Tag: Japan
Keeping an eye on Asia
Trying to catch up on my Asia reading, as things are heating up there:
- The Japanese scrambled jets last week in response to a Russian violation of airspace over the Kuril Islands.
- China has been pressuring North Korea not to conduct an announced nuclear test.
- Tokyo is complaining that Chinese radar “locked on” to Japanese ships, a step generally associated with initiating an attack, in the East China Sea (where the two countries dispute sovereignty over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands).
The smart money is still betting that China and Japan won’t go to war over uninhabited islands that Japan administers but China claims. There have been recent rumblings of a possible accord between Russia and Japan on the Kurils. It is of course welcome that China should restrain its North Korean friends from defying the UN Security Council again with another nuclear test. It is unclear whether Beijing will succeed.
The US Navy, facing budget and reducing its presence in the Middle East, has found a useful “hegemon” and bully in China. In the mist of preparations for the Quadrennial Defense Review, naval advocates would like to regain at least some of the budget momentum they lost when Mitt Romney–a strong naval advocate–was defeated for the presidency.
But that doesn’t mean the needs are not real. America’s ships are vulnerable, even to Iranian never mind Chinese cruise and other missiles. Washington has a lot of obligations in Asia: to Japan, to Taiwan, the Philippines, to South Korea. It also has some relatively new friends to oblige: Vietnam and Burma in particular. It is not going to be easy to meet all the needs in a severely constrained budget environment.
Those who complain about US inattention to Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and even the Balkans need to remember how many other commitments need to be fulfilled. Asia represents an important slice of the future of world economic growth. It also represents a serious risk of armed conflict on a scale that would have global consequences. We may not all be able to pivot to Asia, but we should keep an eye on it.
And I just realized: I am in Asia today, in Antalya, Turkey. Maybe that’s why my eyes have turned east, though the East I am writing about here lies thousands of miles away. Here’s the scenery from my hotel room:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Prevent what?
Most of us who work on international affairs think it would be much better to use diplomacy to prevent bad things from happening rather than waiting until the aftermath and then cleaning up after the elephants, which all too often involves expensive military action. But what precisely would that mean? What do we need to prevent?
The Council on Foreign Relations survey of prevention priorities for 2013 was published last week, just in time to be forgotten in the Christmas rush and New Year’s lull. It deserves notice, as it is one of the few nonpartisan attempts to define American national security priorities. This year’s edition was in part crowd-sourced and categorizes contingencies on two dimensions: impact on U.S. interests (high, medium, low) and likelihood (likely, plausible, unlikely).
Syria comes out on top in both dimensions. That’s a no-brainer for likelihood, as the civil war has already reached catastrophic dimensions and is affecting the broader region. Judging from Paul Stares’ video introduction to the survey, U.S. interests are ranked high in part because of the risk of use or loss of chemical weapons stocks. I’d have ranked them high because of the importance of depriving Iran of its one truly reliable ally and bridge to Hizbollah, but that’s a quibble.
CFR ranks another six contingencies as high impact on U.S. interests and only plausible rather than likely. This isn’t so useful, but Paul’s video comes to the rescue: an Israeli military strike on Iran that would “embroil” the U.S. and conflict with China in the East or South China seas are his picks to talk about. I find it peculiar that CFR does not treat what I would regard as certainly a plausible if not a likely contingency: a U.S. attack on Iran. There are few more important decisions President Obama will need to make than whether to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Certainly it is a far more challenging decision than whether to go to war against China in the territorial disputes it is generating with U.S. allies in Pacific. I don’t know any foreign policy experts who would advise him to go in that direction.
It is striking that few of the other “plausible” and high-impact contingencies are amenable to purely military responses:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attack
It is not easy to determine the origin of cyberattacks, and not clear that a military response would be appropriate or effective. The same is also sometimes true of mass casualty attacks; our military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan has enmired the United States in its longest war to date, one where force is proving inadequate as a solution. It is hard to imagine any military response to internal instability in Pakistan, though CFR offers as an additional low probability contingency a possible U.S. military confrontation with Islamabad “triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations.”
