Integral Dynamics

Ninety international delegations from Israel, Palestine, United States, European Union, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, United Nations, and other world’s powers are attending the one-day Conference of Donors for a Palestinian State in Paris to mobilize political support and to agree on an aid package worth billions of dollars to stabilise the Palestinian economy and give political impetus to the newly relaunched peace process with Israel.

Global donors pledge 7.4 bln US dollars for Palestinians.

Estimated Assessment

IDEA-ing of Open-Ended Issues gives the following Properties Table:

Background Timeline

AFP and BBC reported that

Turkish warplanes bombed suspected PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) bases in the “regions of Zap, Hakurk and Avasin as well as the Qandil mountains” in northern Iraq.

Estimated Assessment

IDEA-ing of the relevant Open-Ended Issues gives the following Properties Table:

Background Timeline

The NY Times reported on Sunday, December 16, 2007,

Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development.

Estimated Assessment

IDEA-ing of the relevant Open-Ended Issues gives the following Properties Table:

Sunday, 16 December 2007 — In Bolivia, three provinces have declared autonomy, protesting against constitutional reforms agreed by the government of President Evo Morales.

Another region, Tarija, is expected to follow suit.

IDEA-ing of Open-Ended Issues gives the following Properties Table:

On Saturday 3 November, in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency, suspending the Constitution, blacking out all independent television news reports and filling the streets of the capital with police officers and soldiers.

Stolberg and Cooper wrote in the New york Times,

General Musharraf’s move to seize emergency powers and abandon the Constitution left Bush administration officials close to their nightmare: an American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public.

And the situation is even worse than “risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons“. As Stanley Kurtz wrote in the NRO,

Al Qaeda has controlled the mountainous northern tribal region of Waziristan for more than a year, and has expanded its reach across other tribal regions, and even into cities, over that time. Bin Laden and his Taliban allies are waging a campaign of suicide bombings aimed at overthrowing the government and turning Pakistan into a nuclear-armed Al Qeadastan.

The United States is in a very difficult position.

The worst case scenario of this emergency would go something like this:

• Pakistan’s president is NOT Pervez Musharraf
• Pakistan becomes an extrimists Islamic state
• Pakistan can NOT be ‘trusted’ with nuclear weapons
• Pakistan’s public opinion is NOT positive about the United States and Musharraf
• United States and Pakistan have NOT a good relationship
• Pakistan DOES NOT cooperates with the United States and NATO in the war against terrorism

And possible,

• Al-Qaeda obtains a so-called dirty bomb

What to do?

U. S.’ Plan A would be something like this: Get back to a ‘normal’ situation in Pakistan as soon as possible.

The objectives formulated as a kind of reversal of the above worst case scenario.

• Pervez Musharraf stays President
• A more or less democratic election is held
• Benazir Bhutto becomes Prime Minister
• Pakistan continues to cooperate with the United States on the war on terror

But what if Plan A does not work. And chances are probably / likely that this plan will not work. Musharraf is riding a hungry man-eating tiger.

And Islamism has been growing in Pakistan for years increasing the risk that Pakistan becomes an extremists / anti western Islamic state with nuclear weapons.

Plan B

Plan B is not, I repeat, NOT to nuke Pakistan.

The primary objectives of Plan B would be:

(a) Get Al Qaeda

(b) Denuclearize Pakistan

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross wrote in the Weekly Standard,

A year ago, after the signing of one agreement, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States told a network reporter, “The Waziristan accord is not a good thing–it’s a very good thing. It’s a new step.”

And may be he is - afterall - right. It created the situation that Al-Qaeda’s global leadership with possibly Osama bin Laden is (probably) based in Waziristan.

Therefore to get Al Qaeda, the U.S. government has to be invited by Musharraf (as an emergent and extraordinary measure) to have the U.S. military seal off Wazirstan and close in on Al-Qaeda.

And to denuclearize Pakistan – meaning: getting rid of the nuclear weapons of Pakistan — it would be best if all nuclear weapons would be completely gone, second best that these weapons would be under U.S. control.

Pakistan could ‘voluntarily’ sell it nuclear weapons to the United States for a good price and for a nuclear umbrella of the United States in case India or China or … (fill in the dots) would threaten or attack Pakistan with nuclear weapons.

And to complete this removeal of nuclear weapons out of Pakistan, it would also mean the removal of the capability of making nuclear weapons.

It means that Pakistan’s nuclear experts get an offer they can’t refuse. A very rude offer would be: either you move to the United States and work for us or we move you to Guantanamo Bay with our special rendition program. I trust the US planners can come up with some better, more friendly proposal.

The problem, as always, is: How do you get someone else to do what you want him to do?

How do you get Musharraf to cooperate with Plan B? I don’t have answers to that question but I suppose that if the U.S. government really really really wants this done it can convince those in power.

On Sunday, Tehran Times featured the story “Iran says ME tensions will propel oil price to $120” (link).

