Wednesday, December 14, 2011

The Top Thirty Global Hot Spots in 2012









 

The Top Thirty Global Hot Spots in 2012

http://www.cfr.org/conflict-prevention/top-thirty-global-hot-spots-2012/p26729?cid=rss-fullfeed-the_top_thirty_global_hot_spot-120811&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfr_main+%28CFR.org+-Main+Site+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

 

December 8, 2011

World hot spot map:

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/images/CPA-Survey-TierALL_Map_555x31

2.jpg

 

The Council on Foreign Relations' Center for Preventive Action (CPA) has

released the fourth annual Preventive Priorities Survey ranking the most

plausible conflicts on which the U.S. government should focus in the year

ahead.

 

CPA asked a select group of government officials, academics, and experts to

review a list of plausible conflicts that could occur in 2012 and group them

into three tiers of relative risk to U.S. national interests.

 

The threats within each tier are not listed in any order of priority or

probability.

 

Tier One contingencies directly threaten the U.S. homeland, will likely

trigger military involvement by the United States because of treaty

commitments, or threaten the supplies of critical strategic resources. They

include:

- intensification of the European sovereign debt crisis leading to the

collapse of the euro, triggering a double-dip U.S. recession and further

limiting budgetary resources

- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure (e.g.,

telecommunications, electrical power grid, gas and oil reserves, water

supply, banking and finance, transportation, and emergency services)

- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally

- a severe North Korean crisis (e.g., North-South armed provocation,

internal political instability, advances in nuclear weapon or long range

missile capabilities)

- a major military incident with China involving U.S. or allied forces

- an Iranian nuclear crisis (e.g., surprise advances in nuclear weapon

development and delivery capabilities, a preemptive Israeli attack or

response)

- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills

over into the United States

- major internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military

crisis or terror attack

- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies

- a U.S.-Pakistan military confrontation, triggered by a terror attack, or

in response to U.S. counterterror operations

 

 

Tier Two contingencies affect countries of strategic importance to the

United States but do not involve a mutual defense treaty commitment. They

include:

- political instability in Egypt with wider regional implications

- a severe Indo-Pak crisis that carries risk of military escalation,

triggered by major terror attack

- rising tension/naval incident in the eastern Mediterranean Sea between

Turkey and Israel

- a major erosion of security and governance gains in Afghanistan with

intensification of insurgency or terror attacks

- an outbreak of widespread civil violence in Syria, with potential outside

intervention

- an outbreak of widespread civil violence in Yemen

- rising sectarian tensions and renewed violence in Iraq

- a South China Sea armed confrontation over competing territorial claims

- a mass casualty attack on Israel

- growing instability in Bahrain that spurs further Saudi and/or Iranian

military action

 

Tier Three contingencies could have severe/widespread humanitarian

consequences but occur in countries of limited strategic importance to the

United States. They include:

 

- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan

- heightened political instability and sectarian violence in Nigeria

- increased conflict in Somalia, with continued outside intervention

- political instability in Venezuela surrounding the October 2012 elections

or post-Chavez succession

- political instability in Kenya surrounding the August 2012 elections

- renewed military conflict between Russia and Georgia

- an intensification of political instability and violence in Libya

- violent election-related instability in the Democratic Republic of the

Congo

- political instability/resurgent ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan

- an outbreak of military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, possibly

over Nagorno Karabak

 

"The United States has a dismal record of forecasting instability and

conflicts. Presently there is no systematic U.S. government process linking

forecasting to contingency planning. This survey is intended to meet that

need," says CFR fellow for conflict prevention Micah Zenko, who conducted

the survey.

 

Compared to last year's survey, the threat of a cyberattack moved from a

second to a first tier priority, and several new contingencies were

introduced:

- intensification of the eurozone crisis;

- acute political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers oil supplies;

and

- growing unrest in Bahrain that spurs further Saudi and/or Iranian military

action.

 

The likelihood of two contingencies was lowered:

- renewed military conflict between Russia and Georgia,

- military conflict between Sudan and the newly formed South Sudan.

 

One contingency dropped off the list entirely: political instability and

violence in Haiti.

 

For the complete survey visit: www.cfr.org/preventive_priorities_survey Read

an interview with Zenko. Rank the top ten priorities yourself on CFR's

Facebook page.

 

The survey is made possible by the generous support of the Carnegie

Corporation of New York.

 

The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership

organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for

its members, government officials, business executives, journalists,

educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested

citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign

policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Since 1922, CFR

has also published Foreign Affairs, the leading journal on international

affairs and U.S. foreign policy. CFR takes no institutional positions on

matters of policy.

 

CFR's Center for Preventive Action (CPA) seeks to help prevent, defuse, or

resolve deadly conflicts around the world and to expand the body of

knowledge on conflict prevention.

 

 

 

 

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

No comments:

Post a Comment