John Brennan dismisses drone 'critics' who dismiss him right back

In his first media interview this year, CIA Director John Brennan dismissed civilian critics of his agency's drone program who "talk about these issues very callously" and "are not part of it." But what about drone critics inside the administration?

John Brennan

In its July issue, GQ magazine asked Brennan if the CIA's drone program is creating more terrorists than it's killing off. It mentioned that some view the program as "mowing the lawn," a quote that was relayed to the magazine by the Brookings Institution's Peter Singer (who, full disclosure, works with FP's Noah Shachtman in his capacity as a non-resident fellow at the think tank).

In response, Brennan dismissed the notion of "mowing the lawn" and where it was coming from. "There are a lot of people who talk about these issues very callously, on the outside. Because they're not a part of it," he said. "If we don't arrest the growth of Al Qaeda in a Yemen, or a Mali, or a Somalia, or whatever else, that cancer is going to overtake the body politic in the country, and then we're going to have a situation that we're not going to be able to address."

Responding to the charge that he's an outsider and therefore can't understand the nature of the program, Singer tells Killer Apps that the "mowing the lawn" quote doesn't even come from him.

"The quote on ‘mowing the lawn' is not me but Bruce Riedel, a 30 year veteran of the CIA, who served on the NSC for 4 presidents and led Obama's first Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review," Singer said. It is here. I've referenced it a number of times, as Bruce encapsulates it well, but I can't take credit for it."

"I very much understand the perspective of the ‘outside-inside' dynamic that is referenced, but in this case it is not only ‘outsiders' who have expressed concerns about the risk of an over reliance on targeted killing becoming ‘self-perpetuating, yielding undeniable short-term results that may obscure long-term costs,'" he said. He went on to list a who's who of official statements from national security insiders.

"Among the ‘insiders' who have expressed the very same concerns are the President of the United States (Obama in his 2013 NDU speech), the highest ranking US Military officer (Admiral Mullen speech at 2012 Aspen Ideas Festival), the former US Military commander in Afghanistan (General McChrystal's January 2013 interview with Reuters), the former Director of National Intelligence (Dennis Blair's 2011 New York Times op-ed on the topic," he said. "The list could go on and on."

Just a little food for thought the next time someone dismisses the remarks of drone critic "outsiders."

(As an aside, Singer emphasized that he himself isn't a critic of targeted killings, but has been concerned by how the drone program has been conducted on transparency and legal grounds.)

"I've been calling for a more strategic, more long-term, and more transparent approach. That course correction is now taking place -- and the irony is that Mr. Brennan played a key role in that shift." More

Global Nuclear Policy Leadership Networks Meet in Singapore to Focus on Urgent Nuclear Dangers

More than 30 high-profile global leaders and experts from 18 countries on five continents will gather in Singapore on June 25 and 26 to address urgent global nuclear threats and outline key steps to reduce dangers around the world.

Former Senator Sam Nunn, former
Secretary of State George P. Shultz,
former Secretary of State
Henry A. Kissinger and former
Secretary of Defense William J. Perry.

The meeting brings together members of five regional leadership networks—from the Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America and the United States—that are part of a major effort to galvanize global action and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat. The Nuclear Security Project, coordinated by the Nuclear Threat Initiative in partnership with the Hoover Institution, is sponsoring the gathering.

“This meeting is historic—demonstrating in thought and action how nuclear weapons and proliferation issues must be tackled seriously and cooperatively by countries around the world,” said former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, a convener of the gathering.

“We have a short window of time to pull back from a nuclear precipice. Asia is an important backdrop for this discussion, as a nuclear-armed North Korea threatens regional stability and could spark a new wave of proliferation,” said former U.S. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, also a host of the meeting.

The Singapore meeting signals the broad global momentum of the vision of working toward a world without nuclear weapons and steps to achieve it, advanced by Shultz, Perry, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, the principals of the Nuclear Security Project.

In a series of op-eds in The Wall Street Journal, these Cold Warrior statesmen called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, prevent their spread, and ultimately end them as a threat to the world. Their approach was echoed in President Obama’s 2009 Prague speech and embraced by the UN Security Council in a resolution at a head of government meeting later that year.

