NSI Publications

Authors: Dr. Allison Astorino-Courtois (NSI, Inc.)

Top-Level Findings

This paper reports a number of the top-level findings from the Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project requested by the Joint Staff and USINDOPACOM. They are based on an integration of the results of the eleven different analytic efforts included in the project.

Finding: There are impediments to North Korean denuclearization on multiple layers making it highly unlikely and extremely difficult to achieve under foreseeable conditions.

Finding: Increased US-PRC tensions (the “new Cold War”) may work to Chinese advantage if regional actors are forced to choose between US guns and Chinese butter; US seen as disruptive or unengaged.

Bottom Line: The US role and approach to satisfying its objectives in the Pacific may be at a crossroads. Long-term US influence in the Pacific may require a change in the way the US perceives “regional leadership” and the activities that go with it.

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

[Q6] What are the minimum regional and domestic political, economic, and social conditions that are essential for achieving a stable regional order in alignment with US and ally interests? Are there any factors that are sufficient to generate such stability in the region? That is, what should not be negotiated away?

Authors: Dr. Belinda Bragg (NSI, Inc.) and George Popp (NSI, Inc.)

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Summary Response

This report summarizes the input of seventeen insightful responses from the Korea Strategic Outcomes Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa) expert contributors. While this summary response presents an overview of the key expert contributor insights, the summary alone cannot fully convey the fine detail of the contributor inputs provided, each of which is worth reading in its entirety. For this report, the expert contributors consider what political, economic, and social conditions are conducive to achieving a stable regional order in the Asia Pacific that is in alignment with US and US ally interests. This summary details the various conditions that emerge.

Achieving a Stable Regional Order

Nearly all of the contributors indicate, either directly or indirectly, that, if the United States’ desired regional order in the Asia Pacific is interpreted as continued US military presence and dominant US influence in the region, then it is unlikely to be stable. Such a regional order fundamentally conflicts with China’s strategic interest in becoming the dominant regional power and influencer. For China, weakening US alliances, and pushing the US out of the region—politically, economically, and militarily—is essential to achieving its own regional objectives. Contributors, therefore, generally align with the
conclusion put forward by Dr. Michael Swaine of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that US “efforts to double down on [its] predominance [in the region], with or without allied support, are likely to prove futile and excessively destabilizing.” Accordingly, a stable regional order, contributors
suggest, may require achieving a unique balance between the United States’ force posture and China’s expansionist tendencies. 3 It is clear, however, that the fundamental incompatibility between US and Chinese interests will make any effort to achieve a stable regional order in alignment with US and US ally
interests quite challenging.

When considering specific conditions that are conducive to regional stability in the Asia Pacific, therefore, it is important to recognize that what either the US or China sees as a driver of stability, is likely to be seen by the other as a barrier to stability. The table below summarizes what contributors identify as key conditions of the regional order preferred by the US and its allies, as well as the often conflicting (red cells) nature of these US preferences to those of China and Russia.

Of all the conditions highlighted as conducive to a stable regional order as currently envisioned by the US, only final, fully verified denuclearization (FFVD) in the DPRK is identified by contributors as an essential condition that should not to be negotiated away. While contributors contend that FFVD will make the region safer and more stable, they also suggest that it has implications for achieving other US objectives in the region. For example, Dr. Andrew O’Neil of Griffith University argues that settling for anything less than FFVD in the DPRK could be interpreted by US allies as a signal of declining US regional commitment and, as a consequence, undermine US deterrence credibility. This could lead US allies such as Japan or the ROK to reevaluate their own military capabilities, potentially including the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and, consequently, undermine US non-proliferation goals.

The contributors, therefore, emphasize the importance of taking a gradual, multilateral approach to denuclearization that recognizes and accommodates the intermediate objectives of key regional actors. Achieving an agreement that has regional buy-in, particularly from the United States’ regional allies, contributors explain, may counter concerns regarding US disengagement. Moreover, while including China and Russia in the negotiations may increase the complexity of the negotiation process, and the potential for a breakdown in negotiations as a result, it also decreases the likelihood that the US and China, in particular, will come into direct confrontation over any negotiated outcomes.

Conclusion

The contributor response overall highlights the significant impact that competing interests and regional competition between the US and China has on stability in the Asia Pacific region. The ways in which the US and China currently perceive their regional interests seem destined to lead to a clash between the two powers if not amended. A regional order based on continued US military presence and dominant US influence fundamentally conflicts with China’s current interests in increased, if not dominant, regional political, military, and economic power. If the US fails to account for China’s interests, therefore, the actions that the US is likely to take to reinforce its vision of a stable regional order may end up decreasing stability in the Asia Pacific region over the longer-term. Additionally, if the US fails to redress the loss of confidence amongst its regional allies and partners in its economic and security commitments to the region, it is hard to see how the US would continue to exercise regional influence at all. Therefore, the most effective way for the US to balance these two considerations, the contributors suggest, appears to be by working multilaterally with regional allies as well as with China and Russia toward a stable regional order in the Asia Pacific.