According to Nasser Sudani, vice chairman of the Energy Committee of Majlis (Iran’s parliament),

Oil price would rise to 120 dollars if tensions in the Middle East continued.

And today, AFP featured the story, “Oil surges above 93 dollars in Asian trade” (link).

According to David Moore, a commodity strategist with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney

“Geopolitical tensions, issues regarding tensions between Turkey and Kurdish rebels… those sort of factors have added to oil prices.”

The reasons given for the increase of the price of oil are the ‘usual suspects’, like:

Firstly, geopolitical tensions, for instance, caused by

• health of the US economy
• strength of the US dollar
• Middle East tensions, consisting of fear of:
  • Turkey will invade the Kurdish region of Iraq
  • War between United States and Iran
  • United States imposes unilateral new sanctions on Iran
  • United Nations Security Council will approve a new round of sanctions against Iran
  • Military threats against Syria
  • Military threats against Lebanon

Secondly, an increase of global demand, for instance,

• growing demand of China and India
• cold season demand
• stockpiling by the US and other Western countries
• speculation by traders

Third, a decrease of global production and supply of oil, for instance, caused by

• war in Iraq
• unrest in the oil sector in Nigeria
• hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico
• declining oil fields in Mexico
  (see also Key Global Issue: Mexico)
• the impossibility of quickly increasing (on-demand) oil supply.

Also on Monday, Russia Today featured the story, “Oil price: the US$ 100 barrel on its way?” (link) 

According to a forecast of Aleksey Kudrin, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia:

“The oil price is very high and this affects political events and some speculations. But if we talk about the longer term of 15 to 20 years, for which we’ve planned the economy, a more realistic price would be between US$ 50 and US$ 60. I say this because if the price goes too high, it will slow down economic growth and also spur the use of alternative energy sources.”

IDEA of Open-Ended Issues

Translated into most relevant Open-Ended Issues (OEIs) it gives the following table.

Causal Relations

The above factors with there causal relations placed in a causal map gives the following picture.

However, it is good to realize that not all causal relations between the OEIs are of the same order.

