From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Thu Jan 08 2009 - 09:26:03 EST
>From Global Crisis to "Global Government"
US Intelligence: A Review of Global Trends 2025
by Andrew G. Marshall
http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/11426.jpg
09.01.2009
Introduction
The United States' National Intelligence Council has released a report,
entitled "
<http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf> Global
Trends 2025: A Transformed World". This declassified document is the fourth
report of the <http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html> Global Trends
2025: The National Intelligence Council's 2025 Project,
The report outlines the paths that current geopolitical and economic trends
may reach by the year 2025, in order to guide strategic thinking over the
next few decades. The National Intelligence Council describes itself as the
US Intelligence Community's "center for midterm and long-term strategic
thinking," with the tasks of supporting the Director of National
Intelligence, reaching out to non-governmental experts in academia and the
private sector and it leads in the effort of providing National Intelligence
Estimates.
The report was written with the active participation of not only the US
intelligence community, but also numerous think tanks, consulting firms,
academic institutions and hundreds of other experts. Among the participating
organizations were the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson
Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise
Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and
Chatham House in London, which is the British equivalent of the CFR.[1]
Among the many things envisioned in this report to either be completed or
under way by 2025 are the formation of a global multipolar international
system, the possibility of a return of mercantilism by great powers in which
they go to war over dwindling resources, the growth of China as a great
world power, the position of India as a strong pole in the new multipolar
system, a decline of capitalism in the form of more state-capitalism,
exponential population growth in the developing world, continuing
instability in Africa, a decline in food availability, partly due to climate
change, continued terrorism, the possibility of nuclear war, the emergence
of regionalism in the form of strong regional blocks in North America,
Europe, and Asia, and the decline of US power and with that, the superiority
of the dollar.
The Economics of Change
The discussion of global economics begins with analyzing the potential
repercussions of the current global financial crisis. It states that the
crisis "is accelerating the global economic rebalancing. Developing
countries have been hurt; several, such as Pakistan with its large current
account deficit, are at considerable risk. Even those with cash
reserves-such as South Korea and Russia-have been severely buffeted; steep
rises in unemployment and inflation could trigger widespread political
instability and throw emerging powers off course." However, it states, "if
China, Russia, and Mideast oil exporters can avoid internal crises," they
may be able to buy foreign assets, provide financial assistance to
struggling countries and "seed new regional initiatives." It says that the
biggest change for the West will be "the increase in state power. Western
governments now own large swaths of their financial sectors and must manage
them, potentially politicizing markets." It continues in saying that there
is a prospect for a new "Bretton Woods," to "regulate the global economy,"
however, "Failure to construct a new all-embracing architecture could lead
countries to seek security through competitive monetary policies and new
investment barriers, increasing the potential for market segmentation."[2]
The report states that as a result of the major financial disruptions
under-way and those still to come, there is a need to rebalance the global
economy. However, "this rebalancing will require long-term efforts to
establish a new international system."[3] It states that major problem to
overcome will be a possible backlash against foreign trade and investment by
corporations, particularly in "emerging economies," with the potential of
fueling "protectionist forces" in the US; an increasing competition for
resources between emerging economies such as Russia, China, India and even
Gulf states; a decline in democratization, as the China-model for
development becomes attractive to other emerging economies, authoritarian
regimes and even "weak democracies frustrated by years of economic
underperformance"; the role of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) in providing
more financial assistance to developing countries than the World Bank and
IMF, which could lead to "diplomatic realignments and new relationships"
between China, Russia, India and Gulf states with the developing world; the
loss of the dollar as the "global reserve currency," as "foreign policy
actions might bring exposure to currency shock and higher interest rates for
Americans," and a "move away from the dollar" which would be precipitated by
"uncertainties and instabilities in the international financial system."[4]
The dollar's decline as a "global reserve currency" will be relegated to
"something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This
could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global
rebalancing."[5]
It states that for the first time in history, the financial landscape will
be "genuinely global and multipolar," and that, "redirection toward regional
financial centers could soon spill over into other areas of power."[6] It
states that there is potential for a divide within the West between the US
and EU, so long as they continue divergent economic policies, where Europe
is more state-centric and with the US as more market-based. However, "the
enhanced role of the state in Western economies may also lessen the contrast
between the two models."[7] This enhanced role of the state in economic
matters is largely due to the current financial crisis.