In the “moderate” impact on U.S. interests, CFR ranks as highly likely “a major erosion of security in Afghanistan resulting from coalition drawdown.” I’d certainly have put that in high impact category, as we’ve still got 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a significant portion of them will still be there at the end of 2013. In the “moderate” impact but merely plausible category CFR ranks:
- a severe Indo-Pakistan crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by a major terror attack
- a severe North Korean crisis caused by another military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- continuing political instability and emergence of a terrorist safe haven in Libya
Again there are limits to what we can do about most of these contingencies by conventional military means. Only a North Korea crisis caused by military provocation or threats would rank be susceptible to a primarily military response. The others call for diplomatic and civilian responses in at least a measure equal to the possible military ones.
CFR lets two “moderate” impact contingencies languish in the low probability category that I don’t think belong there:
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- renewed unrest in the Kurdish dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
There is a very real possibility in Riyadh of a succession crisis, as the monarchy on the death of the king will likely move to a next generation of contenders. Kurdish irredentist aspirations are already a big issue in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to imagine this will not affect Iran and Turkey before the year is out. Neither is amenable to a purely military response.
Most of the contingencies with “low” impact on U.S. interests are in Africa:
- a deepening of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that involves military intervention from its neighbors
- growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- renewed ethnic violence in Kenya surrounding March 2013 presidential election
- widespread unrest in Zimbabwe surrounding the electoral process and/or the death of Robert Mugabe
- failure of a multilateral intervention to push out Islamist groups from Mali’s north
This may tell us more about CFR and the United States than about the world. Africa has little purchase on American sentiments, despite our half-Kenyan president. All of these contingencies merit diplomatic attention, but none is likely to excite U.S. military responses of more than a purely emergency character, except for Mali. If you’ve got a few Islamist terrorists, you can get some attention even if you are in Africa.
What’s missing from this list? CFR mentions
…a third Palestinian intifada, a widespread popular unrest in China, escalation of a U.S.-Iran naval clash in the Persian Gulf, a Sino-Indian border crisis, onset of elections-related instability and violence in Ethiopia, unrest in Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro and/or incapacitation of Raul Castro, and widespread political unrest in Venezuela triggered by the death or incapacitation of Hugo Chavez.
I’d add intensification of the global economic slowdown (high probability, high impact), failure to do more about global warming (also high probability, delayed impact), demographic or financial implosion in Europe or Japan (and possibly even the U.S.), Russian crackdown on dissent, and resurgent Islamist extremism in Somalia. But the first three of these are not one-year “contingencies,” which shows one limit of the CFR exercise.
I would also note that the world is arguably in better shape at the end of 2012 than ever before in history. As The Spectator puts it:
Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.
May it last.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
December starts with a busy week.
1. Working in Fragile States: Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding with Impact, Monday December 3, 9:30 AM – 12:30 PM, Care International
Venue: 1825 I street NW, Washington, DC 20006, 12th Floor
Speakers: Rachel Goldwyn, Jonathan White, Marshall Wallace, John Filson
Violent Conflict and ‘situations of fragility’ represent significant challenges for aid effectiveness. Applying traditional development approaches in an unchanged fashion in such contexts simply does not work. As is now often pointed out, no low income fragile or conflict-affected country has yet to achieve a single Millennium Development Goal. CARE invites you to a morning to discuss how NGOs and donors could be working more effectively in their peacebuilding, development and humanitarian responses in fragile states. First looking at conflict sensitivity and second examining how using theories of change in project design, monitoring and evaluation can improve the results of peacebuilding and other social mobilization programming. Two sessions will offer a platform for discussion, inter-agency learning, and the distribution of two new guides to the topics launched this year. Please feel free to come to one or boths essions, or to follow online via WebEx (for the URL, please email Betsy Deas bdeas@care.org). Refreshments will be served in the interval.
Session 1 – 9:30am-10:30am: ‘How to Guide’ to Conflict Sensitivity
Session 2 – 11:00am – 12:30pm: Defining Theories of Change Towards Peace; Peacebuilding with Impact
RSVP for this even to Betsy Deas at bdeas@care.org.