The work of the four principals also inspired the creation of regional networks, led by Des Browne, Gareth Evans, and Irma Arguello, that bring together high-level former political, military, and diplomatic leaders committed to engaging wide-reaching audiences in an ongoing discussion about today’s nuclear threats and increased public awareness and understanding of the consequences of inaction.

“When a large and growing number of nuclear-armed adversaries confront multiple perceived threats, the risk that deterrence will fail and that nuclear weapons will be used increases dramatically,” said Kissinger.

“These regional networks, working together, can bring needed urgency and focus to nuclear issues in their regions and globally. They also can play a key role in developing and proposing to governments new approaches to regional conflicts that fuel threats in Asia and around the world,” said Nunn.

Shultz, Perry, Nunn, Browne, Evans and Arguello are participating in the meeting. The Foreign Minister of Singapore, the Honorable K Shanmugam, will open the meeting with remarks on June 25 at 9:30 a.m. A press availability with key participants will be held on June 26 at 11:30 a.m. at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

The regional networks participating in the meeting are:

Asia Pacific Leadership Network (APLN): A network of 30 current and former political, military, and diplomatic leaders in the Asia Pacific region—including from nuclear weapons-possessing states of China, India and Pakistan—working to improve public understanding, shape public opinion, and influence political decision-making and diplomatic activity on issues concerning nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. The APLN is convened by former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans.

European Leadership Network (ELN): A network of more than 100 senior European political, military and diplomatic figures working to build a more coordinated European policy community, define strategic objectives and feed analysis and viewpoints into the policy-making process for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues. Former UK Defense Secretary Des Browne is Chair of the Executive Board of ELN.

UK Top Level Group (TLG): A cross-party group of senior British parliamentarians who share the belief that multilateral nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and nuclear security are critical global issues; the group includes almost all of the former British Foreign and Defense Secretaries over the last two decades, former Chiefs of the Defense Staff and prominent British diplomats who also served during the same period. TLG is convened by Des Browne.

Latin American Leadership Network (LALN): A network of 14 senior political, military, and diplomatic leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean working to promote constructive engagement on nuclear issues and to create an enhanced security environment to help reduce global nuclear risks. The LALN is currently led by Irma Arguello, founder and chair of Argentina-based NPSGlobal.

The Nuclear Security Leadership Council: A newly formed Council, based in the United States, brings together 21 influential leaders from North America from diverse backgrounds. The Council is led by interim co-chairs Ambassador Brooke Anderson and Admiral Gary Roughead (USN-Ret).

The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to reduce threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. NTI is governed by a prestigious, international board of directors and is co-chaired by founders Sam Nunn and Ted Turner. NTI’s activities are directed by Nunn and President Joan Rohlfing. For more information, visit www.nti.org. For more information about the Nuclear Security Project, visit www.NuclearSecurityProject.org. More

 

Drone 'Signature Strike' Witness Responds To Obama Speech: 'I Don't Trust A Single Word'

Jalal Manzar Khail was at home on March 17, 2011 as dozens of men from two bickering tribal groups met a couple miles away to settle a dispute.

Jalal Manzar Khail

All day long, American drones loomed in the sky above. "It's very normal," Khail said, speaking in Urdu through a translator with the United Kingdom legal charity Reprieve. "You see them during the day, you see them during the night -- they're always hovering."

In Waziristan, the restive region of Pakistan where Khail lives, such drones have become commonplace over the past several years, always holding the possibility of near-instant death. Increasingly, Central Intelligence Agency drones have killed men without knowing their names, simply because from the perspective of a Predator drone's video feed they look and act like members of the Taliban or al Qaeda or some other group considered associated with them.

Such so-called "signature strikes" are one of the most controversial practices in the drone war. When first elected, President Barack Obama was highly skeptical of such attacks, begun under former President George W. Bush in 2008. With time in the Oval Office and advice from military leaders, however, Obama came to accept their use as a vital part of the fight against terrorism.

Those signature strikes and their anonymous victims fall under Obama's definition of targeted killings. Unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times the signature strikes will continue in Pakistan. In a major national security speech in May, Obama acknowledged that drones sometimes make mistakes, but said their work must carry on.

"The conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy," he said. "But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life."

On that day in March some two years before, a signature strike was apparently used against Khail's friends and family.

The men who met in the town of Datta Khel told the local military commander about their jirga, or assembly of tribal elders. But the message apparently did not get to the Americans, or if it did, it was ignored.

