从计划到行动-实施美国国家技术战略（英）-2021.7-新美国安全中心-35正式版.ppt

《从计划到行动-实施美国国家技术战略（英）-2021.7-新美国安全中心-35正式版.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《从计划到行动-实施美国国家技术战略（英）-2021.7-新美国安全中心-35正式版.ppt（35页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Technology&National Security|JULY 2021From Plan to ActionOperationalizing a U.S.NationalTechnology StrategyJohn Costello,Martijn Rasser,and Megan LamberthFrom Plan to Action:Operationalizing a U.S.National Technology Strategy2AcknowledgmentsMartijn Rasser is a SeniorFellow and Director of theTechnol

2、ogy and NationalSecurity Program at CNAS.Mr.Rasser served as a seniorintelligence officer and analystat the Central IntelligenceThe authors thank Jessie Liu,James Mulvenon,Eric Sayers,Matt Turpin,and Kevin Wolf fortheir valuable feedback and suggestions on thereport draft.We are grateful to all thos

3、e whoparticipated in the U.S.National TechnologyStrategy workshops.Your insights and expertisehelped shape the ideas and analysis in thisreport.The views expressed in this report arethose of the authors alone and do not representthose of the workshop participants.Agency.Upon leaving government servi

4、ce,hewas Chief of Staff at Muddy Waters Capital,aninvestment research firm.More recently,he wasDirector of Analysis at Kyndi,a venture-backedartificial intelligence startup.Mr.Rasser receivedhis BA in anthropology from Bates College andhis MA in security studies from GeorgetownUniversity.Thank you t

5、o CNAS colleagues MauraMcCarthy,Melody Cook,Rin Rothback,EmmaSwislow,and Anna Pederson for their role inreview,production,and design of this report.Finally,thank you to Henry Wu for his valuableresearch support and assistance in reviewingand finalizing the report.Any errors that remainare the respon

6、sibility of the authors alone.Megan Lamberth is aResearch Associate for theTechnology and NationalSecurity Program at theCenter for a New AmericanSecurity(CNAS).Prior tojoining CNAS,Ms.LamberthAbout the Authorswas a Brent Scowcroft Fellow at the AspenStrategy Group,where she helped spearheadthe plan

7、ning and execution of the AspenStrategy Group Summer Workshop and twosessions of the Aspen Ministers Forum.Shereceived her MA in international affairs from theBush School of Government&Public Service atTexas A&M University,and she graduated fromSam Houston State University with a BA incriminal justi

8、ce.John Costello is an AdjunctSenior Fellow with theTechnology and NationalSecurity Program at theCenter for a New AmericanSecurity(CNAS).Mr.Costellois the former Deputy AssistantSecretary of Intelligence and Security at theDepartment of Commerce.Prior to theDepartment of Commerce,he served as aSeni

9、or Director and Lead for Task Force Two atthe U.S.Cyberspace Solarium Commission andthe Director of Strategy,Policy,and Plans andSenior Advisor to the Director of theCybersecurity and Infrastructure SecurityAgency.Mr.Costello is a former U.S.Navyenlisted sailor and is fluent in Chinese Mandarin,havi

10、ng graduated with honors from the DefenseLanguage Institute.About the ReportThis report is produced as part of the U.S.National Technology Strategy project at CNAS.The project is developing the intellectualframework for a national technology strategy forthe United States that can serve as a road map

11、for successful long-term American innovationand technological leadership.The projectfocuses on how the government shouldestablish technology policy on key issues suchas accelerating American innovation,mitigatingrisk to U.S.advantages,and contending with thetechnology strategies of competitors.This

12、reportwas made possible because of a grant from theU.S.Air Force Office of Commercial andEconomic Analysis(OCEA).Center for a New American Security1152 15th Street NW,Suite 950,Washington,DC 20005T:202.457.9400 F:202.457.9401 CNAS.org CNASdcFrom Plan to Action:Operationalizing a U.S.National Technol

13、ogy Strategy3This report draws on analysis and insights from prior CNAS reports,including:“Trust the Process:National Technology Strategy Development,Implementation,and Monitoring andEvaluation,”by Loren DeJonge Schulman and Ainikki Riikonen(April 2021)“Taking the Helm:A National Technology Strategy

14、 to Meet the China Challenge,”by Martijn Rasserand Megan Lamberth(January 2021)“Networked:Techno-Democratic Statecraft for Australia and the Quad,”by Martijn Rasser(January2021)“Democracy by Design:An Affirmative Response to the Illiberal Use of Technology for 2021,”byKara Frederick(December 2020)“R

