tv This Week in Defense CBS June 5, 2011 11:00am-11:30am EDT
welcome to "this week in defense news." as china's political economic and military influence in asia grows, how should u.s. policy change towards the region? we talked to one analyst who says washington needs a new approach. plus, the revolutions in tunisia, egypt and elsewhere across the arab world have been powered by the internet. so what can the united states do to ensure that the internet itself remains free? but first, pentagon acquisition chief ashton carter said federally funded research and development centers would play a getted greater role in the acquisition process to help the government make smarter decisions to save money. the centers were founded during cold war to help develop missiles and other complex
systems. but sole sourcing working to these agencies worries the companies that provide technical and management consulting to the government. here to talk about the pitfalls of the new policy is stan, the president of the professional services council that advocates on behalf of contractors that provides services to the government. stan, thank you very much for joining us. always a pleasure. >> so what do you view as the good parts of the ash carter memo, and what do you view as the potential pitfalls and problems with it? >> i think the memo that's the best part about the memo is it's talking about holding the system accountable for how we use and the sole source environments research and development centers. they'll be annual reviews which have not been the routine in the past, and a more careful look at the appropriate roles of the centers. so that's a very positive thing. i think it's good for everybody. nothing to do with 40. it's just good management. it's good oversight. i think the negative side is not that anything in the memo to oppose per se, but there's a lack of clarity, am. big out in there, concern
around assumption that the memo makes relative to the statements that -- federally funded research and development centers are by definition free of conflict. which is not always the case. or that they're the preferred alternative. i think as the government tries and desperately needs to rebuild atrophied skills are which is where they've -- come in to fill gaps, rebuild the skills and critical skills, it's important not to have a situation where the default becomes -- that doesn't help me take care of my organic skill problem -- and second, to recognize that the fact that we want ffrdc's to do certain kinds of work that specialized and appropriate for what what they do, that doesn't mean all of that kind of work should be done by them. that balancing act is always tricky. in the last few years it's become a little grayer, and the memo on one level helps and another level creates questions that need answers. >> they've asked for comments from industry, obviously you're talk to the government. what are you telling them in
terms of where do you see this balanced line? >> i think defining the balance per se in terms of numbers or roles is very difficult. but what we need to look at is the legal and statutory framework around which ones are created. there's really two areas, one is work that does not exist in the prive sector, there's not a marketplace to perform certain work. >> that's what you're comfortable with them doing. >> absolutely. clearly created to do. but over the 40 or 50 years since the growth of ffrd doctor,'s the commercial world has changed. then another category of work that you don't want industry to and it. you feel a need a trusted advisor. that's where it gets a little gray, because the nature of the marketplace is different today than it was before. so we've seen ffrdc growth in some of the intelligent areas in areas we have been pretty normally contracted systems, engineering and technical assistance support. there's one that is selling its services across government
developing performance plans. there's -- >> which is not a unique skill. >> very commercial capability. there are those involved in information technology and some may be appropriate, other parts not. i'm not here to either say ffrdc's are inappropriate or we shouldn't use them what what need is and consistency and that's where the discussion is going. >> do you think that there's some people who expresseseds concern that, looking these guys have become for profit or -- parts for profit work, and ash carter is indicated he would like that to be strengthened. what is the potential pitfall, that a government funded organization becomes an active competitor. >> there have been some that have created for-profit arms. but the biggest one was miter tech, is now an independent company called noblist. i don't think that would be appropriate. the goal is to have these non- profit corporations with very specialized roles to play to support the government.
dr. carter says in his memo a preferred alternative for acquisition support. that doesn't mean all acquisition support needs to be done through ffrdc's nor do i believe that was his intent in talk to them. it's not clear however how we determine what the lines should be. >> in the 30 or so seconds we have left, you've raised a neutrality question before. what is your concern, why are these government organizations not neutral? >> well, there's a couple reasons. there are some cases where they're playing multiple roles, much like give you pause if it was a commercial company. and other areas, you can make an argument, not always the case -- >> consulting and developing? >> where they're developing rights and for implementation. there's other cases we they will all have sponsor, sponsoring fund and one of the relationships are work looking at. again, this not to denigrate them. it's too drive a clarity to the decisions that are made are the smart ones. >> stan from the professional services council, sir, coming up very much for joining us. coming up, u.s. policy towards asia is outdated and needs to be modernized, says our next
sophisticated network that re systemth the nato alliance. he is the director at american enterprise institute who has a new book on what america's approach to asia should look like. >> thank you. >> so why do you say that america is existing alliance structure and approach to asia is outmode indeed 72 we currently have many people refer to as a hub and spoke model where every ally has to real on the united states, you go 32 the united states to get permission to do any military activity, and it's now taxing the allies, it's not allowing them to use the latent power theys have, and it's taxing the united states, particularly given the fact that china's creating so many new military problems for both the allies and the united states. >> and so your approach is this alliance cohesion model, as you called it, to actually build alliances, not only among the countries, what are some the principles of that? >> so the principles would be a co here'sive, collective
alliance system. knitted father. we have capable allies in japan and south korea, and australia, and increasingly in partnerships -- in places like vietnam and indonesia. they're buying very expensive equipment, very sophisticated equipment, and we can help them knit it together through types of capabilities like intelligence, surveillance, reconaissance, and other types of capabilities. but they also need to sit down and come up and come up with a strategic concept that multiplies china's risks, should china decide to attack any one of them or any one of their interests. they can actually help each other and don't need to depend on the united states for everything. that would be a major part of the principle. i would say that they both need to be able to help the united states get to asia more quickly. >> in the event of crisis. >> in the event of a crisis, as well as hold out longer without the united states in the event of a crisis.