Latin America
In outlining Latin America's path for the next two decades, the report
states that many countries will have become middle income powers, however,
"those that have embraced populist policies, will lag behind-and some, such
as Haiti, will have become even poorer and still less governable." It says
Brazil will become the major power of the region, but that, "efforts to
promote South American integration will be realized only in part. Venezuela
and Cuba will have some form of vestigial influence in the region in 2025,
but their economic problems will limit their appeal." However, it said that
many parts of Latin America will remain among "the world's most violent
areas," and that, "US influence in the region will diminish somewhat, in
part because of Latin America's broadening economic and commercial relations
with Asia, Europe, and other blocs."[8]
Europe
In discussing the issue of Muslim immigration into the European Union, the
report states that, "Countries with growing numbers of Muslims will
experience a rapid shift in ethnic composition, particularly around urban
areas, potentially complicating efforts to facilitate assimilation and
integration." Further, "the increasing concentration could lead to more
tense and unstable situations, such as occurred with the 2005 Paris suburban
riots." This mass immigration and reactions of Europeans, among other
factors, "are likely to confine many Muslims to low-status, low-wage jobs,
deepening ethnic cleavages. Despite a sizeable stratum of integrated
Muslims, a growing number-driven by a sense of alienation, grievance, and
injustice-are increasingly likely to value separation in areas with
Muslim-specific cultural and religious practices."[9]
The report also states that by 2025, Europe "will have made slow progress
toward achieving the vision of current leaders and elites: a cohesive,
integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full
spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European
and Western interests and universal ideals. The European Union would need to
resolve a perceived democracy gap dividing Brussels from European voters and
move past protracted debate about its institutional structures." In other
words, the move toward a European superstate will revolve around convincing
the public that it is not a threat to democracy or sovereignty.
It further states that Europe should and likely will take in "new members in
the Balkans, and perhaps Ukraine and Turkey. However, continued failure to
convince skeptical publics of the benefits of deeper economic, political,
and social integration and to grasp the nettle of a shrinking and aging
population by enacting painful reforms could leave the EU a hobbled
giant."[10]
Russia: Boom or Bust?
The report's focus on Russia stresses two possible scenarios. One in which
Russia triumphs as an international player in the new international system,
with the "potential to be richer, more powerful, and more self-assured in
2025 if it invests in human capital, expands and diversifies its economy,
and integrates with global markets. [Emphasis added]" However, Russia could
also take another path, where "multiple constraints could limit Russia's
ability to achieve its full economic potential," such as a shortfall in
energy investment, an underdeveloped banking sector, and crime and
corruption. It also points out that a "sustained plunge in global energy
prices before Russia has the chance to develop a more diversified economy
probably would constrain economic growth."[11] Could this be a veiled threat
to Russia to either join into and merge with the international system, which
is directed by Western elites, or face a possible economic backlash, perhaps
in the form of manipulating oil prices? This strategy has not by any means
been unheard of, as a look at the 1973 oil crisis and the lead up to the
first Gulf War in 1991 have proven.
In contemplating Russia's likely future, the report states that with a more
"proactive and influential foreign policy" Russia could become an "important
partner for Western, Asian, and Middle East capitals; and a leading force in
opposition to US global dominance." However, it states that, "shared
perceptions regarding threats from terrorism and Islamic radicalism could
align Russian and Western security policies more tightly." In other words,
perhaps increased incidents of terrorist activity in or near Russian
territory can force it to align more closely with the West, if only at first
in security integration. It also elaborates on the other potentiality for
Russia, saying that it is "impossible to exclude alternative futures such as
a nationalistic, authoritarian petro-state or even a full dictatorship."[12]
Iran
The report states that there are alternatives with Iran. In one instance,
"political and economic reform in addition to a stable investment climate
could fundamentally redraw both the way the world perceives the country and
also the way in which Iranians view themselves." This could move Iran away
from "decades of being mired in the Arab conflicts of the Middle East."[13]
Or the other option is Iran starts a nuclear arms race, continues to become
the object of Western alienation, and may even become unstable and mired in
conflict.
A Post-Petroleum World?