Subject Matter Expert Contributors

Dr. Bruce Bennet, RAND; Dr. Stephen Blank, American Foreign Policy Council; Dr. Stephen Cimbala, Penn State Brandywine; Ken Gause, CNA; Dr. David Hunter-Chester, Training and Doctrine Command G-2; Dr. Jeffrey Knopf, Middlebury Institute of International Studies; Dr. Gregory Kulacki, Union of Concerned Scientists; Dr. Andrew O’Neil, Griffith University; Dr. John Plumb, RAND; Anthony Rinna, Sino-NK; Dr. Sheila Smith, Council on Foreign Relations; Brig Gen Rob Spalding, United States Air Force; Yun Sun, Stimson Center; Dr. Michael Swaine, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Yuki Tatsumi, Stimson Center; Dr. Miles Yu, United States Naval Academy

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Effects of Investment on Pathways to Space Security

Authors: Dr. Belinda Bragg (NSI, Inc.) and Dr. Sabrina Polansky (Pagano) (NSI, Inc.)

[Q8] How are the components of the commercial space industry allocated outside of the US? Which countries have which types of market interests on the commercial end (e.g. tourism, imagery, navigation etc.)?

Summary Response

Thirty-four subject matter expert (SME) contributors, the majority from the commercial space industry, responded to this question. They provided details on the commercial space activities of 17 countries and the European Space Agency (ESA). As discussed in detail in other ViTTa reports,4 it is important to recognize that the division between public and private organizations and activities is rarely clear-cut. Furthermore, as contributors have noted in their responses both to this question5 and others,6 much of the space activity outside the US is concentrated on dual-use technologies and applications. For these reasons, we define the “commercial space industry” as capabilities and activities undertaken for commercial purposes, rather than capabilities and activities undertaken by a purely commercial space actor.

We have compiled and summarized the contributor responses in two graphics that illustrate the extent to which the commercial space industry, which accounts for around three quarters of the global space economy (Bryce Space and Technology), is globalized. The capabilities and components discussed by the contributors have been mapped according to four general “bins”: satellite, launch, new space, and science and exploration.7 The tables, however, preserve the specific components referenced by the contributors, providing more detail of each state’s depth and focus in each area.

Our aggregation of the contributor discussion of commercial space capabilities and areas of interest indicates that, as we might expect, the US, Russia, and the PRC have the most diversified commercial capabilities in launch, satellites, and science and exploration. However, India and the ESA have very similar levels of coverage in launch, satellite, and science and exploration. Other states, such as Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and the UK are choosing to invest in research and development in niche areas (Lynn). Luxembourg is discussed by the contributors as an unexpectedly active and competitive actor in commercial space. The two biggest satellite operators in terms of revenue—SES and IntelSat—are headquartered in Luxembourg, even though a large part of their business is providing services in the US (Bryce Space and Technology). The national legislature has recently passed laws to protect space property rights for Luxembourg-based companies,8 and is providing financing for private companies to develop space mining capabilities (Armor).

As the number of states developing their own commercial space industry grows, so does the potential for partnerships. China in particular has moved to build partnerships in the space sector both with developing nations with little independent space capability (Brown & May; Cheng), as well as the ESA and individual European states (Brown & May). Dr. Moriba Jah of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the small size of most states’ space programs has made partnerships both more necessary and easier to accomplish than is the case for the US. Dr. Martin Lindsey of United States Pacific Command and Agnieszka Lukaszczyk of Planet both suggest that, although space is becoming more crowded and congested, it is a domain in which there is considerable cooperation both between states and between the public and private sectors. This cooperation offers states with fewer resources the potential to quickly and cheaply gain access to space technologies and space-based information and services. The US has the potential to take advantage of its strength in the space domain to broaden and strengthen its existing relationships with ally and partner nations. However it needs to act fast; other nations, including challenging powers like China and Russia, are already moving ahead with partnerships, and developing regulatory environments to attract commercial space actors.

Contributors

Roberto Aceti (OHB Italia S.p.A., Italy); Adranos Energetics; Brett Alexander (Blue Origin); Major General (USAF ret.) James Armor2 (Orbital ATK); Marc Berkowitz (Lockheed Martin); Brett Biddington (Biddington Research Pty Ltd, Australia); Wes Brown & Todd May (NASA); Bryce Space and Technology; Robert D. Cabana (NASA); Caelus Partners, LLC; Elliot Carol3 (Ripple Aerospace, Norway); Chandah Space Technologies; Matthew Chwastek (Orbital Insight); Dean Cheng (Heritage Foundation); Faulconer Consulting Group; Gilmour Space Technologies, Australia; Joshua Hampson (Niskanen Center); Harris Corporation; Dr. Jason Held (Saber Astronautics, Australia); Theresa Hitchens (Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland); Jonathan Hung (Singapore Space and Technology Association, Singapore); Dr. Moriba Jah (University of Texas at Austin); Dr. Martin Lindsey (United States Pacific Command); Agnieszka Lukaszczyk (Planet, Netherlands); Sergeant First Class Jerritt A. Lynn (United States Army Civil Affairs); Dr. Luca Rossettini (D-Orbit, Italy); Victoria Samson (Secure World Foundation); Brent Sherwood (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory); Spire Global Inc.; Stratolaunch Systems Corporation; John Thornton (Astrobotic Technology); ViaSat, Inc.; Charity Weeden (Satellite Industry Association, Canada); Joanne Wheeler (Bird & Bird, UK)

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Contested Space Operations: Space Defense, Deterrence, and Warfighting project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

‍

Contributors: Aviles, W. & Kuznar, L. (NSI, Inc.)

