1 / 27

2013-2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index

2013-2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index. Tai Ming Cheung and Jordan Wilson University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation Prepared for 2014 Defense Information Sharing Workshop September 15-16, La Jolla, United States. Outline.

dewey
Download Presentation

2013-2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2013-2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index Tai Ming Cheung and Jordan Wilson University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation Prepared for 2014 Defense Information Sharing Workshop September 15-16, La Jolla, United States

  2. Outline • Importance and Definition of Defense Transparency • DTI Methodology and Scope • Summary of Key Findings • Individual Country Performances • Topic Performances • Alternative Weightings

  3. Importance of Defense Transparency Transparency is critical pillar in forging trust and confidence in defense issues—both domestically and internationally Increasing demands for defense transparency domestically (political accountability, media, and popular interest) and externally (states, international organizations) But defense transparency is a highly politicized and contested concept that has lacked common definitions Goal of IGCC’s Defense Transparency Index (DTI) project is to provide rigorous measurement of defense transparency in Northeast Asia

  4. Defining Defense Transparency Defense transparency is an ongoing process in which governments credibly transmit timely, relevant, and sufficient information about their military power and activities, budgetary matters, and intentions to allow other states and domestic audiences to assess the consistency of this information with declared strategic interestsand institutional obligations to reduce misperception, ensure good governance, and build mutual trust Three key concepts: information-sharing process, domestic institutions and hierarchies, and signals and intentions Eight indicators derived from these concepts to measure defense transparency

  5. Defense Transparency Index Coverage 1. Disclosures in defense white papers 2. Information available on official defense websites 3. Reporting to the United Nations 4. Openness of defense budgets 5. Legislative oversight 6. Robustness of press independence 7. Reporting of international military activity 8. Disclosure of cyber activities

  6. Defense Transparency Index Coverage

  7. New to 2014 Index Added defense-focused section to Budget indicator Added strategic intentions section to International and Cyberspace indicators Slight scoring change for United Nations indicator Broadened range of sources for Legislative Oversight and Cyberspace indicators Incorporated updated Open Budget Index (OBI), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Index, United Nations reporting measures, and white papers for United States, Republic of Korea, Japan, China Streamlined selection of variables throughout DTI to remove redundancies, and standardized citations for every data entry

  8. 2013-14 Country Ratings

  9. Summary of Key Findings Japan remains first despitedeclines in media and website scoring, although enjoyed marginal gains in legislative oversight and UN reporting U.S. narrowed gap with Japan because of major improvements in transparency of international activities ROK suffered from declines in media, website, cyber, and UN reporting, but had gains in legislative oversight and budget affairs Russia remains fourth, but its overall scoring rating declined, especially in media, international activities, and legislative oversight China is fifth but closing gap with Russia and only state to show year-on-year improvement, especially in UN and media reporting, but declines in website, white paper, and cyber

  10. Summary of Ratings of 8 Major DTI Indicators Overall average has been stable, although considerable fluctuations over past four years Major decline in media reporting and marginal declines in websites and budgets Noticeable improvements in legislative oversight and UN reporting (Standardized Instrument (Milex), Register of Conventional Arms, National Legislation on Transfer of Arms (NLDU), Information on Confidence-Building Measures (CBM)

  11. Individual CountryPerformance

  12. Japan Japan narrowly retained first place, but scoring declined slightly Improvements: UN reporting because of better reporting, Legislature because of improved IGCC sourcing Declines: Media due to secrecy law, Cyberspace due to reduced disclosures, Website because of reporting fluctuations Japan leads in numerous categories, but has room for improvement in media freedom, legislative oversight, and cyberspace disclosures Increased defense spending and force buildup may affect perceptions under International Activities in future

  13. United States U.S. ranks second, with little separating it with Japan, but year-on-year decline Improvements in White Paper due to inclusion of more detail in 2014 QDR, Website transparency is excellent Declines in UN due to missing reporting, Media due to RSF score change, Cyberspace due to global surveillance revelations Improvements can be made in credibility in Media and Cyber, expand UN reporting (Conventional Arms, NLDU, CBM) and include more details on command chains, unit locations, and armaments in white paper equivalent documents

  14. Republic of Korea ROK retained third place but trending downfrom previous years Improvements in Budget, Legislature due to Open Budget Index (OBI) changes, year-to-year reporting adjustments Declines in Media due to RSF score changes, UN Reporting due to delayed reporting, Cyber due to reduced disclosures Could make improvements in UN reporting (Milex, NLDU, CBM), more disclosures on military expenditure, press freedom, information on cyber doctrines, policies, and defensive measures

