Why The World Needs The 1,000 Ship Navy

Pitching American initiatives to global audiences these days is a dicey proposition. Global respect, fear, interest and trust in the US is low and falling ever farther with passing months. Nevertheless, a good idea deserves consideration, and a great idea merits implementation.

Since assuming his role as the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen has talked up a groundbreaking concept known as the 1,000 Ship Navy. Admiral Mullen :

“[The fleet is] a global maritime partnership that unites maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers, and international, governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address mutual concerns.

 

“Membership in this ‘navy’ is purely voluntary and would have no legal or encumbering ties. It would be a free-form, self-organizing network of maritime partners — good neighbors interested in using the power of the sea to unite, rather than to divide. The barriers for entry are low. Respect for sovereignty is high.”

Obvious benefits include a boost to counter-terrorism, anti-piracy and environmental protection efforts. The idea has caught the interest of allies like Japan, Australia and NATO, even India. Yet tremendous hurdles block the way, as Robert Farley noted last year:

A lot of the countries that would have to cooperate are suspicious of one another, or of the United States. Agreement on basic principles isn’t too hard, but the devil is in the details. In the Mediterranean, for example, North African countries are notably less excited about refugee hunting missions than their European counterparts. The same problem of emphasis exists with drug trafficking and even piracy. Some of the questions dealt with by the network would invariably touch on political concerns. For example, a cooperative naval effort to monitor North Korean trade might not win universal support.

Devising solutions to the challenges noted above and others is certainly a high priority for Admiral Mullen, who is making real progress in introducing American elites to the transcendent promise inherent in the TSN (Thousand Ship Navy). Here then is a humble series of suggestions to selling the concept abroad in foreign staterooms as well as among the local populace and elites.

• How to win China’s support? Certainly, TSN is dead in the water long-term if China can’t be won over.

1. Emphasize the sharing of information, the deferral to regional actors (like in the Malacca Straits and the Mediterranean) and the prospects for boosting the security of shipping for the global economy that China is an ever-larger part of.
2. Take it further and offer China the lead in a majority of TSN patrols and deployments in the South China Sea and elsewhere on China’s periphery.
3. Encourage the Chinese sit down with their neighbors (S. Korea, the Philippines & Japan prominently) on methods to pool resources to secure their common energy, mineral and commodity routes.

• Why do developing countries need TSN? A glaring cry for help: the rape by foreign pirates (Chinese, Korean & European trawlers mostly) of their fishing stocks is a searing double blow to West African nations. Consider Sierra Leone; which is eager to utilize their offshore resources to complement as well as offset agriculture shortfalls in providing subsistence for its people, as well as bring the fish to the global market as a valuable commodity. The theft of millions of dollars from them is a crime that the TSN can help reduce in scope through a variety of ways.

1. Foremost is a generous operational grant (for fuel and supplies) to small navies/coast guards combined with the donation of appropriate mothballed US Navy/Coast Guard vessels.
2. Establish an annual training schedule for US Navy and/or PSC’s to build basic interoperability and deepen relationships.
3. Initiate an exchange program where 1-3 Naval officers and 5-15 NCO’s (depending on host nation force composition) from the USN serve with their counterparts in the small navies for a year or so, immerse in their languages and culture and observe and understand their local challenges and opportunities.
4. Invest in localized firms that offer shipping and other logistics services (perhaps as localized ops for the major int’l conglomerates), helping to set roots in local economies that offer an incentive for businessmen, politicians and bureaucrats not to turn a blind eye to resource exploitation and the toleration of lawless zones.
5. Self-sufficiency is a gradual process that TSN can positively influence, giving developing countries a fair chance they’re not getting now because of the negative effects of black globalization.

• What can developing countries bring to the table? Besides the obvious cooperative benefits of expanded relationships and security contacts for the US, there are other positives in play:

1. At times, the US and others will have to explicitly spell out incentives (i.e. bribes of an “aid” sort, humble nods to national feelings) in maritime neighborhoods with feuding and distrustful occupants.
2. Reducing the tensions between rivals over issues like disputed fishing and drilling rights, environmental waste and territorial patrols by emphasizing cooperation over confrontation through transparent information gathering available to all parties via online databases and publicly (via online streaming video for example) monitored “hot zone” waterways could prevent any number of future conflicts and the ensuing economic and social costs.
3. Local intelligence-gathering on illegal activity like smuggling and piracy saves time and money, encouraging coordinated interdiction and arrest efforts among neighbors and global actors like the US, India & China.

• Why should others bow to American leadership again ?
  1. Actually, TSN can be all about the rightful assertion to regional and increased global leadership of a number of countries; Brazil, India, China, South Africa, along with the independent security partnerships of smaller neighborhoods as in the Straits of Malacca and the Carribean.
  2. The hallmarks of TSN; shared intelligence, verifiable trust and the potential creation of common communications standards, imply a serious measure of independence from America that allows the seas to remain open and free and the American military to move to a quiet, supportive role of nations in much of the world.
  3. In an era where a smaller fleet is largely pre-occupied in 10% of the world’s waterways (Persian Gulf, Horn Of Africa, Sea of Japan/Korea), it is the only reasonable choice for a Navy that has ever more responsibilities with lesser resources.
• Emphasize the increasing dangers for natural and man-made disasters, smuggling, and environmental destruction, highlighting the significant successes of the generally well-coordinated responses thus far. (i.e. we’ve already got a 500-700 ship Navy…)
  1. America and others have been working quite well together for several years in this regard, from the 2004 tsunami relief effort to the Pakistan earthquake response.
  2. Future responses to earthquakes, epidemics, mudslides, flooding and other disasters hinge on expanding these ties.
  3. Successful cooperation positively impacts the bottom line: economic success, political support at home, stability to pursue national goals.