Executive Summary

This study was conducted to address the question: How can the US increase the resolve and capability of Pakistan to support political reconciliation in Afghanistan and the region?

Two methods of textual analysis were applied to a corpus of 30 Imran Khan speeches that spanned the period of 2007 to 2018, although most speeches postdated 2013 and represent his recent rise to power. The methods were quantitative discourse analysis (QDA) and the Linguistic and Inventory Word Count (LIWC).

The primary political themes Imran Khan expressed in his public discourse are:

• The political machinery of Pakistan and criticism of his political opponents;
• Fighting corruption;
• Appeals to religion (generic Islamic values) and appeals to the common masses;
• Pakistani domestic terrorism and extricating from American counterterrorism efforts;
• The Pakistan economy; his interest in the economy has surged in recent years;
o Imran Khan has a decidedly left-of-center, welfare state model of economic development that he claims is consistent with Islamic principles.
• His interest in education has increased in recent years, emphasizing improving its quality and access to it, including for women and girls.

Imran Khan foreign policy:
Imran Khan claims to seek positive foreign relations with India, the U.S., Afghanistan and China. His views on India are unconventional within the context of traditional power elites in Pakistan. The extent to which the Pakistani military has dominated Pakistan’s foreign policy and their seemingly close relationship with Imran Khan may limit his ability to act independently on these issues.

His language use indicates the following psychological characteristics
• His language exhibits high status and a need for power;
• He has a negative worldview;
• His interest in economic issues is increasing in time;
• His anxiety levels, although initially high, are decreasing through time.

General implications of these findings:
• Imran Khan is very political and particularly open to positions that would enhance his standing and power
in domestic politics.
• Support that would enable him to contend with incidents of domestic terrorism and to improve both the
Pakistani economy and education system should be particularly attractive to him.
• His appeals to religious conservatism manifested among the common masses (as opposed to formal clergy or Islamic extremists) are vital to maintaining his base; positions that would threaten these appeals
would be contrary to his interests and possibly his genuine sentiments.
Implications for Afghanistan reconciliation and reintegration:
• Imran Khan has stated that he would like to be a broker in Afghan reconciliation efforts. If he is truthful in
this intent, aiding him in shoring up his power domestically is likely to help increase his resolve to support Afghan reconciliation and reintegration. Political issues that matter most to him in his public discourse include:
o Domestic terrorism, the economy, education, and maintaining his common, rural and socially conservative base;
o FightingcorruptioninPakistan;
o ForeignaffairswithIndia,theU.S.,AfghanistanandChina.
• An important caveat is that Imran Khan’s ability to advance his foreign affairs agenda, including
reconciliation in Afghanistan, could well be thwarted by Pakistan’s military establishment.

[Q2] Is there anything the US can do to empower the ROK to negotiate a solution that would remove both the nuclear and conventional instabilities on the peninsula?

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Author: Weston Aviles (NSI, Inc.) and George Popp (NSI, Inc.)

Summary Response

This report summarizes the input of 18 insightful responses from the Korea Strategic Outcomes Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa) expert contributors. While this summary response presents an overview of the key expert contributor insights, the summary alone cannot fully convey the fine detail of the contributor inputs provided, each of which is worth reading in its entirety. For this report, the expert contributors consider whether there is anything that the US can do to empower the ROK to negotiate a solution that would remove both the nuclear and conventional instabilities on the Korean Peninsula. This summary details the various perspectives that emerge.

Can the US Empower the ROK to Negotiate a Solution?

There is disagreement amongst the contributors as to whether there is anything the US can do to empower the ROK to negotiate a solution that would remove both the nuclear and conventional instabilities on the Korean Peninsula. Many contributors do believe that the US can empower the ROK to implement measures that would remove instabilities on the peninsula. Although Ken Gause of CNA casts doubt on the likelihood of removing Pyongyang’s nuclear and conventional deterrents in the short- to medium-term, contributors who advocate this position generally assess that there are concrete and realistic actions that the US can take to unilaterally empower Seoul in pursuit of stability on the peninsula in the longer-term. Dr. Patrick McEachern of the Wilson Center, however, disagrees, arguing that the ROK lacks leverage and authority and that the US must lead the way: “the US cannot hope to empower the ROK to negotiate a solution…there is no substitute for American leadership.”

Still other contributors, however, fall somewhere between these two positions. Several of these contributors suggest that the US can empower the ROK to act as a mediator between the US and the DPRK, enabling the ROK to engage in “shuttle diplomacy” in pursuit of solutions that could remove instabilities on the peninsula. Some advocate for a stronger role for Seoul overall, arguing that the US should encourage the ROK to take the lead on negotiating a formal end to war with Pyongyang. Several others are a bit more particular, arguing that the US should lead negotiations related to denuclearization while the ROK should lead conventional détente efforts.

Ultimately, the contributors offer several different approaches that may enable the US to empower the ROK to negotiate solutions that would remove instability on the Korean Peninsula, highlighting different mechanisms for resolving the peninsula’s distinct nuclear and conventional dilemmas.