The report states that by 2025 there will likely be a "technological
breakthrough that will provide an alternative to oil and gas, but
implementation will lag because of the necessary infrastructure costs and
need for longer replacement time." In this instance, it states that "Saudi
Arabia will absorb the biggest shock," and "In Iran, the drop in oil and gas
prices will undermine any populist economic policies," and that, "Incentives
to open up to the West in a bid for greater foreign investment, establishing
or strengthening ties with Western partners - including the US - will
increase." The report also states that, "Outside the Middle East, Russia
will potentially be the biggest loser, particularly if its economy remains
heavily tied to energy exports, and could be reduced to middle power status.
Venezuela, Bolivia, and other petro-populist regimes could unravel
completely, if that has not occurred beforehand because of already growing
discontent and decreasing production."[14] Again, this raises the issue of
the manipulation or control of oil prices for political purposes, as the
states all likely to be affected negatively by a plunge in oil prices also
happen to be the states most at odds with the West, and specifically, the
United States.
Africa: More of the Same
The report starts off by saying that "Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the
most vulnerable region on Earth in terms of economic challenges, population
stresses, civil conflict, and political instability. The weakness of states
and troubled relations between states and societies probably will slow major
improvements in the region's prospects over the next 20 years unless there
is sustained international engagement and, at times, intervention. Southern
Africa will continue to be the most stable and promising sub-region
politically and economically." This seems to suggest that there will be many
more cases of "humanitarian intervention," likely under the auspices of a
Western dominated international organization, such as the UN.
Further, the region will "continue to be a major supplier of oil, gas, and
metals to world markets and increasingly will attract the attention of Asian
states seeking access to commodities, including China and India." However,
"Poor economic policies-rooted in patrimonial interests and incomplete
economic reform-will likely exacerbate ethnic and religious divides as well
as crime and corruption in many countries."
It also states that there will likely be a democratic "backslide" in the
most populous African countries, and that, "the region will be vulnerable to
civil conflict and complex forms of interstate conflict-with militaries
fragmented along ethnic or other divides, limited control of border areas,
and insurgents and criminal groups preying on unarmed civilians in
neighboring countries. Central Africa contains the most troubling of these
cases, including Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville, Central African
Republic, and Chad."[15]
Resurgent Mercantilism and the "Arc of Instability"
The report states that there is a likely possibility of the resurgence on
the world stage of mercantilist foreign policies of great powers, as access
to resources becomes more limited. Perceptions of energy scarcity "could
lead to interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to
energy resources to be essential to maintaining domestic stability and the
survival of their regime." In particular, "Central Asia has become an area
of intense international competition for access to energy."[16]
The report also states that, "The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) will
remain a geopolitically significant region in 2025, based on the importance
of oil to the world economy and the threat of instability." It gives a
positive and negative scenario. In the positive, where economic growth
becomes "rooted and sustained," regional leaders will ensure stability both
economic and political. However, "in a more negative scenario, leaders will
fail to prepare their growing populations to participate productively in the
global economy, authoritarian regimes will hold tightly to power and become
more repressive, and regional conflicts will remain unresolved as population
growth strains resources."
The report elaborates that, "youth bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and
limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category. Spillover from turmoil in
these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves
elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political stability
will be rocky. The success of efforts to manage and resolve regional
conflicts and to develop security architectures that help stabilize the
region will be a major determinant of the ability of states to grow their
economies and pursue political reform." In other words, expect continued
destabilization of the region.
It states of Iran, that its "fractious regime, nationalist identity, and
ambivalence toward the United States will make any transition from regional
dissenter toward stakeholder perilous and uneven. Although Iran's aims for
regional leadership-including its nuclear ambitions-are unlikely to abate,
its regional orientation will have difficulty discounting external and
internal pressures for reform."[17]
In relation to Afghanistan, the report states that, "Western-driven
infrastructure, economic assistance, and construction are likely to provide
new stakes for local rivalries rather than the basis for a cohesive
Western-style economic and social unity." Further, as "Globalization has
made opium Afghanistan's major cash crop; the country will have difficulty
developing alternatives, particularly as long as economic links for trade
with Central Asia, Pakistan, and India are not further developed." It states
that sectarian conflicts will continue and increase.