Update: It goes without saying this is a post (indeed, TSN really is as well) inspired by Thomas PM Barnett’s “Sys Admin” concept, which is where the best future of a sustainable maritime security environment, replete with development of developing nation’s coastal economies and the protection of invaluable natural resources lies in.

The Unity Of AIDS

Mind-numbing statistics combine with the understandable inability of most to comprehend what tens of millions of AIDS orphans, overwhelmed health systems, enormous demographic gaps in societies and the enormity of overcoming ancient stigmas and traditions to ensure the specter of the global AIDS epidemic is shrouded in well-meaning celebrity rhetoric and seemingly never-ending small scientific advances and setbacks.

Yet in the struggle to contain and stem the AIDS epidemic, hopes have rarely been higher, opportunities rarely more within grasp, than those that exist today. Elites in much of the world, especially the United States, agree on the enormity of the emergency and their ability to take action. Not far behind is the support generated by the impassioned feelings of significant numbers of the public, especially religious and human rights groups.

The emergency brings together old enemies (US forces train the Vietnamese Army in AIDS prevention) and fosters new relationships that can not only transcend old wounds but cultural and political gulfs in Russia, India and Nigeria. The rare foreign policy success of George W. Bush, PEPFAR still must overcome serious concerns about funding and scope, but it joins the private sector innovations of the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation in finally bringing serious resources to the response.

Already spreading like wildfire in sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS may yet spiral out of control in China, Afghanistan, India and Russia. The proposals I offer below are a reflection of the danger here in failing to adequately take steps now to prevent that from happening, not only the multi-dimensional holocaust ongoing in Africa.

• The creation of a pilot scholarship program in conjunction with Cuba, Britain and Japan specifically for nurses and doctors (to help address the African and Indian brain drains in particular) who will agree to work in specialized clinics in their home countries for a 6 year term afterwards.
• Commencement of a conference with attendees to include major university presidents, multinational corporation executives and AIDS-impacted national leaders to lay the foundation for the funding and opening of small medical campuses for a variety of health fields in the impacted countries.
• A joint military training program to include personnel from NATO, AU, OAS, SCO, ASEAN and Arab League nations to coordinate AIDS prevention efforts, with a UNSC resolution authorizing and endorsing it before or after.
• Explore the support for grassroots efforts in Catholic countries to build pressure onto the Church over its refusal to endorse condoms. The funding and waging of a targeted media campaign highlighting the negative impact of the Church’s refusal should be further explored.
• Ensure the WHO and its affiliates have open-source reports detailing the individualized patterns of the spread of AIDS in countries, provinces and cities and create a reporting process to ensure engagement with local health officials to share and utilize the data.
• Lastly and most important of all for the US, leaders should recognize the issue as a winner in every way for American interests. Close cooperation and resource-sharing in the cause should be offered publicly (unless it best to explore first in private) to Iran, Burma, China, Zimbabwe and others whom often have frosty relations with the US. A special envoy should be sent to Cuba to confer with Raul Castro complete with a formal request for Cuba’s leadership on the issue, because of its recognized medical infrastructure and legions of young, able nurses and doctors who could assist the effort.

The resources, the will and the manpower are available to make a serious dent in the number of AIDS victims and the disastrous effects they have on societies. Do those in power have the imagination to truly seize these abundant opportunities?

Thank You General Pace

For proving once and for all something is seriously amiss among the top echelons of our military. For dispensing with the old word games about “unit cohesion” and telling us all how you and other relics of a largely disgraced generation of leadership really feel about gays in the military.

I have served alongside countless sailors and Marines who were admitted homosexuals. To a (wo)man, their sexual orientation did not in any way affect the “unit cohesion” or professionally offend their comrades. They shared the professionalism, dedication and honor that most members of the US military adhere to.

The highest ranking military figure in our chain of command condemns them as “immoral” (while in uniform and in an official capacity) and noted last year that:

“The U.S. military mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence and cooperation amongst its members. And the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the U.S. Military.”

Coming from the man who has sat idly by for years while the war in Iraq was short-changed (at a fatal cost to thousands of Americans) in more ways than I can reasonably fathom, while also contributing to the drastic lowering of standards and unit cohesion by approving the expansion of the “moral waiver” program*, a seriously flawed short-term solution to a more hostile recruiting environment, this is pretty rich.

Remember my fellow servicemen and servicewomen who are gay or lesbian (especially those overseas in Iraq & Afghanistan), in the America people like him believe in and want to force upon the rest of us, your sacrifices and dedication mean squat. You are unfit for service. Untrustworthy. Unreliable. You are not worthy of the uniform you wear. You’re “immoral”.

The military wants more Private Steven Greens. No more Staff Sgt. Eric Alvas.

Between this and the shaft wounded servicemen were/are getting at Walter Reed and elsewhere, is the military jumping the shark or what?

*which I have personally seen the nasty ramifications of, like the “reformed” white supremacist and prolific substance abuse user that we had to kick out of the Navy last year)