Denuclearization Measures

Several contributors suggest that removing nuclear threats on the peninsula may be more straightforward than removing conventional instabilities. Dr. Bruce Bennet of RAND and Dr. Jeffrey Knopf of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies echo this assertion, contending that simply holding the DPRK to the Panmunjom Declaration will go a long way toward eliminating nuclear instabilities. Dr. Gary Samore of Harvard University and Brig Gen Rob Spalding of the United States Air Force advocate for a more aggressive approach, arguing that the US should maintain its extended nuclear deterrence regime with Seoul. McEachern suggests that the ROK recognizes the US as the more appropriate actor to lead denuclearization negotiations, and that President Moon “has prioritized communication” with Washington to ensure robust correspondence. On the other hand, Yun Sun of the Stimson Center believes that the US should facilitate the ROK to “push for a nuclear-free, permanently neutral peninsula,” by allowing the ROK to take the lead on some aspect of denuclearization negotiations. Along these lines, Debra Decker of the Stimson Center proposes that the US utilize track 1.5 diplomacy to express an openness to denuclearization negotiations with the ROK, and suggests that Seoul assist Pyongyang in finishing the KEDO nuclear plants to make discussions with the US more attractive.

Conventional Measures

The path to removing conventional instabilities appears to be more complicated and nuanced than denuclearization measures, according to the contributors, and requires significant commitments from the US, ROK, and DPRK. To this end, however, the US may be able to empower the ROK on a number of confidence building measures with the DPRK. While Dr. Miles Yu of the United States Naval Academy argues that the US must never yield its military presence on the Korean Peninsula, other contributors contend that a gradual and reciprocal de-escalation and repositioning of US forces may help to remove conventional instabilities. These contributors identify several potential approaches for overcoming some of the conventional instabilities stemming from the presence of US forces on the peninsula, including:

• Creating a DMZ Peace Zone.
• Establishing a leader-level hotline.
• Considering limits on conventional forces.
• Engaging in negotiations on the reduction of artillery.
• Considering the elimination of elements of ROK missile program activities in exchange for significant reductions in and limitations on the DPRK missile arsenal.
• Expanding the suspension of loudspeaker broadcasts.
• Establishing inter-Korean agreements of conduct in the West Sea.

General Measures

Contributors also highlight several more general approaches to empowering the ROK to negotiate solutions that would abolish instabilities indistinct from conventional and nuclear measures. First, Dr. Steve Sin of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism argues that the ROK must feel that it is leading the discussion and that future policies must “look, taste, smell, and feel Korean,” even if such policies run counter to US interests. In this vein, Dr. John Plumb of RAND suggests that transferring the operational control of Combined Forces Command to the ROK may better empower Seoul to negotiate. Yu, however, warns against ceding such authority to potentially “trigger happy” South Korean leaders. Second, Dr. Gregory Kulacki of the Union of Concerned Scientists highlights the importance of communication, arguing that “the source of all instability is lack of communication and the misunderstanding that results from it.” He suggests, therefore, that “the US should encourage greater ROK communication with the DPRK by engaging in greater communication itself.” Third, several contributors suggest that the US offer a cautious stream of economic benefits both unilaterally and through the ROK to Pyongyang in return for verifiable limits and to increase confidence in negotiations. Lastly, Plumb recommends that the US apply pressure on Seoul to cease reunification rhetoric, contending that it is overtly “unrealistic and unhelpfully aggressive militaristic” and that a message of “brotherhood and harmony” is much more productive.

Subject Matter Expert Contributors

Dr. Bruce Bennet, RAND; Debra Decker, Stimson Center; Abraham Denmark, Wilson Center; Ken Gause, CNA; Dr. James Hoare, Chatham House; Dr. Jeffrey Knopf, Middlebury Institute of International Studies; Dr. Gregory Kulacki, Union of Concerned Scientists; Inhyok Kwon, RAND; Group Captain (Indian Air Force ret) Ajey Lele, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses; Dr. Rod Lyon, Australian Strategic Policy Institute; Dr. Patrick McEachern, Wilson Center; Dr. John Plumb, RAND; Joshua Pollack, Middlebury Institute of International Studies; Dr. Gary Samore, Harvard University; Dr. Steve Sin, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism; Brig Gen Rob Spalding, United States Air Force; Yun Sun, Stimson Center; Dr. Miles Yu, United States Naval Academy.

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Authors: Dr. Larry Kuznar (NSI, Inc.) and Dr. Sabrina Polansky (Pagano) (NSI, Inc.)

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Introduction and Purpose of Study

The collapse of the North Korean economy and disastrous famine of the mid-1990s forced the regime to adapt its centrally-planned economy—most notably by allowing limited and small-scale private entrepreneurship among a starving population that the government’s Public Distribution System could no longer support. In this context, the North Koreans had turned to informal markets for sustenance in order to survive (Gause, 2018; Park, 2018; Platte, 2018; Rinna, 2018). This “bottom up” marketization resulted in policy reforms that followed rather than led the transition (Haggard & Noland, 2005; Park, 2018; Platte, 2018; Rinna, 2018). While the regime acknowledged the need for these informal markets to meet needs that it could not fulfill, and even instructed state institutions to find profit-making opportunities, the regime nonetheless remained ideologically opposed to marketization and capitalism. The leadership even enacted policy reversals in late 2005 intended to roll back some of this change—including “banning private trade in grain, resuscitating the quantity rationing system, and…rever[ting back] to confiscatory seizures from rural cultivators” (Haggard & Noland, 2005). The regime’s 2007 and 2009 efforts to inhibit private entrepreneurship and decelerate marketization (e.g., through currency reform) were ultimately unsuccessful (Park, 2018).