15、ethinking Export Controls:Unintended Consequences and the New Technological Landscape,”byMartijn Rasser(December 2020)“Defense Technology Strategy,”by Paul Scharre and Ainikki Riikonen(November 2020)“Common Code:An Alliance Framework for Democratic Technology Policy,”by Martijn Rasser,Rebecca Arcesa

16、ti,Shin Oya,Ainikki Riikonen,and Monika Bochert(October 2020)“Rising to the China Challenge:Renewing American Competitiveness in the Indo-Pacific,”by ElyRatner et al.(January 2020)“The American AI Century:A Blueprint for Action,”by Martijn Rasser,Megan Lamberth,AinikkiRiikonen,Chelsea Guo,Michael Ho

17、rowitz,and Paul Scharre(December 2019)Center for a New American Security1152 15th Street NW,Suite 950,Washington,DC 20005T:202.457.9400 F:202.457.9401 CNAS.org CNASdcFrom Plan to Action:Operationalizing a U.S.National Technology Strategy4Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.5Summary of Recommendations

18、.6KEY PREMISES OF U.S.TECHNOLOGY SECURITY AND COMPETITION.9RECOMMENDATIONS.14Bolster the Department of Commerce.14Mitigate Supply Chain and Technology Transfer Risk.20Streamline Technology Policy Coordination and Implementation.25Increase Capacity to Pursue International Technology Partnerships.30CO

19、NCLUSION.31Center for a New American Security1152 15th Street NW,Suite 950,Washington,DC 20005T:202.457.9400 F:202.457.9401 CNAS.org CNASdcFrom Plan to Action:Operationalizing a U.S.National Technology Strategy5Executive SummaryIdeas abound for actions the United States should take to better positio

20、n itself for the unfolding globaltechnology competition.Concerning topics as diverse as raw materials to semiconductors to STEMeducation,a nonstop cavalcade of presidential directives,congressional bills,industry proposals,thinktank reports,and pronouncements by big-name luminaries have been issued

21、as measures to addressAmerican economic competitiveness and national security challenges.Almost all make their case in thecontext of dealing with a rising China.Some of these recommendations are excellent and quite a few aregood;too many get lost in the noise.Its not just the sheer volume that prese

22、nts a challenge to identifying and executing the most promisingrecommendations.The U.S.government lacks a strategic construct to merge these ideasfor researchand development spending,public-private partnerships,tax policy and subsidies,immigration reform,andeducationinto a coherent whole.The goal of

23、 CNAS National Technology Strategy project is to createthe framework for a comprehensive,whole-of-nation approach for the United States to navigate the globaltechnology competition.The first report in this initiative,“Taking the Helm,”makes the case for a national technology strategy andlays out wha

24、t such a modern-day strategy should be.1 Its chief argument is that the United States is in along-term,multifaceted geostrategic competition with China,one that has technology at its core.Technological leadership is more important than ever,yet current U.S.government policies fall well shortof what

25、is needed to maintain it.Crafting an affirmative technology policy agenda is not just aboutcompeting with China;it comprises the guiding principles for the nations technology policy goals andpriorities to pursue economic prosperity,protect national security interests and democratic values,andadvance

26、 society.How the U.S.government should structure itself organizationally and bureaucratically to execute such astrategy is the focus of the second report,“Trust the Process.”2 Today,key institutions such as theNational Security Council,National Economic Council,and Office of Science and Technology P

27、olicy arenot optimized to craft,run,and maintain this effort.“Trust the Process”explains what talent,resources,infrastructure,and processes are needed for strategy development,implementation,and monitoring andevaluation.This third report in the series focuses on concrete and pragmatic measures that

28、U.S.policymakers shouldtake to operationalize a national technology strategy.There are four premises to the security andtechnology competition that guide these findings:the utility of industrial policies,the convergence ofnational and economic security,gaps in knowledge,and the need for internationa

29、l partnerships.Thereport offers recommendations for specific changes to U.S.government departmental and agencyauthorities,regulatory updates,policy initiatives,and diplomatic efforts that will bolster the U.S.governments ability to craft,execute,and maintain this strategy.Center for a New American S

30、ecurity1152 15th Street NW,Suite 950,Washington,DC 20005T:202.457.9400 F:202.457.9401 CNAS.org CNASdcFrom Plan to Action:Operationalizing a U.S.National Technology Strategy6SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS“However beautiful the strategy,you should occasionally look at the results.”-Sir Winston ChurchillSt

31、rategies can be eloquent and inspiring.How successful they are rests in addressing gritty detailsoutside the spotlight.This report lays out concrete steps needed to ensure that the vision,framework,andprocesses necessary to successfully execute a national technology strategy are established.Bolster