Two Hellfire missiles shot to the ground and exploded. As Khail looked up to the sky, he remembered, he saw two more streak down. His walkie talkie crackling with a cry for help, he raced to the site.

When Khail arrived at the location of the assembly, it was filled with the dying, who were rushed to hospitals, and the dead. For them, Khail had to perform a more macabre task.

"Putting body parts in different boxes," he said. "(Using) boxes as coffins."

The president said in his May speech that "before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set." Still, he added, "There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports."

That includes the strike at Datta Khel. The nonprofit United Kingdom-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks drone deaths based on published news accounts, estimates that between 26 and 42 people were killed.

Some accounts of the wounded and killed included several Taliban members who were present as mediators because of their hold on the surrounding area. But they seem to have been a minority, four out of the 42 killed in total, according to an Associated Press investigation.

In rare public statements, Pakistan's president, prime minister and army chief all spoke out to condemn the attack, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented.

United States officials, meanwhile, had a completely different account of the meeting. Speaking under conditions of anonymity, one told The New York Times in August 2011 that "a large group of heavily armed men, some of whom were clearly connected to Al Qaeda and all of whom acted in a manner consistent with A.Q.-linked militants, were killed."

"A manner consistent with A.Q.-linked militants" is the most revealing phrase: the attack was a signature strike. As it later emerged, the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter had tried to stop the attack, only to be outmaneuvered by the CIA in internal administration debates. Two years later, The New York Times reported in April, many officials within the government now believe the strike was "botched."

Today, Obama shows signs of relying less on signature strikes. The overall number of drone attacks is down in Pakistan, and in his recent speech the president indicated that the U.S. will rely on them less and less.

Filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who is making a documentary about the drone war in Pakistan, told HuffPost the impact of the strikes will linger on, no matter what happens next. His Brave New Foundation and a coalition of progressive groups are partnering with MoveOn.org to petition Congress to end signature strikes.

"When I was in Pakistan, the fury and rage of people about the CIA, about the killing of large numbers of tribal leaders, was profoundly troubling," Greenwald wrote in an email. "Imagine a town hall in the United States bombed, and all the councilmen/women of a city wiped out."

Khail does not have to imagine. Among the men killed at Datta Khel were four of his cousins: Muzammal Khan, Sher Hayat Khan, Nek Bahadur Khan, and Belal Khan.

The drone strikes may be less frequent in Pakistan, but Khail's 6-year-old son still fears them. On one recent night, he remembers, three or four drones were hovering over his home. He took his terrified son outside of the house because he thought it was a target. The son was saying, he recounted, "We cannot go home. We have to spend the night in the tree."

In his speech, Obama acknowledged that "(a)ny U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas." But he said strong oversight, and a high threshold for taking action, should allay concerns about drone strikes.

Khail has heard of the speech, and his concerns are not allayed.

"I do not trust him, I don't trust a single word from him," he said. "Osama bin Laden has been killed, so what does he want more?"

"Convey my message to Americans," he said. "The CIA and America have to stop ... they're just creating more enemies and this will last for hundreds of years." More

 

Terry Long underwater munitions expert subject of European documentary

Terry Long known around the world for his expertise on sea-dumped munitions is now the focus of a documentary destined for a European audience.

Terry Long, second from left, works with a film crew

Terry Long of Leitches Creek, a retired military engineer trained in munitions disposal, is being filmed by the Deadly Depths production company regarding his drive to clean up underwater munitions around the world.

Long says the problem of sea-dumped munitions has been known to occur in every ocean, including sites on East Coast and West Coast of Canada. There are also unexploded munitions in waters off Cape Breton, such as the area commonly known as the Sydney Bight, located between Gabarus and Wreck Cove.

In the Sydney Bight fishing area 4VN, there are more than 80,000 tonnes of unexploded chemical munitions, said Long.

Most of these munitions started after the First World War and carried throughout the Second World War and the Cold War.

This practice continued up to the 1970s, when world governments began to understand the impact the dumps created on environment and marine ecosystems.

“The first major impact is being felt in the Baltic Sea from these munitions, and from the mustard gas we have a dead zone now from one end of the Baltic to the other,” said Long. “And in our fish studies we’ve been finding cancerous tumours, and these are the actually fish that people consume.”