The informal economy is still in place, represents a substantial sector of the total economy, and has fostered a new stratum of wealthy North Koreans, unattached to the military or traditional elite (Hastings, 2017). The result today is the emergence and continued growth of private entrepreneurs. One estimate is that 20% of the North Korean population is directly or indirectly reliant on “general markets” for survival (DailyNK, 2018). Simultaneously, there are party and military organizations with their own trading companies. This leaves the DPRK with public institutions funded by the state and private corporations liable for paying a percentage of proceeds to the state.

Nonetheless, marketization in the DPRK has remained limited overall. Though Kim Jong Un’s own statements (Kuznar, 2017; Platte, 2018) have highlighted the need for economic development in North Korea, he remains suspicious of further economic liberalization and broad marketization, which he views as a strong threat to the security and survival of his regime (Bennett, 2018; Cheng, 2018; Cronin, 2018; Gause, 2018; Goto, 2018; Park, 2018; Platte, 2018; Sun, 2018). Indeed, observers and scholars continue to question the longer-term implications of these economic developments, and whether there is an insurmountable tension between economic reform and marketization on the one hand, and stability of Kim family political control on the other. This analysis thus addresses the following question: Has marketization put the North Korean regime on a path to near-term collapse?

NSI applied its NSI Pathways™ methodology and model to search for and identify indicators that marketization in North Korea could lead to collapse of the Kim regime.

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Chinese Worldview and Perspectives on Space: An Analysis of Public Discourse

Authors: Weston Aviles (NSI, Inc.) and Dr. Larry Kuznar (NSI, Inc.)

Executive Summary

Corpora from three sources were examined using semi-automated discourse analysis to gauge the Chinese government’s concerns in the space domain and how these interests are articulated with general political and cultural issues. The sources were releases from the Chinese MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (2011 – 2017), stories reported by CPC (Communist Party of China) News (2013 – 2014), and two months of speeches by Chinese president Xi Jinping (2014). The primary findings from the discourse are presented as Chinese perspectives and worldview with respect to the space domain and general themes.

Chinese Perspectives and Worldview Regarding the Space Domain

• In each corpus, space was infrequently mentioned when compared to other issues. The dominant concern in each corpus was the Chinese economy and development.

• The Chinese MOFA expressed much concern with the DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs and US responses to them, especially the deployment of the THADD missile defense system.

• The Chinese (MOFA) primarily mentioned space in association with danger, threats, deterrence, and the military.

• The Chinese MOFA expresses significant concern over the weaponization of space.

• The Chinese MOFA often discusses cooperation with the US and other nations on developing space technologies, but it is not clear how much of this cooperation is a government venture rather than a private sector one.

• The DPRK’s missile development was a key concern because of its destabilizing effects and because of US efforts to respond by deploying the THADD missile defense system; the radar’s reach is a perceived threat to Chinese national security.

• CPC news trumpeted Chinese accomplishments in space travel and often associated them with President Xi Jinping.

• The primary insight provided by the quantitative analysis of CPC News is that space endeavors fall primarily within the government’s domain.

General Worldview and Values

• The Chinese MOFA, CPC News and Xi Jinping’s speeches focus on Chinese economic development and economic partners.

• A common theme expressed by all three sources involves issues of governance, including advocacy of effective governance and governmental procedure.

• The United States is the country of greatest concern to MOFA as measured by the density with which the US is mentioned and the amount of emotive language (emotive themes and rhetorical devices) associated with its discussion of the US.

• The Chinese MOFA self-references China as much as expected, and portrays China in positive, futuristic and nationalistic tones.

• The most basic themes discussed by all three sources emphasize positive and future-oriented themes such as progress and success.

• Other elements included in the corpora include positive themes such as cooperation and friendship.

• The Chinese MOFA disassociates China from cyber-attacks, cyber security and democracy.

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Contested Space Operations: Space Defense, Deterrence, and Warfighting project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

‍

[Q6] How do commercial ventures think about the security of their space assets during peacetime, crisis and conflict? Do industry leaders think about warfare in or through space differently than military leaders? What are their main concerns? How reliant are they on governments for warning or protection of space? What are their threat priorities?

Author(s): Nicole (Peterson) Omundson (NSI, Inc.)

Summary Response

The expert contributors suggest that commercial companies’ understanding of security is fundamentally different than that of military leaders. For both, security concerns reflect their primary interests; however, as their primary interests and goals are divergent, so are their perceptions of security and threat. When synthesizing the contributors’ responses, it becomes apparent that there is a relationship between commercial actors’ key interests, their security concerns and vulnerabilities, and their expectations regarding US government warnings and protection. This relationship is captured in Figure 1 below.

According to the expert contributors, commercial space companies’ key interests are maintaining business operations, continuity of revenue, continuity of growth, and continuity of profitability. Their main concerns, therefore, are any and all actions or conditions that may threaten business operations and revenue and profitability—natural, accidental, or intentional. Furthermore, intentional actions can be the result of commercial sabotage or conflict.

Interests and Threat Perceptions

The contributors indicate that we cannot think of commercial entities in the same way that we think about the national security space (NSS) community. Commercial space companies are primarily motivated by financial success,4 whereas NSS is focused on security matters. Consequently, commercial perceptions of “security” are rooted in the potential of any situation or action (intentional or accidental) to threaten profitability.