The report describes Pakistan as a "wildcard," especially in relation to
conflict in Afghanistan. It states that its Northwest Frontier Province and
tribal areas "will continue to be poorly governed and the source or
supporter of cross-border instability." It states that, "If Pakistan is
unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes
is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line," and
fractionalize Pakistan into ethnic divides. Essentially, expect Pakistan to
be broken up into ethnically divided countries and territories.
It also stipulates that Iraq will continue to be plagued by sectarian and
ethnic conflicts, which will spillover into other countries of the region,
as "Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia will have increasing difficulty
staying aloof. An Iraq unable to maintain internal stability could continue
to roil the region. If conflict there breaks into civil war, Iraq could
continue to provide a strong demonstration of the adverse consequences of
sectarianism to other countries in the region."[18] Put another way, Iraq
will collapse into civil war, break up and become an example to the rest of
the region regarding what happens to countries that pursue divergent
policies from those of the West.
Nuclear War
The report states that there is a likely increase in the risk of a nuclear
war, or in the very least, the use of a nuclear weapon by 2025. "Ongoing
low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the
specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those
nuclear powers." Further, "The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran spawning a
nuclear arms race in the greater Middle East will bring new security
challenges to an already conflict-prone region, particularly in conjunction
with the proliferation of long-range missile systems." The report also
brings up the prospect of nuclear terrorism as an increased risk.[19]
Terrorism
The report states that terrorism will by no means disappear from the
international stage by 2025. It interestingly postulates that there is a
possibility of Al-Qaeda's influence as a terrorist group greatly
diminishing, or all together disappearing, being replaced with new terrorist
threats.[20]
It discusses the actions that will likely be pursued by countries in
reaction to terrorist threats, saying that many governments will be
"expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the
employment of special operations-type forces." Counterterrorism measures
will increasingly "involve urban operations as a result of greater
urbanization," and governments "may increasingly erect barricades and fences
around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue
to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves
from domestic threats."[21] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and
internationalization of domestic police state measures to control
populations.
Global Pandemic
The report states that there is a distinct possibility of a global pandemic
emerging by 2025. In this case, "internal and cross-border tension and
conflict will become more likely as nations struggle-with degraded
capabilities-to control the movement of populations seeking to avoid
infection or maintain access to resources." It states that such a likely
candidate for a pandemic would be the H5N1 avian flu.
It states that in the event of a global pandemic, likely originating in a
country such as China, "tens to hundreds of millions of Americans within the
US Homeland would become ill and deaths would mount into the tens of
millions," and "Outside the US, critical infrastructure degradation and
economic loss on a global scale would result as approximately a third of the
worldwide population became ill and hundreds of millions died."[22]
A New International System Is Formed
In discussing the structure and nature of a new international system, the
report states that, "By 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only - and
often not the most important - actors on the world stage and the
'international system' will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But
the transformation will be incomplete and uneven."
The report states that under a situation in which there are many poles of
power in the world, yet little coordination and cooperation between them
all, it would be "unlikely to see an overarching, comprehensive, unitary
approach to global governance. Current trends suggest that global governance
in 2025 will be a patchwork of overlapping, often ad hoc and fragmented
efforts, with shifting coalitions of member nations, international
organizations, social movements, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and
companies." In other words, by 2025, there won't be an established global
government, but rather an acceleration of the processes and mechanisms that
have been and currently are underway in efforts to create a world
government.
The report also interestingly points out that, "Most of the pressing
transnational problems - including climate change, regulation of globalized
financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. - are
unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual
nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster
than existing mechanisms can respond [Emphasis added]."[23] In other words,
due to the growing threat of international problems, which are essentially
the result of Western political-economic-intelligence activities and
policies, the solution is a move toward international governance, which will
be overseen and run by those same Western interests.
In discussing the rise of the emerging powers, particularly China and India,
the report observes that their economic progress has been "achieved with an
economic model that is at odds with the West's traditional laissez faire
recipe for economic development." So the question is, "whether the new
players - and their alternative approaches - can be melded with the
traditional Western ones to form a cohesive international system able to
tackle the increasing number of transnational issues." It continues, saying
that "the national interests of the emerging powers are diverse enough, and
their dependence on globalization compelling enough, that there appears
little chance of an alternative bloc forming among them to directly confront
the more established Western order. The existing international organizations
- such as the UN, WTO, IMF, and World Bank - may prove sufficiently
responsive and adaptive to accommodate the views of emerging powers, but
whether the emerging powers will be given - or will want - additional power
and responsibilities is a separate question."[24] So, as the new powers
emerge, as a result of Western elite-directed globalization, they will
likely merge with the Western controlled world order as opposed to becoming
an alternative or opposition force to it.