As part of his work to remove munitions from world oceans, Long formed the International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions, a non-governmental organization that provides a platform for industry, politicians and stakeholders to explore the issue.

Film director Eric Nadler said filming wrapped in Cape Breton on Thursday.

“It’s an important topic and Terry is an extremely active guy — if not the most active guy on the planet on this issue — and thus he’s a great subject for a documentary.”

Nadler said the topic has become quite timely as studies have shown there are hazardous effects of allowing leaking munitions to seep into marine environments.

Long said the documentary, set to be released in early 2014, will be broadcast to 23 European States.

It is one of three documentaries Long has recently been asked to be a part of.

 

Iran vote: Rouhani vows transparency on nuclear issue

Iran's president-elect, Hassan Rouhani, has thanked Iranians for "choosing moderation".

Hassan Rouhani

In his first press conference since the vote, Mr Rouhani said his government would work towards "constructive interaction with the world".

He saluted what he called "passionate young Iranians" and said he would not forget his election promises.

Mr Rouhani, a long-standing political figure in Iran, won just more than 50% of the vote in Friday's election.

=================================================

Of course, the real question is; does the world [read the US and Israel] want constructive interaction with Iran? Editor

 

2013 Environment and Security Discussion Series Natural Resources and International Conflicts

For those who may be in Washington tomorrow this discussion should be well worth attending

The Stimson Center presents: 2013 Environment and Security Discussion Series Natural Resources and International Conflicts Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. The Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, D.C. RSVP HERE The Stimson Center cordially invites you to join our 2013 Environment and Security Discussion Series. The series brings together the Washington, D.C. area’s leading thinkers for an open exchange of ideas and views on the deepening links between environmental and security concerns, and a discussion of the growing relevance of the environment-security nexus to national and international policy. Speakers: Jeffrey Colgan, Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University David Michel, Director, Environmental Security Program, Stimson Center Moderator: Ellen Laipson, president and CEO, Stimson Center Colgan is an expert on oil geopolitics and author of the newly published "Petro-Aggression: When Oil Causes War" (Cambridge University Press, 2013). Michel is the co-author/editor of several recent reports on natural resource challenges in the Middle East, South Asia, and the Indian Ocean. The event’s discussion will center on how states’ development of natural resources impacts their foreign policy, human security, and political and social stability. What are the geopolitical and environmental implications of growing demands for the world’s natural resources – energy, water, food? We hope you will join us for what promises to be an engaging conversation on current resource development trends, international security, and environmental sustainability. For more information about the June 11th event or the Stimson Environment and Security Discussion Series, please contact Russell Sticklor at rsticklor@stimson.org or (202) 464-2667.

---

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe

---

The Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, District of Columbia 20036 US Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

 

US drone strike draws angry Pakistan protest

The government of Pakistan has summoned an American envoy to lodge an official protest over the latest drone attacks that killed at least nine people in the country's northwest region, officials said.

Nawaz Sharif

US charge d'affaires Richard Hoagland was summoned to the foreign ministry on Saturday as Pakistan lodged a formal protest over the Friday night strikes, ministry spokesman Aizaz Chaudhry said.

"It was conveyed to the US charge d'affaires that Pakistan strongly condemns the drone strikes, which are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Chaudhry.

"The importance of bringing an immediate end to drone strikes was emphasised," he added.

Pakistan also said that the strikes were "counter-productive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives and have human rights and humanitarian implications".

About six missiles were fired at a compound suspected to belong to a Taliban commander in the Shawal area of North Waziristan, one of seven tribal districts near the border with Afghanistan, a security official said.

"Nine militants were killed in the strike," the official said on condition of anonymity. "Those killed were from the local Bakka Khel tribe and they have been identified".

It was first attack since the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was sworn in on Wednesday.

The attack also came 10 days after a similar US strike killed the Pakistani Taliban's second-in-command, Wali-ur-Rehman, and six others in a major blow to the rebel group.

President Barack Obama said last month the United States would scale back drone strikes, only using them when a threat was "continuing and imminent".

But Sharif declared in his first speech as premier that the "chapter of drone attacks" should come to an end. More

 

San Onofre California nuclear plant to shut

A California nuclear power plant will close permanently amid doubts it could operate safely, 18 months after a small radiation leak was discovered.

The San Onofre plant near Los Angeles halted operations in January 2012 after radioactive water tubes were damaged.