>> do you think -- america's asian allies have been very rec luck re luck tan, the koreans bear animosity towards japan despite aid to the region, and that's the same for other countries. how do you convince the countries in the region to adopt this more cohesive alliance, move towards more nato alliance where the members of that alliance get along more together on an individual basis without necessarily going through the american referee? >> you hit it right on the head in terms of japan is the key. and the acceptance of japan being the key. just as in the early years of nato, embedding germany and letting france accept germany into nato was the key. south korea -- in south korea and japan could reconcile, and become closer, we're taking steps to do, then i think you would have a cascading effect where others would accept japan. south korea is the key.
japan could do more in terms of it's been a great provider of assistance, a great provider of security, a great ally. it certainly can apologize in a more sincere and robust way for the ills of world war ii. but again, south korea and japan would be the key, and after you build that building block, you would have a cascading effect. >> do you -- what value do you place -- we're talking mostly on the military relationship and better pooling of forces once you become this cohesive alliance, you can eliminate capabilities and have militaries focus and have more broad powers. but a very important piece of the chinese policy throughout the region and arm the world is soft power. economic development, investing in roads and hospitals and power plants. they've done that effectively across asia. were what are some of the thins the alliance can do on the soft power side of things which win over the population? >> it's interesting because a lot of the countries that i
mentioned including japan, including indonesia, vietnam, south korea, certainly want to benefit from trade and economic exchange, as we do with china. but they're getting a little worried about overdependence and overreliance on exports to china or being part of the chinese supply chain. and in that sense we're pushing on an open door. if we get our own trade policy right, which right now is absent, i think that both the strategic and economic reasons a lot of those countries would want to do more trade and investment with us. opportunity are there. and they don't like some of the heavy-handed approach to china is making towards buying up the resources, and people say no strings -- the chinese come in with no strings attached, but oftentimes they do ask for things like don't go to taiwan, don't recognize taiwan, or other things having to do with the south china state. >> you were talking about on an open door. the tax americana that reined in asia, has really set the conditions for chinese success
but also for the economic advancement. region. does that advancing -- does that economic advancement actually make it easier for the countries to take the next step, which is actual alliance and cloer military to military and national to national relationships? >> i think it does. but the other thing that will drive them in that direction is, first of all, all of them are frightened by chinese power and assertiveness. it's not just taiwan anymore. it's countries in the south china sea, in the east china sea, china is just becoming more present and more aggressive. so they're being driven to at least ask for more u.s. presence and u.s. alliance, commitments. the second thing that will drive them to more cohesion is this stress that the united states is facing on its own defense budgets, the difficulties the united states is facing in terms of chinese anti-access capabilities and getting to the region in a timely manner, so a lot of this is just cold hard reality that things are changing. >> one of questions i wanted to
ask you is -- and you've written about it in your paper, about taiwan being the key or one of important keys and that if china were to take taiwan, that would split asia in two. but there are a lot of folks who think that there is a reconciliation going on between these two countries and china may not center to an invasion. rather, it's a reverse tie wanties invasion of the mainland and they'll end up joining. what are the repercussions for the two joining peacefully? >> well, i don't really see a peaceful negotiation or a peaceful reconciliation. i can see where taiwan gives up because the u.s. doesn't support it or the chinese puts so much military pressure on taiwan. but i don't just see a kind of passive movement towards a political unification. taiwan certainly wants to benefit from investing in china, as china wants taiwanese
investment. the taiwanese people were now talking about generations who have no memory of the men land, would have to be forced into some kinds of political -- >> they are skeptical about unification. >> that's right. >> worry about that. >> that's right. so i don't really worry about peaceful unification. i worry about a coerced unification. >> right. >> which could be destabilizing. >> thank you very much. why does the united states need to create an borah norville. if you're the mother, sister, spouse, or friend of a veteran who seems angry, sad, or isolated, you may be seeing warning signs of depression or suicide. the v.a. is reaching out to help. so please reach back. even if you think you see these signs, call 1-800-273-talk and press "1." that's 1-800-273-talk and press "1."
i could do everything faster. it's a shame mckenzie's too young to buy me one for father's day. we'd play games on it together, listen to music, watch movies. she'd want me to have one. and what kind of father would i be to get in her way ? i'll just sign her name on the card. give dad a gift he'd give himself, like the new, more powerful than ever droid x2, or the droid pro for $99.99, and get unlimited data for just $29.99. verizon.