Commercial companies are also involved in different activities than governments. They often have international customer bases and, consequently, multiple roles and ties to uphold, many of which differ from those of the government (Bryce Space and Technology). Contributors from Bryce Space and Technology explain how companies often adopt an international perspective because of their global clientele:

Typically, if you’re operating a satellite business, you have an international perspective. So, with respect to the consequences of conflict or pre-conflict activities, those industry leaders are going to interpret them differently and bring different and useful perspectives to the table because they will see how those actions or situations will affect their broad business base, which is a global business base.

As several contributors note,5 commercial space companies are not all the same; they vary in size, in the types of services they provide (i.e., satellite manufacturers, satellite launch companies, etc.), and in the clients to which they provide those services. These three factors, along with commercial companies’ specific activities, shape their vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities, in turn, contribute to their individual threat perceptions and security concerns.

Commercial companies’ levels of vulnerability to specific security threats and, consequently, their primary security concerns, vary according to where their assets are located. For example, satellite manufacturers and operators are likely to be most concerned about threats to their assets in space, whereas satellite launch companies are likely to be most concerned about ground-based threats. Vulnerability can also be a function of size. Often, larger commercial companies can more easily afford to provide their own security, whereas smaller companies cannot (Adranos Energetics).

Clientele also affects perceived vulnerability. Many believe that the assets of companies with clients in the national security arena are at relatively greater risk of being targeted than those involved in other types of space ventures.6 Conversely, contributors note that if a company is not involved with national security affairs, the expectation is that adversaries would have no reason to attack or tamper with that company’s assets.7 As a result, as the Harris Corporation contributors note, “commercial owners, operators, and manufacturers supporting purely commercial capabilities are unlikely to really think about potential threats or prioritize investments for self-protection.”

Commercial Companies’ Concept of Security

Some of the experts argue that, while commercial companies are concerned about security in space, they do not think about it primarily in terms of intentional kinetic attack.8 Furthermore, industry leaders generally do not think about space warfare at all,9 because they consider it to be outside of their domain. In contrast, contributors from ViaSat, Inc. state that kinetic attacks are a concern; and one that it takes “considerable moves to deter or eliminate.”10 The ViaSat, Inc. contributors note that their approach to this is to reduce the vulnerability of their network to attack and loss of continuity by “selling to all sides, [which] keeps us neutral or ‘gray,’” and tailoring design techniques to eliminate the possibility of deliberate jamming.

There is consensus among the contributors, however, that the primary concerns of commercial space entities involve the assurance of safe day-to-day business operations,11 including avoidance of natural and accidental threats, spectrum interference, intellectual property (IP) violations, and vulnerabilities in cyber security. They are also focused on their ability to generate revenue, battle competition, and manage space traffic to prevent any sort of interference.12 To reiterate, tracking potential international conflicts is not typically one of a commercial entity’s day-to-day priorities, nor is thinking about protection from an active strike.13 Furthermore, the contributors indicate that if there was a reason to be concerned about security in the military sense, commercial companies assume that the US government would offer protection.

Commercial Companies’ Perception of Risk

As discussed earlier, commercial companies think about risk in terms of loss of profit and commercial advantage rather than national security and defense capabilities.14 Most companies, particularly those that do not have military clientele, do not perceive their assets as being likely targets of military attacks or threats (Kelso). However, they do recognize that all of their assets are vulnerable to some degree at all times, and that in many cases there is not much that they can do to protect themselves.15 Commercial space companies recognize that natural hazards, (especially space debris and space weather), cyberattacks, and physical attacks (including sabotage, RF spectrum interference, and spectrum jamming) could all damage their assets at any moment despite conscious efforts to drastically reduce these risks. However, their solutions to these vulnerabilities generally do not include efforts to harden their assets or build in redundancy (a cost-prohibitive approach for most). Instead, they rely on insurance to offset these risks.

Role of Government: What Do Commercial Companies Expect?

Almost all of the contributors agree that commercial companies maintain an almost complete reliance on the US government for protection and space situational awareness (SSA) data from the Joint Space Operations Center (JSPOC). Several contributors17 argue that this is because commercial leaders believe that the government is best positioned and equipped to provide security against kinetic or other militarized attack against their space assets. In addition, contributors from Adranos Energetics suggest that governments also have better political and legal standing to offer these protections:

The groups that are in the best position to [regulate and protect assets in space] are governments because they have a greater power to enforce. They have greater incentives among each other, meaning governments have greater incentive to work with other governments than they do with some kind of group located in the US. They also have the resources in this and the desire to enforce it as kind of a public policy manner.

Interestingly, some contributors18 suggest that the government is unaware of the fact that commercial entities expect the US military to protect them in situations of crisis and conflict. If widespread, this lack of communication and common understanding could result in serious government-commercial tensions and vulnerabilities, not only during an intentional attack, but also in response to a natural or accidental space event.

Many of the contributors also mention how inconsistently the government shares data with commercial space entities and how this leads to uncertainty and ambiguity on the commercial side (Jah). Furthermore, some commercial leaders believe that government information is often over-classified, making it difficult for companies to know what is going on in space (Westphal). If governments would provide more information, commercial companies would be able to operate more effectively and be more aware of what is occurring in space.