Operator Southern California Edison has faced a series of regulatory inquiries.

San Onofre powered 1.4 million homes but regulators say they can supply sufficient electricity through the summer barring threats to other plants.

"[The plant] has served this region for over 40 years," Chief Executive Ted Craver of parent company Edison International said in a statement.

"But we have concluded that the continuing uncertainty about when or if [the plant] might return to service was not good for our customers, our investors, or the need to plan for our region's long-term electricity needs."

With the plant off-line, officials have warned the wildfires that regularly scorch Southern California during the dry summer months could cause power shortages.

Over the last eight months Southern California Edison had sought permission from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to restart one reactor and run it at reduced power for five months, in hopes of stopping the vibrations that had damaged the tubing. More

 

U.S. Dominance in Drone Technology

Stratfor Military Analyst Paul Floyd examines drone proliferation around the globe and explains the technology's constraints and potential.
For more analysis, visit: http://www.Stratfor.com

Pakistan's Rickover

By Michael Krepon

Pakistan’s national security decisions are usually choreographed between senior active duty military officers in Rawalpindi and government officials in Islamabad. If military leaders feel strongly about a particular policy or initiative, they can usually count on the consent of politicians. Conversely, if political leaders do not have military support, their favored initiatives are likely to fail. There is usually little daylight between Rawalpindi and Islamabad with respect to Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent.

Pakistan’s nuclear program is a rare success story and a great source of national pride. Those who have been instrumental in this record of accomplishment have been given broad leeway to pursue requirements as they see fit. These requirements are set by very few individuals, almost all with military backgrounds.

Every nation’s nuclear weapon-related programs have elevated a few individuals into positions of extraordinary authority. Some have remained in the shadows, a few have become national embarrassments, and others have gained public renown. The “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy, Admiral Hyman Rickover, had such a high profile and was deemed to be so essential by his supporters on Capitol Hill that his retirement from active duty was postponed until the ripe old age of 81.

Pakistan’s closest approximation to Admiral Rickover is Lt. General (ret.) Khalid Kidwai, who presently is in his thirteenth year as the Director-General of the Strategic Plans Division at Joint Staff Headquarters. The SPD oversees strategy, doctrine, research, development, production and protection of Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

Admiral Rickover and General Kidwai could not be more dissimilar in personality or conduct. Rickover’s steel will did not brook dissent over questions of submarine design, personnel, training and related matters. Rickover would imperiously circumvent his military superiors when he suspected or opposed their judgment. General Kidwai is a man of low-key demeanor with a sense of humility who works through military channels. Like Rickover, his competence inspires the view that he is indispensable. Unlike Rickover, my sense is that General Kidwai would contest this conclusion.

General Kidwai faced retirement in 2005 because his time on active duty would extend beyond those who were about to out-rank him. At that juncture, the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Ehsan ul-Haq, and Chief of Army Staff (and President of Pakistan) Pervez Musharraf decided to keep General Kidwai in place at the SPD after his retirement. While many retired military officers have been given plum assignments overseeing civilian institutions in Pakistan, the appointment of a retired military officer to be in charge of the nuclear program was very unusual.

General Kidwai has a long gallery of pictures on his wall of the successful strategic modernization initiatives he has overseen. He has cleaned up the mess at the A.Q. Khan Labs. He has improved security at sensitive sites. He has set up institutional mechanisms that are sound and that can handle a baton pass.

There aren’t many more tests for General Kidwai to pass. There is one test, however, that founding fathers of nuclear programs usually flunk. It’s the test of avoiding excess.

This is not a Pakistan-specific problem. Most of the founding fathers of the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs also flunked this test. Regardless of nationality, nuclear enclaves share a common assumption that more capability equals more security – especially when an adversary is engaged in a nuclear build-up. In this view, the more foreboding the edifice of deterrence looks, the less inclined your adversary will be to cross red lines.

There is no hard evidence to support this article of faith. A small, survivable nuclear arsenal might also be sufficiently persuasive as a deterrent, and there might well be many other reasons that induce caution in national leaders. But it’s understandably risky to take this for granted; the closer one is to the Bomb, and less risky it appears to choose more firepower. The equation of more nuclear deterrence with greater security can easily become a bedrock belief — even though the more adversaries compete, the less secure they feel.