Regionalism
The report discusses the topic of regionalism in different areas of the
world: "Greater Asian integration, if it occurs, could fill the vacuum left
by a weakening multilaterally based international order but could also
further undermine that order. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial
crisis, a remarkable series of pan-Asian ventures-the most significant being
ASEAN + 3-began to take root. Although few would argue that an Asian
counterpart to the EU is a likely outcome even by 2025, if 1997 is taken as
a starting point, Asia arguably has evolved more rapidly over the last
decade than the European integration did in its first decade(s)." It further
states that, "movement over the next 15 years toward an Asian basket of
currencies-if not an Asian currency unit as a third reserve-is more than a
theoretical possibility."
The report elaborates on the concept of regionalism, stating that, "Asian
regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing
a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become
quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia)." Such blocs "would have
implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade
Organization agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting
of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual
property rights, and other "new economy" products."[25] So these three main
regional blocs will make up the initial structure of international
governance by 2025, progressing toward the ultimate goal of a global
government.
The Decline of Democracy
The report states that with democratization around the world, "advances are
likely to slow and globalization will subject many recently democratized
countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine
liberal institutions." Part of this reasoning is that "the better economic
performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some
about democracy as the best form of government. The surveys we consulted
indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management,
including increasing standards of livings, than democracy." Of great
significance, the report also states that, "even in many well-established
democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of
democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of
democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly
and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges."[26]
This is a very important point, as among many "well-established democracies"
are the United States, which is already experiencing a massive shift away
from democracy. China, which has been able to emerge rapidly as a result of
Western-controlled globalization, and which remains authoritarian, can
essentially be viewed as a model for the international system being shaped,
as democracies take a turn toward authoritarianism and other rising powers
choose to pursue development in the same manner. Essentially, the new
international system will mark a move away from democracy and towards
international authoritarianism.
Conclusion
It is important, when reviewing the above information provided by the
report, to understand the perspective of the authors. The US intelligence
community worked closely with businesses, prominent academic institutions
and powerful think tanks, all of which play extremely significant roles in
shaping our current world order. Thus, the perspectives outlined in the
report come with an inherent bias, and so it is important to "read in
between the lines." The report does NOT state what the objectives of the US
intelligence community, academic institutions, businesses or think tanks
will be in this future 2025 scenario, but you can be assured that they will
not play backseat roles and merely observe situations. These are among the
most powerful players in the international arena, and this vision of 2025 is
the world they are shaping.
So when the report suggests the likely fractionalization of Pakistan, they
do not say that it is a US objective to do so, but rather that it is a
likely possibility that such a scenario will occur. Thus, it is important to
comprehend this information with an understanding that those who wrote the
report, have been, are currently, and will in all likelihood, continue to be
among the most powerful actors shaping the world order and the new
international system. They have been behind the great "transnational issues"
and are now proposing their "international solutions."
Notes
[1] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National
Intelligence Council's 2025 Project: November, 2008: Acknowledgements
[2] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National
Intelligence Council's 2025 Project: November, 2008: 10
[3] Ibid, 11
[4] Ibid, 11-12
[5] Ibid, 94
[6] Ibid, 12-13
[7] Ibid, 13-14
[8] Ibid, 15
[9] Ibid, 25
[10] Ibid, 32
[11] Ibid, 31
[12] Ibid, 32
[13] Ibid, 36
[14] Ibid, 46
[15] Ibid, 56
[16] Ibid, 63
[17] Ibid, 65
[18] Ibid, 72-73
[19] Ibid, 67
[20] Ibid, 69-70
[21] Ibid, 70-72
[22] Ibid, 75
[23] Ibid, 81
[24] Ibid, 82
[25] Ibid, 83
[26] Ibid, 87
Andrew Marshall is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization
Andrew G. Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=And
rew%20G.&authorName=Marshall> Global Research Articles by Andrew G. Marshall
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----