32、the Department of CommerceThe Department of Commerce will be one of the most important entities in the U.S.government forplanning,implementing,and monitoring and evaluating a national technology strategy.While its leadersbear responsibility for a range of issues at the intersection of economic secur

33、ity and national security,thedepartment is not well positioned to execute its expanding mission.Several actions by Congress and theexecutive branch are necessary:Expand the mission of the Bureau of Industry and Security(BIS).BIS should take on the authorityto regulate and protect U.S.technology supp

34、ly chains and reorganize itself on the model of theDepartment of Treasurys Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to execute its increasedduties.Designate the Department of Commerce as a U.S.Intelligence Community member.A formal rolefor the department on intelligence matters will improve th

35、e governments ability to conductanalysis of economic,trade,and technology developments required for executing a nationaltechnology strategy.This should be done while preserving and avoiding any disruption to thedepartments science and technology,statistics,and economic mission.Establish an informati

36、on fusion center,headquartered in the International Trade AdministrationsOffice of Industry&Analysis.A new information center would enable the Department ofCommerce to better understand foreign and domestic industrial and technological trends bycollecting and integrating a myriad of open-source and

37、proprietary information.Expand the use of existing industrial survey authorities.Regular surveys of specific industries willprovide policymakers with better and up-to-date information on topics such as research anddevelopment(R&D)trends,manufacturing capacity,and supply chain risks.Establish a Defen

38、se Production Act“Title III”Office under the Department of Commerce.Thegoal of the new office would be to oversee non-military projects related to economic ortechnological competitiveness.Doing so would accommodate the broadened conception of“national defense”under a revised Defense Production Act(D

39、PA)and reduce the strain on theexisting office at the Department of Defense.Address Department of Commerce resource constraints.Congress should ensure that itapportions adequate fiscal and human resources to the Department of Commerce commensurateto its expanded mission.Center for a New American Sec

40、urity1152 15th Street NW,Suite 950,Washington,DC 20005T:202.457.9400 F:202.457.9401 CNAS.org CNASdcFrom Plan to Action:Operationalizing a U.S.National Technology Strategy7Mitigate Supply Chain and Technology Transfer RiskUpdated legislation and regulations are needed for the U.S.government to addres

41、s new supply chain andtechnology transfer risks.Congress and the executive branch should take the following steps:Codify and tailor the information and communications technology and services Executive Order13873.The law should authorize the secretary of commerce to review,grant,or block licenses for

42、foreign entities to sell information and communications technologies and services in the UnitedStates.Update the International Emergency Economic Powers Act(IEEPA)Berman Amendment.Theamendment,which pertains to informational materials,is out of sync with the scope and scale ofcommoditized data gener

43、ation,dissemination,and exploitation in 2021.A revised amendmentwould provide current and future administrations with enough leeway to address data privacy andespionage threats.Establish minimum cyber and personnel security standards and requirements for recipients offederal R&D funding.U.S.policyma

44、kers and government officials are renewing efforts to protectAmericas R&D infrastructure from intellectual property theft.The White House Office of Scienceand Technology Policy,in conjunction with the Department of Justice,should establish cyber andpersonnel security standards and requirements for r

45、ecipients of federal R&D funding.Enact a national data protection and privacy law.A federal law would address current hurdles inidentifying and mitigating national security and supply chain risks associated with foreigncompanies operating and investing in the United States.The law also would elimina

46、te thegrowing patchwork of state and local laws that burden private industry and stifle innovation.Streamline Technology Policy Coordination and ImplementationResponsibility for technology policy decisionmaking is diffused across an array of governmentdepartments and agencies.Congress and the White

47、House need to collaborate to ensure that effectiveinteragency mechanisms are in place to coordinate and implement technology policy.Concrete measureslegislators and administration officials should take are to:Establish a Technology Security Coordination Group(TSCG).The group should be aninteragency

48、effort to coordinate technology and supply chainrelated regulatory and policyactions.This grouping will be necessary to ensure a unified and consistent approach totechnology strategy execution.Craft a government-wide definition for“critical technology”and create a framework andmechanism for making p

49、rioritization decisions.The U.S.government lacks a universal definitionfor what constitutes a critical technology.Crafting such a definition is an integral step inarticulating a strategic vision for technology policy and required to be able to set priorities.Codify and designate the Department of Co

50、mmerce International Trade Administrations Office ofIndustry&Analysis as the federal government center for foreign company risk information.Thereexists no interagency mechanism to compile or share due diligence or risk information on foreigncompanies obtained through reviews and investigations.Creat