  15. Russia Russia stayed in fourth place, but had largest year-on-year decline (7 percentage points) Little change in five categories Declines in Legislature due to increased perception of “rubber stamp” authority, International Activities due to unannounced missions, arms transfersand exercises, Cyberspace due to Snake cyber weapon revelations New white paper with more information on organization, missions, personnel, spending, procurement, armaments, and bases would assist score

  16. China China ranked fifth, but only state whose score increased in latest index, closing on Russia Improvements: UN reporting due to increase in submissions; personnel figures included in White Paper and Website for first time 6 indicators declined with lowest scores on institutional-focused indicators—Budget, Media, and Legislature More details needed on procurement, organizational structure, armaments, and budgeting, which other states receive credit Performance on credibility-related variables in Budget, International Activities, and Cyberspace will bear watching

  17. Topic Performance

  18. Defense White Papers Japan and ROK saw year-to-year reporting adjustments, slight changes China included personnel figures for first time in 2013 white paper but removed spending information, down 9 points Russia has produced no new white paper, saw year-to-year reporting adjustments, slight changes U.S. included more detailed personnel figures in QDR 2014, up 1 point

  19. Official Defense Ministry Websites Website information fluctuates almost constantly Japan, ROK, and U.S. saw year-to-year reporting adjustments, no fundamental changes China added personnel figures but fluctuated in information on bases and other variables, down 5 points Russia showed slightly less information on personnel figures, bases, and operations, down 1 point

  20. UN Reporting Japan updated its submissions but not its Confidence Building Measures form, down 4 points China significantly improved reporting in Milex, Conventional Arms, CBM, NLDU and gained 44 points ROK updated conventional armsformbut lags behind on others, down 7 points Russia submitted two new forms (Milex, Conventional Arms), but nothing for imports/exports, down 3 points U.S. submitted 2 new forms (Milex, Conventional Arms) with little detail on latter, down 10 points

  21. Defense Budgets IGCC categories (20%): accuracy, legislative oversight, detail, secrecy, off-budget Japan and U.S. saw little change in both categories China declined in OBI (weak legislature, independent auditing, public participation), declined in defense budgeting (esp. accuracy, oversight, detail, secrecy), fell 6 points ROK improved in OBI and defense budgeting (exception: proportion of secret budget items) rose 4 points Russia improved in OBI but fell in defense budgeting (esp. secrecy, oversight, detail), down 2 points

  22. Legislative Oversight Japan benefited from broadening of sources by IGCC that led to better understanding of budget process, gained 22 points China and ROK saw only slight year-to-year changes Russia improved in budget hearings, but legislative authority slipped on balance, down 18 points U.S. saw slight change in OBI grade (committee scrutiny of audit reports), but no change to score

  23. Defense Media Reporting RSF underwent major revision, IGCC section saw realignment of publications used Japan suffered in RSF and IGCC scoring (media publishing freedom) as result of special intelligence protection bill, down 27 points China and Russia saw slight changes due to year-on-year reporting fluctuations ROK dropped in RSF due to arrest of 2 journalists, down 20 points U.S. saw major reduction in RSF score due to several cases (Manning, Snowden, AP records seizure, arrest of sources based on Espionage Act), down 16 points

  24. International Defense Activities Japan and ROK saw slight year-to-year reporting adjustments, no change China slightly affected by unilateral establishment of ADIZ and unannounced military activities, down 8 points Russia affected by unannounced missions, arms transfers, and exercises related to conflict in eastern Ukraine, down 24 points U.S. provided additional transparency on exercises and missions in 2014 QDR, balancing subtraction for unannounced exercise, gained 2 points

  25. Cyberspace Japan and ROK saw declines due to year-to-year reporting adjustments, overall trend in reduced cyberspace disclosures China affected by revelations on cyber exploitations, down 11 points Russia affected by revelations on Snake/Ouroboros cyber weapon, down 3 points U.S. lost 13 points due to revelations on global surveillance, penetration of private and academic networks, and cyberattack target lists, but gained points through information provided in new QDR and Congressional testimony, down 2 points overall

  26. Final Scores: Alternative Weightings

  27. Continued Development of DTI Standardized and documented process to better facilitate consistency Incorporates data from Open Budget Index, Reporters Without Borders Index, Government Defense Anti-Corruption Index, UN Reporting Instruments,SIPRI and IISSReports and will reflect year-to-year changes within these measures Now able to measure concepts such as consistency with stated intentions, signaling, and perceptions to react immediately to military buildups, exercises, force projections, cyber activities DTI has 472 variables drawing upon expanded range of documents and sources, aimed at covering all aspects of our definition and providing mechanism to gauge future movements in regional defense transparency

More Related