As I have mentioned before the importance of Global Trends 2030 is not its predictive nature (the measure of effectiveness of past Global Trends reports is not whether they have "got it right" or if their forecasts came true, but rather if the reports have been used by policy makers and strategists as a catalyst for critical thinking and the development of policies and strategies to attempt to either support and reinforce positive or desirable trends or counter or alter those negative or undesirable trends. If the assessment is sobering then we should be asking what we can do from a policy and strategy perspective? When our plans don't work out the way we want we are fond of saying "the enemy has a vote" implying that his actions (usually unforeseen) unhinged our plans. Global Trends 2030 gives us an opportunity so that we can say "we have a vote" and execute plans, policies, and strategies to support our interests.
Since this report is "grimmer" regarding the Indo-Pacific Asia region than past reports perhaps the US rebalance to Asia will have an effect on this trend (positive I hope!)
V/R
Dave
Dave
By Rory Medcalf
December 21, 2012
There are plenty of big stories in Asian security this month – the North Korean rocket test, China-Japan tensions, and the implications of the Japanese and South Korean elections for regional order. But taking the long view, there is one story that the region's security watchers should not ignore — the release of the U.S. National Intelligence Council's 2030 report on global futures, titled Alternative Worlds.
This document is full of thoughtful and in many instances worrying assessments about where the Asian strategic order is going, and about the risks of instability and conflict in the years ahead. It may in theory be a global report, but many of its more troubling projections have an Asian angle, unsurprisingly given the shift of economic and strategic centrality to this region.
To be fair, much of the document is occupied with an impartial examination of megatrends, and some of this is good news, for instance the growth of the global middle-class. But one of the key so-called game changers highlighted in the survey is about the potential for increased conflict. And here, although there is the usual homage paid to the war-constraining qualities of economic interdependence, we find some grim observations.
“The risks of interstate conflict are increasing owing to changes in the international system”: that is, power shifts, notably but not only the rise of China, are upsetting the Asian power equilibrium.
“If the United States is unwilling or less able to serve as a global security provider by 2030, the world will be less stable”: this is an honest but also exceptionally forthright point to make by an American intelligence community which has traditionally analyzed the external world while suspending judgment about the consequences of America's own policy behavior. It is a clear warning against American retrenchment from maritime Asia’s strategic affairs.
While the Middle East and South Asia may remain more conflict prone regions than East Asia, “a conflict ridden East Asia would constitute a key global threat and cause large-scale damage to the global economy”.
(Continued at the link below)