the arab spring uprising demonstrated the power of social media to unite groups of people in a common cause. that's why some governments spend so much time and money to control the kind of internet access their people have. among them, china, iran and saudi arabia. our next guest argues the united states needs a comprehensive internet freedom policy. richard fontaine of the center
for new american security is the co-author of internet freedom, a foreign policy imperative in the digital age. richard, welcome. >> thank you. >> the obama administration has made internet freedom a priority. but what are some of your recommendations about where you think that policy and that overall structure and framework should go in the future? >> well, they've made a number of discreet actions that are very good in pushing the internet freedom policy forward. so they're named a coordinator at the state department for viber issues. they've been spending money on the provision of technology and training. what we argue is they need to knit that together into an comprehensionive strategy that includes export controls and new look at export controls so we're not restricting access to technology that could help people in other countries be able to use the internet nor the free flow of communications or trade policy that looks at treating censorship or the turnoff of the internet that egypt did as a trade barrier. and try to put this together
into an overall approach that the government would push internationally. >> and that's right, you were talk talking about a global framework to have countries make internet freedoms high priority and eye guaranteed human right? >> well, there's a little bit of a distinction. the u.s. government's position and i think it's the right one has been internet freedom is not a new human right. it's merely the extension of rights that existed before that. so freedom. expression, that exists in cyberspace, on people. if you shout something on the street it doesn't matter. freedom of assembly is similar some this is not establishing new human rights. it's recognizing the ebbs tension of those rights to this new immediate glume medium. >> when we talk about -- how do you get countries to open the internet taps, when they're spending so much time and effort to flock them, whether china, iran, tunisia, egypt.
how do you convince countries she should drop censorship? >> some countries probably made their choices for the medium turn. we're unlikely to convince them they shouldn't be doing those things. there's a economic argument countries like china will face over the longer run, which is can you restrict the free flow of information on political matters without restricting the kind of information necessary to have an innovative economy? the same people that need to know what is going on in the world to trade stocks or to do -- make things, you know, need to have access to that information and maybe people who want to see a political reasons as well. so there's an economic reason. but the target zone for u.s. argument is a lot of countries that are just now beginning to think about their internet policies and whether they should go towards china or a more freer direction. >> but if you're chinese and you're sitting in by joining,
you're looking at your rather direct economy model as having been successful in the american free market model as a failure, right? doesn't that play into the argument as well? >> well, the chinese certainly say that. that would be their argument as you can clamp down and have no freedom and you can have a sizzling economy. whether that obtains over the longer run, we don't know yet. but china may also be something of an outliar, it's age to control the internet in a targeted nuanced way. you don't see china having to do things like egypt did, pull the plug on the entire internet when something goes wrong. but china is able to throw literally hundreds of thousands of people and millions if not billions of dollars at this, because it has a resources to do it. that's not true of every country. >> let's talk about the technology. you talked about export controls of one of things you mentioned is it's basically -- there are some american companies that are helping sell technologies around the world that should not be sold around the world that are used to restrain -- or limit internet
freedoms what are some of the countries buying these technologies, what are the products and companies that are supplying them that shouldn't be supplying them? >> well, there's -- china and iran and the countries in the gulf and countries all over the world are trying to get access to american technologies. it's a tough question about what kinds of technology should be sold to these countries. the -- is actually suing ciscoe, in court, for providing or selling technology to the government of china. >> that's the chinese religious movement. >> exactly. suing them in u.s. court, for allegedly providing technology to china, which they used to crack down. it's an easier case i think when you get to the kinds of cases like 'ya into's local affiliate a number of years ago gave over the private data of a dissident in china to the security services, who then rounded him up and threw him in jail. those are the kinds of dilemmas
that u.s. companies are in. there's the other flip side of export controls, it's not just about keeping things out. and that's a tough decision. but it's also about letting things go forward that we're currently keeping out. so the administration has lifted controls on things like g mail, g chat, personal communications services, so people can use that in not have to have them blocked by -- >> that's right, because one of the drives of the administration is to advance anti-censorship technology and get them out there around the world so they can be used to get around the firewalls. >> right and there's some anomalies because the state department is funding the provision of technologies that allow people to communicate anonymously, to be able to make their systems more resilient in the face of attacks. but they get a license to export these things. if they're supported. the same technology not supported financially by the
to save about $8 million a year, the voice of america wants to ends chinese language broadcasts to china on october 1. instead, voa will focus on internet news delivery, note that radio free agent will continue broadcast to go china in chinese. unclear, however, is somehow voa will reach its target audience from access it can't like, including voa's current website. voa countersuits developing anti-censorship technologies to get through the great firewall
of china. still, china is a vasts country and internet access is concentrated in cities and among elites. most of its population still gets its news from olds fashioned radio and television. during the cold war, voa broadcasts were a lifeline for folks behind the iron curtain. life in china is freer, but it is still an autocratic state that wants to limit what its citizens have access to and prefers that they gets their news from official media. at a tame when the united states is in global competition with china, it must work harder and smarter to shape audiences everybody we're. it's vital that voa have better global internet presence, but radio and tv remain powerful and essential tools. thank you for joining us for "this week in defense news." you can watch this program online, or you can e-mail my at this address. i'll be back next week at the same time. until then, have a great week. p