature of international economic interaction and the nature of warfare are changing rapidly, and we have to think about the growing interactions as we move into the 21st century.
The interaction will more complicated in the future, and require better understanding and coordination among military leaders, business leaders, and government policymakers.
One of the most popular books on the phenomenon of globalization is by Thomas Friedman, entitled The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
In that book is an imaginary policy consultation within the United States government, in which the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce are all offering the President conflicting policy advice because of the conflicting effects of policies. As we move into the future, both in the United States and in other countries' leaders are working to understand these interactions and to apply them to support both national and international security and economic interests.
Let me offer a few observations.
A striking aspects of the new global economy is that information, organization and knowledge provide greater value than materials and manpower.
This shift as affected business of both commercial firms and armed forces.
In products as varied as cars to computers, the manufacturing labor and materials now account for only 10-15% of the product. The rest of the cost is in the design, system integration and marketing … the knowledge and information parts of the business.
The same trends are apparent in military operations - knowledge and information are more and more valuable.
- In World War II it took thousands of aircraft and bombs to disable an objective;
- In the Vietnam conflict that number was down to hundreds because of advancements in intelligence and weaponry
- In the Gulf War a single bomb could have an equivalent effect.
Some argue that technology has simply made it possible to do more military damage for less cost that even without nuclear weapons war will be more destructive in the future.
I do not agree.
The end of the Cold War has brought an end to the ideological confrontations that fueled the destructive wars of this century.
Look at the flashpoints here in the Asia-Pacific region:
The potential sties of major conflict on the Korean Peninsula, across the Taiwan Strait and in Kashmir are geographically dispersed and politically disconnected.
Major powers are involved in all of them, but they are not dominated by a single set of rivalries. The major powers have common interests in the their peaceful resolution of disputes, and failing that, in limiting armed conflict.
I would argue that the information age can result in military operations that are more closely directed at military objectives, in the context of crises and conflicts are aimed at limited objectives.
Industrial age warfare is the warfare of the past - relying on force, mass and destructive power - and aimed at the destruction of a rival. Information age warfare is the warfare of the future - relying on knowledge, precision, and speed of decision - and aimed at resolving a particular dispute.
Another trend is more skilled and effective use of trade, financial incentives and sanctions, rather than relying only on military coercion.
There are current instances of positive incentives:
Japan has long used its Overseas Development Aid to foster peaceful relations with the recipients.
The Republic of Korea has adopted a strategy of economic interactions as part of its engagement for reconciliation with the North.
American national security strategy includes the concept that open markets create pressures for open societies, in turn promoting democracy and peaceful development.
Economics can also be a form of coercion.
Negative economic incentives include combinations of economic sanctions enforced by armed forces, freezing financial assets, putting conditions on international aid, and using armed forces to affect stock markets and insurance rates.
Current UN sanctions limit Iraq's ability to rearm and restart its weapon of mass destruction programs after the Gulf War.
The potential loss of $700 million in IMF funds was far more influential than threats to cut off military assistance in persuading President Habibe to allow the International Force to enter East Timor to end the violence there.
Some countries have also attempted to use military operations to cause economic effects in support of their security policies:
By attacking Iraqi oil tankers during their war in the 1980s, Iran tried to drive insurance rates to the point of severing that means of delivery.
One effect of the Chinese missile firings in 1996 was plunge in the Taiwanese stock market.
None of these economic measures have been completely successful, and that imaginary debate in Mr. Friedman's book continues in governments around the world.
No country yet has been able to develop precision-guided sanctions that achieve the desired affects without collateral damage.
A final trend I would point to is the increased use in all armed forces of "off the shelf" civilian technologies for military purposes.
The vast majority of military communications use commercial circuits.
Armed forces have also adapted civilian computers and commercial software to their use - in navigation systems, propulsion systems, and even weapons systems
As in commercial sector, armed forces that better exploit information technology have a large competitive edge.
We are increasingly in an environment where both sides in an armed conflict are using the same systems to conduct their operations. Neither side can degrade the other without degrading their own operations.
The net affect may be that space and cyber-space become sanctuaries, used by both armed forces in conflict, and by commercial interests and governments at the same time.
Turning to the third proposition, future regional security arrangements should share several important attributes with investment and commercial interactions.
I have been promoting the notion of security communities. Karl Deutsch coined the term to describe a community of nations that have dependable expectations of peaceful change.
Security communities are groups of nations:
- that genuinely do not plan or intend to fight one another,
- that are willing to put their collective efforts to resolving regional points of friction,
- that are willing to contribute armed forces and other aid to humanitarian operations and peacekeeping to support diplomatic solutions; and
- are willing to plan, train and exercise their armed forces together for these kinds of operations.
They are committed to policy coordination, including military cooperation on a particular regional security issue, or a series of related security issues, to advance peaceful development of their region over time without major conflict.
Security communities are appropriate for the Asia-Pacific region since the members need not be treaty alliance signatories. Instead, they may be based on a non-military organization such as the ASEAN Regional Forum; or groups of national joined by geographic considerations or common concerns.
Security communities share several attributes with investment and commercial interactions.
- They require shared interest and a basic level of trust.
- Successful transactions benefit all of the parties involved, and
- Success builds confidence and encourages greater interactions and interdependence.
In summary, let me say again that in the area of security and peaceful development, those of us in the armed forces and those of you in the business world have parallel and often overlapping interests.
Our objectives mine to keep the peace, and yours to make a buck - or a yen - or a yuan - can be self-reinforcing.
There are many dangerous trends in our region, but there are many positive trends -
- Development of military operations in the information age
- The end of ideological confrontation across armed camps
- More sophisticated use of economic levers by governments for security objectives
- Potential commercial sanctuaries in military operations
Most important, we need to develop security communities, which emphasize cooperation, solving problems peacefully, and I enlist your support as business executives and as citizens.
My remarks just scratch the surface of what we are here to discuss this morning. I look forward to hearing the panel and the discussion that it engenders.