2. Counterterrorism in Africa, Monday December 3, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute
Venue: The George Washington University, Duques Hall, School of Business, 2201 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, First Floor, Room 151
Speakers: Carter H. Ham, W. Russell Ramsey, Frank J. Cilluffo
On Monday, December 3rd, 2012, HSPI will host an event featuring General Carter F. Ham, Commander, U.S. Africa Command. General Ham will share his perspectives on the security challenges and opportunities facing the United States in Africa. He will address a range of issues affecting the regional security and stability of Africa, and will speak to developments in the region, including the terrorism threat in the Maghreb, the Sahel, and in the Horn of Africa.
Register for this event here.
3. US Policy in the Middle East in Obama’s Second Term, Tuesday December 4, 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM, SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Venue: SETA Foundation at Washington DC, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 1106
Speakers: Rob Malley, Leila Hilal, Trita Parsi, Erol Cebeci, Kadir Ustun
There is a broad range of expectations from President Obama’s second term. Those who expect a dramatically different Middle East policy in his second term cite the unsustainability of the cautious involvement of the first term. Others argue that the US involvement will continue to be highly risk-averse. While the US sorely wants to avoid the high price of missteps and misadventures, the regional turmoil and uncertainty continue unabated, as the regional order is shaken to its core. How will the American position in the region look like over the next four years? What are the vital American interests that may trigger a stronger involvement? How can the US work with regional actors to address stability and legitimate governments simultaneously? What are the prospects of a more robust US role in the Middle East?
Join us for a discussion on the US policy in the Middle East during the second Obama administration.
Register for this event here.
4. China and the Middle East: Rising Power and a Region in Turmoil, Tuesday December 4, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Middle East Institute
Venue: Middle East Institute, 1761 N Street NW, Washington DC, 20036, Boardman Room
Speakers: Yitzhak Shichor, Dawn Murphy, Sam Chester
This program features three experts on China’s relations with the Middle East. The speakers will address two central questions: What challenges has China faced as a result of the political upheaval in the Arab World and the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program? In light of these challenges, how, and how well has China managed to protect and promote its interests in the region? Join us for a discussion on this important and under-examined topic.
Register for this event here.
5. The Future of Humanitarian Action, Tuesday December 4, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Pierre Krähenbühl, William J. Garvelink
Please join ICRC’s Pierre Krähenbühl and CSIS’s Ambassador William J. Garvelink for a discussion of the ‘The Future of Humanitarian Action’, the latest edition of the International Review of the Red Cross, a quarterly publication published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
The international community is experiencing serious challenges to the humanitarian aid system. These include the direct targeting of humanitarian personnel, the rise of new actors, new ‘megatrends’ of disasters related to climate change and migration, advances in internet and communication technology and the militarization of aid. ICRC Director of Operations Pierre Krähenbühl will launch this latest edition of the Review, which explores these and other related themes, and complement it with his own global operational perspective. Ambassador Garvelink will then guide this important discussion about the future of humanitarianism
RSVP for this event to Farha Tahir at ftahir@csis.org.
6. Negotiating the Arab Spring: Policy Options, Tuesday December 4, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speakers: Fen Osler Hampson, Ellen Laipson, William Zartman, Regina Joseph, Floor Janssen
Fen Osler Hampson, distinguished fellow and director of the Global Security Centre for International Governance Innovation; Ellen Laipson, president of the Stimson Center; I. William Zartman, professor emeritus at SAIS; and Instituut Clingendael research fellows Regina Joseph and Floor Janssen will discuss this topic
RSVP for this event to itlong@jhu.edu.
7. Comparative Instability in the Balkans and the Middle East, Tuesday December 4, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: David Kanin
David Kanin, professorial lecturer in the SAIS European Studies Program and former senior analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, will discuss this topic. Note: The speaker’s comments will be off the record. A reception will follow the event in Room 812, Rome Building.
For more information contact ntobin@jhu.edu.
8. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Conflict in the 21st Century, Wednesday December 5, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: Brian Grim
Brian Grim, senior researcher and director of cross-national data at the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life, will discuss this topic.
RSVP for this event to slee255@jhu.edu.
9. The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia, Wednesday December 5, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Gregory Johnsen, Peter Bergen
Over the past few years, U.S. counterterrorism officials have frequently highlighted the blows America has dealt to al-Qaeda, especially those to its central command in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But officials also continue to warn about the persistent threat posed by al-Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers that have flourished in places such as Yemen and North Africa. Gregory Johnsen, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and one of the preeminent scholars of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, examines the organization’s last strongholds in his new book The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia. In a recent piece for the New York Review of Books, Robert Worth called Johnsen’s book, “an authoritative and deftly written account of al-Qaeda’s Yemeni incarnation.”