Despite their dependence on government provision of warnings and protection, some contributors suggest that there is a prevalent mistrust and uncertainty as to whether the government would actually protect companies in a time of crisis or conflict. Dr. Moriba Jah of the University of Texas at Austin even suggests that many companies think that the US government would be “ill-equipped” to adequately protect them from harm during a conflict scenario. This has prompted the establishment of a few private organizations that offer alternative sources of protection and security to commercial space companies.19 These organizations are currently few in number, but more are emerging due to the growing recognition of the shortcomings in government support. The contributors stress the need for more transparency20 and communication between the sectors to eliminate some of these misunderstandings, to explain their points of view, and to clarify what commercial companies’ expectations are.

The Bottom Line

The experts are unanimous in their assessment that industry leaders do not think about security in the same way that the military does.21 Commercial contributors argue that this is because they are focused on the health and success of their business ventures (their key interest), while the national security community is more focused on security the case of a conflict or a kinetic attack in space.

Contributors believe that the US government needs to be aware of discrepancy in thinking because the number of commercial space companies and activities are rapidly increasing, as is the probability of natural or manmade threats. Furthermore, as the US government continues to expand its reliance on commercial space capabilities for national security purposes, ensuring that commercial and government actors have a shared understanding of fundamental concepts, such as security, will be critical to avoiding costly misunderstandings and miscommunication.

Contributors

Roberto Aceti (OHB Italia, S.p.A. a Subsidiary of OHB, Italy); Adranos Energetics; Brett Alexander (Blue Origin); Anonymous Commercial Executives; Anonymous Launch Executive; Major General (USAF ret.) James Armor2 (Orbital ATK); Marc Berkowitz (Lockheed Martin); Bryce Space and Technology; Caelus Partners, LLC; Elliott Carol3 (Ripple Aerospace, Norway); Chandah Space Technologies; Matthew Chwastek (Orbital Insight); Faulconer Consulting Group; Gilmour Space Technologies, Australia; Michael Gold (Space Systems Loral); Joshua Hampson (Niskanen Center); Harris Corporation; Dr. Jason Held (Saber Astronautics, Australia); Dr. Moriba Jah (University of Texas at Austin); Dr. T.S. Kelso (Analytical Graphics, Inc.); Dr. George C. Nield (Federal Aviation Administration); Dr. Luca Rossettini (D-Orbit, Italy); Spire Global, Inc.; Stratolaunch Systems Corporation; John Thornton (Astrobotic Technology); ViaSat, Inc.; Charity Weeden (Satellite Industry Association, Canada); Dr. Edythe Weeks (Webster University) Deborah Westphal (Toffler Associates)

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Contested Space Operations: Space Defense, Deterrence, and Warfighting project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Authors: Weston Aviles (NSI, Inc.) and Dr. Larry Kuznar (NSI, Inc.)

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Executive Summary

This study was conducted to address three guiding questions:

1. How does DPRK define its key national interests/regional objectives in Northeast Asia and the Western Pacific? What are seen to be the major threats to each interest?

2. Does analysis of Kim Jong-un’s discourse provide a cognitive assessment?

3. What are the most effective ways of communicating with Kim Jong-un?

Summary and Implications for Strategic Communications with Kim Jong-un

Kim Jong-un is far less geopolitically aware than Kim Il-sung and, similar to Kim Jong-il, is fairly rigid and unchanging in his political discourse. He exhibits more of an interest in economic development and in overall DPRK capability (including military) than his predecessor. The U.S. as leader of a Western, capitalist alliance is considered the ultimate threat to all DPRK national interests. Kim Jong-un appears to be relying less on Juche philosophy (see Changes in Political Ideology below) although he continues to use very abstract religious language such as sacredness and eternity. Based on these patterns and comparisons to his predecessors the following inferences seem reasonable answers to the guiding questions.

• The DPRK’s capability (economic and military) are central concerns upon which he is most likely to focus.
• His lack of geopolitical awareness and mostly rigid discourse indicates a simple worldview and inflexible thinking style.
• Kim Jong-un may be shifting toward a more secular and pragmatic worldview, although Juche philosophy remains an important frame for his thinking, and therefore, Juche philosophy should be well understood when communicating with him.
• However, stressing more abstract transcendent themes over older communist and Juche rhetoric will probably be increasingly effective with Kim Jong-un.

Specific insights concerning each of DPRK’s three historic leaders

Kim Jong-un

Kim Jong-un’s worldview as expressed in his political discourse is largely consistent with core concepts central to DPRK politics throughout its history. These core concepts include a dedication to communist ideals and adherence to Juche philosophy, which includes unquestioning obedience to the Kim leaders, the need for strict discipline and rules, unending revolutionary struggle, and dedication to creating a self-sufficient DPRK. However, he exhibits the following departures from his grandfather and/or father.

• Kim Jong-un lacks broader awareness of global politics, being myopically focused on the Korean peninsula and the U.S., in contrast to Kim Il-sung (but similar to Kim Jong-il).
• Kim Jong-il placed great emphasis on religious-like concepts and Juche philosophy, as Kim Jongun continues to do so as well, although less than his father.
• While Juche philosophy is still central to how Kim Jong-un frames nearly every issue, he statistically is moving away from this frame.
• Upon taking power, Kim Jong-un retained his father’s ideological agenda, but added new themes related to economic development and other strength and capability themes he associates with economic or military power.
• Kim Jong-il has changed his political discourse very little in the past six years.