It’s natural for nuclear enclaves facing stiff competition to reject constructs of minimum or finite deterrence in favor of additional targeting and use options. Unlike nuclear-armed states that have no reason to expect a hot war or rapid escalation, Pakistan and India are moving toward widely diversified deterrents that place greater stress on command, control, safety and security in times of crisis. Under these circumstances, weak points become distributed within the edifice as it grows. Crisis and deterrence stability become shakier.

The question, ‘How much is enough?’ becomes perversely more difficult to answer when one success follows the next, and when an adversary responds in kind. The answer to this question cannot come from outsiders. Security dilemmas and nuclear weapon requirements can only be moderated by domestic reassessments, economic imperatives, negotiations, more normal ties with a competitor, or the demise of one of the contestants.

Within Pakistan, politicians usually shy away from questioning nuclear orthodoxy, whiz kids are not welcome, and criticism, no matter how sound or well meaning, is dismissed as being pro-India. The significant expenses associated with nuclear weapons are good for just one important thing: to reinforce caution. Meanwhile, other expenses and aspects of national security are short-changed. Pakistan faces terrible economic and energy crises as its nuclear enclave gears up to go toe-to-toe against India.

Michael Krepon is co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs.

For more information, contact Julia Thompson at jthompson@stimson.org or 202-478-3432

The Stimson Center

1111 19th Street, NW, 12th Floor

Washington, District of Columbia 20036

USA

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

 

 

Rising energy prices will challenge western way of life – MoD report

A little-known Ministry of Defence (MoD) report published earlier this year warns that converging global trends will dramatically affect UK economic prosperity through to 2040.

The report says that depletion of cheap conventional "easy oil", along with shortages of food and water due to climate change and population growth, will sustain rocketing energy prices. Long-term price spikes are likely to lead to a long recession in Western economies, fuelling internal unrest and the rise of nationalist movements.

The report departs significantly from the conservative and relatively optimistic scenarios officially adopted by the British government, as exemplified in the coalition's new Energy Security Strategy published in November last year by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).

Peak "easy oil"

The report predicts that "the imminent passing of the point of peak 'easy oil' will mean that hydrocarbon-based energy prices will rise significantly out to 2040." Other factors affecting energy prices include "increasing demand for fossil fuels" due to South Asia's "industrial rise" and greater "volatility in supply" in the Middle East.

Contradicting the British government's official position on peak oil - which accepts the International Energy Agency's (IEA) latest estimate that oil prices will reach "$125/barrel in real terms (over $215/barrel in nominal terms)" - the MoD report projects an exponential escalation in prices, such that "the increasing price of oil... is likely to reach $500 a barrel by 2040" - almost double conventional projections.

This price rise will, however, "drive the development of alternative fuel sources" including tar sands, shale gas, coal, nuclear and renewables.

Rising demand for "resources and energy" from China and India will spur a "'scramble' for commodities and resources" as less developed countries' "resource requirements may go unfulfilled." There will also be a greater chance of clashes over access to "Middle East resources", the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Climate crisis

Climates change will significantly compound these challenges, including a wide range of impacts such as "rising sea levels... increased incidents of seasonal floods, heat-waves, storms, and unpredictable farm yields."

If sea levels rise quicker than anticipated, "millions of people across South Asia (principally in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Maldives) will be displaced, with no opportunity to return to their homes."

Irregularities in the pattern of monsoon rains are likely to undermine South Asia's "agricultural and domestic water needs", while higher temperatures will "increase the range of vector-borne diseases such as malaria", such that it becomes "prevalent all-year-round."

Water stress

Water may become a "destabilising factor", with water stress and scarcity affecting some "2.5 billion people", and acting as a limiter to economic growth in some South Asian economies, including China by 2030.

Water will be a "defence and security issue" through to 2040, and increasing water demand is also likely to "heighten tensions over shared resources such as the Brahma-Putra Himalayan region and the River Indus", between China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Food shortages

The sustainability of food production in such conditions "will also be a key issue for the region, with much of the population dependent on rice crops as a staple." The report warns that a "rapid loss of some arable land is likely to promote local, then national migration", which may contribute to unrest.

As agriculture is the single largest contributor to GDP and employment in the region, the report observes that the decline in agricultural output driven by higher temperatures, erratic weather, lower yields, soil erosion and increased pests and weeds, will primarily affect nearly all those who are "close to, or below, the poverty line."