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a conversation with Gregory Johnsen about The Last Refuge and the future of U.S. efforts to counter the violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda supporters in Yemen
Register for this event here.
10. Annual Energy Outlook 2013, Wednesday December 5, 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Nitze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Kenny-Herter Auditorium
Speaker: Adam Sieminski
Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), will present the agency’s projections of U.S. energy supply, demand and prices to 2040 with the early release of the reference case projections from the “Annual Energy Outlook 2013.”
Members of the media who want to cover this event should contact Felisa Neuringer Klubes in the SAIS Communications Office at 202.663.5626 or fklubes@jhu.edu.
RSVP for this event to saisereglobal@jhu.edu.
11. U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative Programs: What Is Next?, Wednesday December 5, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Heritage Foundation
Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium
Speakers: Gabriel Scheinmann, Baker Spring, Randy Jennings
This past July President Obama signed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which has been designed to give Israeli forces a qualitative edge over their current and future adversaries. The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $948 million for all cooperative missile defense efforts between the United States and Israel. Specifically, the House version of the NDAA provides $680 million to fund Israel’s Iron Dome System through the fiscal years of 2012 through 2015. There is strong bipartisan congressional support for missile defense cooperation with Israel, which would enhance the overall defense posture for both countries.
Join us as our panel discusses the U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense efforts, the role of U.S. experience in cooperating on these issues, and the future of the Iron Dome system. Additionally, the panel will discuss the broader missile defense implications that the U.S. should consider given the success of Iron Dome operations.
Register for this event here.
12. Iranian Influence in the South Caucasus and the Surrounding Region, Wednesday December 5, 2:00 PM, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Dan Burton, Ariel Cohen
13. An Evening with the Palestinian Ambassador, Wednesday December 5, 7:30 PM – 9:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Marc Gopin, Aziz Abu Sarah, Scott Cooper, Alex Cromwell
Please join the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution as we welcome Palestinian Ambassador Areikat to come and speak to the S-CAR and Mason Community at the Arlington Campus. CRDC’s Co-Executive Director, Aziz Abu Sarah, will introduce the Ambassador, and Dr. Jamil Shami, President for the Middle East in Higher Education, Inc., will moderate the event.
RSVP for this event to crdc@gmu.edu.
14. Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions on Iran, Thursday December 6, 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Gregory Newbold, Thomas Pickering, William Reinsch, George Perkovich
The Iran Project will launch their new report “Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran.” The Iran Project’s first report, “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action against Iran,” was released in September 2012. It presented a balanced, non-partisan view of the pros and cons of using force to forestall Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. This new paper takes the same balanced approach to assessing the benefits and costs of U.S. and U.S.-led international sanctions against Iran.
The paper does not advocate for or against sanctions; nor does it make specific policy recommendations. The writers and signers of this paper, who are senior experts from the national security and foreign policy communities, aim to provide an objective analysis that will contribute to informed debate about a key strategy for addressing one of the most critical security challenges facing the United States.
Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Carnegie’s George Perkovich, and William A. Reinsch will discuss the report’s findings. Ambassador Thomas Pickering will moderate.
Register for this event here.
15. FDD’s Washington Forum 2012: “Dictators & Dissidents: Should the West Choose Sides?”, Thursday December 6, 8:15 AM – 5:00 PM, Newseum
Venue: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, please use the Freedom Forum entrance on 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street
Speakers: Joseph Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Daniel Glaser, Robert Ford, Bret Stephens
We invite you to join us at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ (FDD) annual Washington Forum, taking place on Thursday, December 6 at the Newseum in Washington D.C. Speakers discussing this year’s theme, “Dictators and Dissidents: Should the West choose sides?” include Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Daniel Glaser, Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Terrorist Financing, Ambassador Robert Ford, U.S. Ambassador to Syria, and Bret Stephens, Deputy Editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, along with a who’s who of experts from Congress, the intelligence and foreign policy communities and the diplomatic corps
Register for this event here.