Kim Jong-il

Kim Jong-il was much more ideologically oriented and less globally aware than his father, and exhibited an absolutely rigid adherence to his Juche philosophical frame. He exhibited no ability to adjust his political perspective or interests despite economic crisis and widespread famine in the 1990s.

Kim Il-sung

Kim Il-sung exhibited a broad awareness of global politics, and an ability to adapt his political discourse to historical changes. His pragmatism was most evident during the Korean war when he largely abandoned ideological interests in favor of pragmatic concerns of prosecuting a war and surviving as a nation. Despite originating Juche philosophy, Kim Il-sung exhibits far less ideological speech than his son and grandson.

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Strategic Outcomes in the Korean Peninsula project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.

Question (R6.7): Are there examples from US history of competition short of open conflict1 with a regional power? What lessons exist that may be applied to resolving competing US/Iran objectives short of open conflict? Which examples are most relevant—pre- or post-World War II?

Author | Editor: Polansky (Pagano), S. (NSI, Inc.)

Executive Summary

The experts drew on a wide range of examples from US conflicts and moved beyond a focus solely on competition short of armed conflict (CSAC or “gray zone”) to other strategies or forms of competition executed by the US. The examples offered rich source material from which to extract lessons applicable to current US- Iran relations. Lessons might be learned from relations with Iran itself beginning with the Revolution to the present; the US-Soviet Cold War; the US and North Korea (1953-present); the US and Great Britain during the 19th Century, when the US was a rising regional power and Britain was a global power; the US and China during the Taiwan Straits Crisis (1954-55); US-Cuba (1959-now); the US and Venezuela (1998-present); Central America in the 1980s; and conflict in the Balkans (1991-2000). At the most basic level, these conflicts were battles over regional security or global influence (US vs. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Great Britain, or USSR) or ideology/ideological influence (US vs. Iran, USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba, Central America, or the Balkans). By and large, the most relevant examples were those from the post WWII period.

Iranian versus US Interests

Most expert contributors saw US and Iranian core interests as fundamentally opposed,3 and identified several interrelated factors that are likely to be ongoing impediments to US-Iran relations. These included the perceived—or actual—divides between the two nations in terms of culture and values (Cabán), the persistence of each side’s view of the other as malevolent (Kluver and team), and the persistence of old grievances (O’Shaughnessy). The expert inputs4 mentioned five types of distinct but sometimes interrelated interests: 1) protecting Iran’s national security, 2) defending Iran’s internal sovereignty, 3) minimizing economic stress and associated public dissatisfaction, 4) defending Islamic identity and championing the Islamic worldview, and 5) regional hegemony. As summarized in the table below, the majority of Iranian objectives or activities intended to realize these interests are directly opposed to the interests of the US.5 Dr. Spencer Meredith III of the National Defense University provided a nuance to this view, noting that “Conflict with Iran today is not a harbinger of perpetually conflicting relations, even though it remains necessary for the foreseeable future to define interests clearly and harden US positions in opposition to Iranian ambitions and actions… This does not preclude a potential later broaching of areas of coordination against other common threats, to include a Saudi reorientation towards the PRC, and/or a deeper, more formal Turkish reorientation towards Russia.”

Strategies

Given the variety of seemingly competing US and Iranian differences identified by the experts, it is perhaps unsurprising that tools or strategies discussed by the contributors as successful favored more direct and aggressive approaches (e.g., threat of force, sanctions), whereas strategies such as diplomacy and containment were less frequently emphasized. The experts’ inputs revealed, for example, that when diplomacy and containment were successful, they typically were part of a multi-faceted strategy (e.g., Venezuela) or larger multi-lateral effort (Balkans). As Cabán noted, “Venezuela has attempted to compete with the US for regional hegemony in the political, economic and social realms.” The US has met this competition with a combination of diplomatic, information, military, and economic sources of national power. In the Balkans, the US employed both military and diplomatic strategies, but was also part of a much broader international endeavor to quell the conflict. Successful US strategy also benefits from international alliances that support US-led initiatives, and from strongly limiting interference with these initiatives from any other states (Jeffrey). Though mixed strategies fully employing diplomatic, information, military and economic sources of national power (DIME) have been successful in conflicts such as that between the US and Venezuela, key differences were noted in comparison to the current conflict with Iran (Cabán).

Lessons from the Past

As noted above, the contributors provided a broad range of examples in response to this question. Table 2 below lists these examples, along with associated US strategies and lessons that might be applied to current relations between the US and Iran.

Contributors

Ms. Alyssa Adamson, Oklahoma State University; Dr. John Arquilla, Naval Postgraduate School; Dr. Allison Astorino-Courtois, NSI; Mr. William Cabán, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Dr. Skye Cooley, Oklahoma State University; Dr. Robert Hinck, Monmouth College; Ambassador James Jeffrey, The Washington Institute for Near Easy Policy; Dr. Randy Kluver, Oklahoma State University; Dr. Diane Maye, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; Dr. Spencer Meredith III, National Defense University; Dr. Nicholas O’Shaughnessy, University of London; Dr. Abdulaziz Sager, Gulf Research Center; Dr. Ethan Stokes, University of Alabama