Demographic time bomb?

Although China and India will incorporate "some measures of sustainable development", those measures will be limited by the fact that "economic growth will remain the imperative throughout the period."

Despite their confidence in being able to meet these emerging climate and energy challenges, the sheer scale of the latter - "especially with regard to food and water availability and the sensitivity of the monsoon cycle, may challenge such confidence."

Under present trends, South Asia will contain "nearly 40% of the world's population" within the next 30 years. China and India will therefore face "increasing demands" from their "burgeoning populations" requiring "strong levels of sustained economic growth over the period to maintain internal stability."

Inadequate "social and educational policies" and persistent "inequality and corruption" could turn this demographic dividend into "a 'demographic time bomb.'"

In fact, the report predicts that due to "rising inequality", ethnic tensions, strict controls on freedom of speech, and increased access to global communications, "China is likely to experience increased incidents internal of unrest."

End of growth due to resource price spikes?

But the West faces other parallel challenges:

"The growth of South Asian economies will impact on most western nations, where the way of life for the majority of the populaces may be challenged by rising energy and resource prices, coupled with a relative decline in the value of their national economies...

The economic and industrial rise of China and India will increase the cost and reduce the availability of UK energy supplies. As a resource-importing nation, and with relatively modest fossil fuel reserves, the UK will be affected by increased resource and commodity costs. The UK will increasingly need to compete with China and India in order to secure enduring access to energy."

Consequently, the report argues that the "western 'way of life'" - associated with "a wide variety of consumer choice and relatively cheap energy" - will be "increasingly challenged as lifestyles follow GDP levels and 'normalise' across the globe."

Within the US and UK, the bulk of the populations will be affected by:

"... rising energy and resource prices, and the declining availability of finance to sustain discretionary spending. In such a context, this could lead to periods of sustained recession in the West, causing increasingly protectionist policies to be adopted."

"Internal unrest"

This could occur even as growth continues in South Asia, with global GDP per capita overall levelling off to "equilibrate", culminating in "the stalling and subsequent decline of many western economies." This will result in:

"long periods of recession and rising disaffection within the UK population... This could subsequently lead to increased incidents of internal unrest, a rise of nationalistic groups and a demand for protectionist economic and defence policies."

Corporate stakeholders

This could occur even as growth continues in South Asia, with global GDP per capita overall levelling off to "equilibrate", culminating in "the stalling and subsequent decline of many western economies." This will result in:

"long periods of recession and rising disaffection within the UK population... This could subsequently lead to increased incidents of internal unrest, a rise of nationalistic groups and a demand for protectionist economic and defence policies."

The report, titled Regional Survey: South Asia out to 2040, was published by the MoD's Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) as part of its Strategic Trends Programme in January. The DCDC is an MoD think tank within the Defence Academy site at Shrivenham.

The report utilised the input of a range of government agencies and departments, including the MoD's Strategy Unit, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, the Cabinet Office, and the Foreign Office - as well as two private institutions, Standard Chartered Bank and Now & Next. Decc is notably missing from the list of contributors.

Standard Chartered has a chequered history replete with scandals and "ethical lapses". Two years ago, an Ecologist investigation alleged that a coal power plant project in India financed by Standard Chartered among others, had "displaced poor communities and will lead to the destruction of forests."

The project was slated to receive carbon credits under the UN's controversial Clean Development Mechanism. Standard Chartered is now heavily invested in South Asia.

Now and Next is the website of a future trend analysis publication, What's Next, which includes among its clients General Electric, KPMG, McDonalds, and Shell.

Privatisation of power

Although the document sets out reasons to believe the UK is well-positioned to "adapt" to these converging trends, and perhaps even benefit from them, the overall vision heralds the recognition that of a rapidly shifting global landscape.

The report concedes that the "'relative' decline of the West is likely to lead to a new power framework where alliances are constantly reassessed and negotiated." This will also see "the declining influence of existing international institutions such as NATO and the UN Security Council."

In this context, the report predicts an accelerating coalescence between nation states and global capital, noting that:

"The line between government, and private industry protection of intellectual property of key technologies for security and wealth creation, may become increasingly blurred... [as] blueprints, patents and formulas will be increasingly seen as the foundations of wealth generation." More

MOD Report