16. New Authoritarians and the Challenge to Democracy, Thursday December 6, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, The International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy
Venue: 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004
Speakers: William Dobson, Joshua Stacher, Christopher Walker
The world has changed and today’s autocrats are changing with it. Demonstrating resilience and a keen ability to adapt, leading authoritarian regimes are developing more subtle and sophisticated methods to retain power. To suppress dissent, mass brutality has been replaced by selective safety inspections and tax investigations, as well as arbitrarily applied regulations designed to undercut the activities of independent civil society and opposition groups. New economic resources at the disposal of regimes in Beijing, Moscow, and Caracas have enabled them to bolster their authoritarianism. Meanwhile, the democratic world has been slow to acknowledge and respond to the emergence of these new, more nimble regimes.
Please join us for a discussion featuring William J. Dobson, author of The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy, and Joshua Stacher, author of Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria, as they discuss how leaders in China, Egypt, Russia, Venezuela, and other countries have adapted to suppress democratic movements in their countries. Despite the initial excitement surrounding the recent upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa in particular, continuity—not wide-ranging political change—remains the hallmark of many of the world’s autocracies.
Register for this event here.
17. Untangling Maritime Disputes in Asia, Thursday December 6, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Yann-huei Song, Edward Chen, James L. Schoff, Peter Dutton
Over the past six months, tensions have escalated in the South and East China Seas. Japan and China have grabbed headlines in a spat over China’s claims to the Japanese administered Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, while Taiwan has asserted its own claim in the region and proposed talks to settle the disputes. Yet these are only the latest in a long list of territorial disputes involving many countries and many competing claims. As events progress, what was already a complex and complicated issue over minuscule territories has drawn big power attention.
Two eminent Taiwanese scholars, Yann-huei Song and Edward I-hsin Chen, will join Carnegie’s James L. Schoff to discuss maritime disputes in the region, and prospects for their peaceful resolution. Peter Dutton, a noted expert on Chinese territorial claims at the U.S. Naval War College, will moderate.
Register for this event here.
18. Has the Arab Spring Come to Jordan?, Friday December 7, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Marwan Muasher, Randa Habib, Naseer Alomari, Yassin Sabha
Marwan Muasher, director of the Carnegie Endowment Middle East program and former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister; Naseer Alomari, Jordanian blogger; Randa Habib (participating through Skype), director of the Agence France Presse Foundation and journalist; Yassin Sabha (President of MENA Club and Jordanian political analyst).
Note: SAIS will also host a live webcast of the event at www.sais-jhu.edu/pressroom/live.html
RSVP for this event to menaclub.sais@gmail.com.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Good news, and bad
As world leaders meet in Doha for the climate change conference, IEA officials presented the World Energy Outlook 2012 at a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event. Jessica Matthews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, labelled the year “paradoxical.” Some of the fundamental facts of world energy are changing, especially in the United States, which is on track to becoming the largest oil producer in 2020, passing even Saudi Arabia. This development, brought on by the unconventional oil and gas revolution, in combination with recent improvements in efficiency, suggests a bright energy future for the U.S. But Matthews reminded the audience that the Outlook ultimately concludes the U.S. and the rest of the world are not on track for a sustainable energy future. If trends continue, the world will become 3 degrees Celsius warmer by mid century and 4-6 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100. Such warming will have catastrophic implications.
Daniel Poneman, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, seconded Matthews’ point that more oil and gas in the U.S., and in turn, more independence, is a result of higher production and decreased demand. Production of shale gas began slowly, but it now accounts for about 35% of annual gas production. If trends continue, the US will overtake Russia in 2015 as the largest natural gas producer. Increasing natural gas production in the U.S., Canada, and Australia will globalize the natural gas market, according Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and overseer of the World Energy Outlook. New producers will diversify the market and traditional gas exporters will face lower exports and prices.
At the same time, energy consumption is shifting from the West to the East. By 2035, OECD countries will use only about 30% of total energy production. Ninety percent of oil from the Middle East will go to Asia. This is partially due to rising standards of living in China, India, and the Middle East. About 20% of the global population (1.3 billion people) still have no access to electricity, however. Birol calls this an energy, economic and moral issue. Despite electricity generation growth in India, electricity consumption per capita in 2035 India will equal per capita consumption in 1947 America.
Iraq is another game changer. Right now it is the third largest oil producer. Its production is expected to increase as exploration discovers greater reserves. Iraq will produce 6 million barrels per day in 2020 and 8 million by 2035, noted Maria van der Hoeven, the IEA’s Executive Director. Iraq will account for 45% of growth in global oil production from now until 2035, passing Russia and becoming the second largest oil exporter in the mid 2030’s. By 2035 almost 50% of world oil production will come from OPEC countries. Iraq will be a significant contributor, with much of its oil going to China. Thirty percent of growth in Iraq’s oil exports will come from Chinese-owned oil fields in Iraq.
The prospects for climate change are sobering. Progress has been made on energy efficiency, but energy demand is growing due to many factors, including population increase and movement away from nuclear power in some countries. Fossil fuel subsidies, which Birol calls the greatest threat to climate change, are a serious problem. Fuel subsidies are up 30% to $523 billion in 2011, with the Middle East and North Africa in the lead.
According to Birol, the global goal of a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature or less will not be met with current policies. For the first time a decline in renewables is expected in 2012. Much of past and future renewable growth is dependent on subsidies. If it were possible to halt building of new infrastructure for the next 20 years, we would still use up 80% of the emissions permitted to keep the global temperature change under 2 degrees Celsius. We are not remotely doing all we can to improve efficiency. Two-thirds of the economically viable potential for improving efficiency is not being used. We have until 2017 to make serious changes, which will likely require a legally binding international agreement. If we don’t make changes by then, there will be no way to keep the planet from warming two degrees Celsius or more. If we become more efficient now, we might have until 2022 to make serious changes. The longer we wait, the more costly changes will be, which will make striking an international agreement harder.
The Outlook forecasts good news on energy production, but still bad news for climate change.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No easy call
Having written Tuesday that President Obama should be considering a no-fly zone in Syria, I was surprised but pleased to read this tactical level account confirming my view that this is preferable to safe zones or humanitarian corridors. They wouldn’t make much difference at this point because the opposition already control wide swaths of territory. But of course a no-fly zone over all of Syria would need to be strategically as well as tactically good in order to convince a president.
Steven Lee Myers and Scott Shane of the New York Times summed up the argument against any Western military intervention this way:
American military operations against Syria, officials reiterated on Tuesday, would risk drawing in Syria’s patrons, principally Iran and Russia, at a much greater level than they already are involved. It would allow Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to rally popular sentiment against the West and embolden Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups now fighting the Assad government to turn their attention to what they would see as another American crusade in the Arab world.
The risk is not only greater Russian and Iranian involvement in Syria, but also losing Russia’s cooperation on Afghanistan and on trying to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. These are serious risks involving important American interests.
But Iran and Russia are already heavily involved in Syria, and it is also an important American interest to prevent the war in Syria from “grinding on,” as Andrew Tabler puts it. That would increase the likelihood of Al Qaeda and other jihadi involvement. It will also increase the risk to Syria’s neighbors. Lebanon and Jordan are already in difficulty, the former from sectarian fighting provoked in part by the Syrian conflict and the latter from the burden of tens of thousands of refugees. Iraq could also be threatened. Kurdish extremists are increasing operations in Turkey, presumably egged on by the Syrian regime, but the Turks can counter that effort both diplomatically (by getting the Iraqi Kurds to restrain their Syrian brethren) and militarily.
A no-fly zone could significantly shorten the conflict in Syria, but of course a great deal depends on how it is authorized and who engages in it. There seems no possibility of UN Security Council authorization. Moscow won’t allow it. The Arab League would need to ask for it. That seems within the realm of possibility. The Americans would have to undertake the major military operation needed to defeat Syria’s Russian air defense system, giving the Iranians a pretty good picture of how we would go about a similar attack on them. A continuing effort to patrol the skies and strike occasionally afterwards might rely on Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The alternative, or possibly a supplement, to a no-fly zone is to supply the Syrian revolutionaries with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADs). The risk is that these would fall into the wrong hands, as they did in Afghanistan and Libya. Few however have been used effectively against Western targets. I imagine that our geniuses have managed to create MANPADs that don’t last long and are therefore useless after a few months, but I don’t actually know it (and Al Qaeda might be able to defeat any technological wizardry).
I don’t think a no-fly zone or giving the revolutionaries anti-aircraft capability is an easy call. But refusing to somehow redress the imbalance that Bashar’s air force is exploiting to kill civilians also has consequences. President Obama appears to have already made his decision not to intervene (I am less sure that we aren’t giving the revolutionaries some anti-aircraft capability), but the mounting toll, especially in Aleppo and Damascus, means that the issue will have to be revisited.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Not a slow week, but one with a bit longer term focus than some:
1. Persian subversion: Can America withstand an Iranian oil shock? AEI 10-11:30 June 12.
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Two blocks from Farragut North Metro)
In recent months, Iranian saber rattling has shaken energy markets. Although sanctions targeting Iran may raise the price at the pump, inaction is also costly: allowing Tehran to pass its nuclear threshold will endanger security in the Persian Gulf and may lead to even greater oil price hikes.
Against the backdrop of the Iranian nuclear crisis, American policymakers are increasingly considering ramping up domestic oil production and alternative energy. How much can shale oil, new pipelines and offshore oil production shield the U.S. economy from instability in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s leverage over world oil prices? How do the recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar energy firms affect American alternate energy strategy? Join a panel of foreign policy, national security, energy and transportation experts for an open discussion.
If you cannot attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page.
9:45 AM
Registration
10:00 AM
Panelists:
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations
Gen. (ret.) James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
Sam Gilliland, Sabre Holdings
Daniel Yergin, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Moderator:
Michael Rubin, AEI
11:30 AM
Adjournment
2. Japan-Korea-China Economic Relations, 9-10:30 June 12
Washington 20006
As Korea strives to be a global leader, the country has concluded several bilateral and multilateral Free Trade Agreements since 2003 and is currently negotiating additional agreements while laying the groundwork for a Korea-Japan-China FTA and considering the resumption of negotiations with Japan. Japan’s trade strategy also continues to evolve as it develops a new growth strategy after the natural disasters of 2011. Both Korea and Japan are carefully watching the developments around TPP. In the meantime, China has become the largest trading partner of Korea and Japan and the three countries recently signed a trilateral investment agreement as a potential first step toward a trilateral trade accord.
The seminar will assess the current status of the Korean and Japanese trade policies in light of the implementation of the KORUS FTA and the continued discussion of the TPP, Korea-China FTA and Korea-Japan-China FTA.
3. 2012 GPI Launch: How Can Global Peace Metrics Inform Foreign Policy? CSIS, 9-10:30 June 12
Please join us for the results of the sixth annual Global Peace Index and inaugural Positive Peace Index:Tuesday, June 12, 2012
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM
B1 Conference Center, CSIS
1800 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
A Panel Discussion With
Amb. William Garvelink, Senior Adviser, U.S. Leadership in Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Moderator)
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University (Opening Remarks)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, William and Mary College
Josh Rogin, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy
Emily Cadei, Foreign Policy Reporter, Congressional Quarterly
Michael Shank, U.S. Vice President, Institute for Economics and Peace (GPI Results Presentation)
In a world often described by crisis and conflict, which countries are the most peaceful? How do we measure peace and its economic value? How can peace metrics inform U.S. foreign policy?
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the first-ever analysis to methodically rank countries on their peacefulness and identify potential determinants of peace. Comprised of a range of indicators measuring the absence of violence in society, the GPI takes into consideration both internal and external factors, and measures 99% of the world’s population.
For the first time, this year’s report includes a Positive Peace Index (PPI), highlighting the key institutional factors associated with creating peaceful and resilient societies. The PPI ranks countries by their institutional capacity to move away from violence and towards peace.
The GPI is produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), guided by an international panel of independent experts and supported by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which collates the data and calculates the rankings in conjunction with the IEP.
Please RSVP to achang@csis.org
4. Culturally-Based Approaches to Peacebuilding in Pakistan, SAIS (Kenney) 9:30-11:30 June 12
With Libya’s first nationwide democratic election quickly approaching, serious progress on political and institutional development is essential as the country proceeds with its transition. While re-establishing security remains vital in the short term, many long-term development challenges also require immediate attention, including building effective, accountable institutions at the national and local levels; developing an independent and diverse civil society; establishing and protecting a free, professional press; and reforming the military, police, and other security forces. Meanwhile, Libyans must engage in a national dialogue on how to ensure adequate representation in government for women, youth, and and various tribal and ethnic groups. By smartly leveraging domestic resources and international assistance, the Libyan people could be well-positioned to build a prosperous and free country.
What will the assembly elections – originally slated for June 19th but now expected to be delayed until July – look like? What are the major political forces emerging in the country and how are they preparing for the elections? How will the election of a national assembly affect the role of the National Transitional Council (NTC)? What are the top priorities for the Libyan government, particularly regarding institutional reform? How can Libyans develop a robust civil society and ensure freedom of opinion, press, and assembly? Which best practices from other state-building efforts would be most appropriate for the Libyan case? In particular, how might various models of federalism and decentralization be useful? And what is the most constructive role for international actors to play in supporting capacity-building, among other needs?
Director of Iraq, Iran, and North Africa Programs, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, POMED
President, American-Libyan Council
Associate Director, Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative, Center for American Progress
Click here to RSVP for the event.
We’ll also be live-tweeting from the event, so follow the conversation at #POMEDLib. If you’d like us to ask one of your questions, we’ll try to include a few from our virtual audience.
Please contact Anna Newby at anna.newby@pomed.org with any questions, or call (202) 828-9660, ext 23.
6. The State of Health in Afghanistan: Implications for Economic Stability, Security and Women, USIP, 3:30-4:30 June 12
Despite the number of negative trends in Afghanistan, tremendous achievements have been gained in the health sector. Most notable is the programming on maternal health, which has contributed to a significant decline in infant and child mortality rates. The percentage of female healthcare worker has risen dramatically in USAID-funded healthcare facilities.
How has the health sector improved the overall health of a country? What can we learn from the Ministry of Health that might be applied to other sectors? How has the sector supported economic stability and security? What are the country’s health goals as Afghanistan prepares for its security and political transitions in 2014?
Please join USIP’s Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, in collaboration with the Afghan Embassy, the Department of State and USAID, for a panel discussion on the health sector’s contribution to economic stability and security in Afghanistan leading to 2014. The minister of Public Health of Afghanistan, Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil, will discuss the “state of health” in Afghanistan. She will be joined by U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer and Michele Schimpp, deputy director for USAID’s Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force.
Panelists
- The Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil
Minister of Public Health - Ambassador Melanne Verveer
Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State - Michele Schimpp
Deputy Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force, USAID - William Byrd, Discussant
Senior Expert in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Kathleen Kuehnast, Moderator
Director, Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Complementarity or Cooperation between State, USAID and the NGO Community, USIP, 9-4:30 June 15
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced the QDDR as a major step in elevating development alongside diplomacy as a key pillar of American foreign policy, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) welcomed the QDDR as the beginning of a better coordinated and more effective approach to global development. USIP and Webster University will host a day of discussion about how the QDDR complements NGO efforts in development, humanitarian relief and conflict management as well as the current challenges and opportunities that result from the QDDR.
This discussion will be built around presentations from senior United States government officials from the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development and from leaders in the NGO community. These will be followed by panel discussions that combine the perspectives of policymakers and NGOs on the topics of economic development, public health, education, human security, and human rights.
USIP was among the organizations that contributed ideas to the development of the QDDR, particularly in the areas of stabilization and conflict prevention. Discussion of the QDDR and its goals will enhance the effectiveness of both NGOs and the U.S. Government in global development and conflict prevention efforts, particularly in building local capacity and promoting innovation.
-
What in the QDDR is relevant to the work of NGOs and private voluntary organizations (PVOs)?
-
How will the objectives of the QDDR affect NGOs and PVOs?
-
Where is there complementarity in the following areas?
- Conflict Prevention
- Capacity building
- Development of effective civil society
- Humanitarian aid
- Contributions of new technology
Download Conference Agenda
Speakers
-
Nancy Lindborg
Assistant Administrator, USAID -
Melanie Greenberg
President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding -
Lindsay Coates
Executive Vice President, Interaction -
Ambassador Robert Loftis
Former Acting Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, the Department of State -
David Wilson
Dean of Humanities, Webster University -
Jeff Helsing
Dean of Curriculum, U.S. Institute of Peace
RSS - Posts