For instance, how strong is the impact of geopolitical tensions on the global oil price. Opinions will differ and are highly subjective. According to Big Mike’s Contrarian Investing Blog the relation isn’t that important.

~~~~~~~~

Updates

2007-10-31: Russia Today article added with implications for the causal loops map.

Bloomberg featured a story how ‘Weak Mexican Peso Shows Oil Threatens Growth, Surplus‘ (link).

Our oil reserves have been consistently falling” and the decline is “severely threatening” government finances.
– Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico, in a nationwide television address at the National Palace.

Some tidbits:

• Oil accounts for 40% of the Mexican government’s revenues.
• The oil field Cantarell is crashing, with a 40 percent annual decline rate projected ahead, meaning a couple of years and it’s out.
• The oil field Cantarell alone is practically the whole Mexican oil industry.

And government finances are needed to keep Mexico in a healthy state: a healthy economy, a stable political situation, and good security for all.

Well, the economy isn’t that healthy as the title of Bloomberg article shows.

The political situation is also problematic. One example from many: on Monday, 2007-09-10,

guerrillas from the Popular Revolutionary Army, or EPR, took responsibility for blowing up three Pemex oil and gas pipelines in the energy hub of Veracruz state. It was the third EPR strike against Pemex’s distribution network since July. (link)

And security is certainly problematic with Mexico

locked in a bloody battle with rival cartels fighting over territory and President Felipe Calderon has deployed thousands of troops across the country against traffickers who are often better armed than police. More than 1,000 people have been killed in drug violence in Mexico this year as a three-way war between cartels and the Mexican military spirals to unprecedented levels. (link)

The war on drugs is an expensive war. The Mexican ambassador to the United States said today,

Mexico plans to put up $7 billion, to go with $1.4 billion offered by Washington, to fund a three-year crackdown on its violent drug cartels. (link)

As a result of these problems, Mexicans migrate, legal and illegal, to the United States.

An estimated half-million Mexicans leave their own country for United States every year. (link)

Agreed, Mexico has some problems but to call it a Key Global Issue (KGI) and put it in the same league as the war in Iraq or the nuclear programme controversy with Iran seems a bit strong. it is, unless one looks at the integral dynamics of the situation. (See causal map with this article).

If Mexico’s economy deteriorates, as well as the security and political situation, then the number of Mexicans emigrating, legal or illegal, to the United States will grow strongly.

At a certain level, the United States will try to stop this flow of immigrants and this could possible result in a border war between Mexico and the United States.

And in this scenario we are talking a real KGI.

IDEA of Open-Ended Issues

Based on the above I see the following impact on OEIs

KGI Mexico - Causal Map

The big worry for the United States goverment is that Al-Qaeda obtains a so-called dirty bomb.

And this worry sets the context for some of the stories of today.

First Iran

Jerusalem Post reports, US to attack Iran in 8-10 months (link) and Fox News reports, U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan (link) 

The chance of a third round of US sanctions is slim.
Within the US government the feeling here is that the diplomatic approach has run its course without success.

Then, there are the Non-Aligned Movement nations who on Tuesday

rejected any “interference” in Iran’s nuclear transparency deal with U.N. inspectors. (link)

And finally, according to FOX News,

Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council. (link)

The reason Germany gave was,

concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries.

Not unreasonable,  Japan has the same problems according to Japan Today,

Japanese companies are refraining from new investment in the Middle Eastern country [Iran] under U.N. sanctions over its nuclear development. (link)

There is one big difference between the NAM nations position and Germany’s position as perceived by the US government. Germany’s refusal to sanction a third round,

gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Based on the above, my estimation is that the chance that the United States will attack Iran is almost certainly.

Secondly, Syria

It seems that Syria is or could become the new player on the nuclear block. Thursday 2007-09-06, there was an alleged violation of Syria’s airspace by the Israel Air Force in the early hours (link). Why did Israel attack Syria? Was it a real offensive action or just testing the response of the Syrian military.

Today, Reuters reported, U.S. officials confirm Israel strike on Syria (link). It was a real strike and according to the article it was probably to stop weapons being moved from Iran to Hezbollah. But it could even be worse.

U.S. officials believed Syria may have obtained nuclear material.

Geopolitical this is highly undesirable. The United States won’t tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon and the same goes for Syria.

My estimation is that the chance of Syria having nuclear material is unlikely and therefore also the change that United States will attack Syriais remote.

Al-Qaeda obtains a so-called dirty bomb

The more nuclear stuff is around, the bigger the change that al-Quaeda or some other terorist group obtains it to create a dirty bomb. According to Mohamed ElBaradei, United Nations chief weapons inspector (link),

That’s my greatest concern, a horror scenario. I’m not thinking about a nuclear weapon. No terrorist organization has the necessary know-how or potential to acquire these weapons. But a small, so-called dirty bomb containing radioactive material, detonated somewhere in a major city, could cost human lives and set off massive terror with serious economic consequences. Sometimes I think it’s a miracle that it hasn’t happened yet.

I agree with ElBaradei, in the short term the chance that Al-Qaeda obtains a so-called dirty bomb is even but in the long term it will be more likely.

Interesting is the possible causal relationship between ‘United States bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities’ and ‘Al-Qaeda obtains a dirty bomb’. It could well be that after such a bombing disgrunted Iranians will sell or even will give away nuclear stuff to al-Qaeda operatives.
In that sense the United States seems caught between a rock (Iran has nuclear weapons) and a hard place (Al-Qaeda obtains a dirty bomb). This dilemma would suggest to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran in the least violent way.

IDEA of Open-Ended Issues

Based on the above I see the following impact on OEIs

For the complete Key Globals Issues Monitor click on (more…)

Newsvine featured a column, Bush Plan to Nuke America, Everything is in Place (link)

The nuking of America by our own President now appears to be a done deal as we approach 9/11 ‘07

And the author, Jimmy Swindell, writes,

Of course I realized at the time this was a rather far fetched scenario

Well, not as far fetched as his name but anyway, far fetchedness is the liberty of columnists creating scenarios.
I realized I had also developed a rather far fetched scenario, called the ‘Dick Cheney end-game’. It was tucked away in some comments at this Newsvine seed, The New York Times Calls For Iraq Withdrawal (link).

The Dick Cheney end-game scenario

First, let start with the ‘regular’ scenario regarding martial law in the US.

1. Between now and a year two (more or less) simultaneous events

(1.a) a catastrophic emergency; one or more major attacks at U.S soil (dirty bomb, chemical wmd, etc.) by Al Qaeda

(1.b) a serious offensive move by Iran against the US or US interests / allies (launching missiles in the direction of Israel, Europe, or even the US and / or attacking the US fleet in the Persian Gulf)

(1.c) and as an extra wildcard: a third party (North Korea, Venezuela, or Russia does something nasty to make the situation even more dire for the US

2. President Bush invokes National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and as the uncontested ‘ decider’, decides to attack Iran with possible nuclear weapons.

3. No US Presidential elections in 2008

OK, quite reasonable in a ‘War on Terror‘. From this base scenario it is easy to come up with the Dick Cheney end-game.

It is more or less the same as the above one but with a few minor changes.

1. Between now and a year two (more or less) simultaneous events

(1.a) a very specific catastrophic emergency; President Bush is assasinated by Al-Qaeda or … (Conspiracy Theorists are allowed to fill in the dots)

(1.b) a serious offensive move by Iran against the US or US interests / allies (launching missiles in the direction of Israel, Europe, or even the US and / or attacking the US fleet in the Persian Gulf)

(1.c) and as an extra wildcard: a third party (North Korea, Venezuela, or Russia does something nasty to make the situation even more dire for the US

2. VP Dick Cheney becomes POTUS

3. The first act of President Cheney is to nvoke the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and as the uncontested ‘ decider’, decides to attack Iran with possible nuclear weapons.

4. No US Presidential elections in 2008

IDEA of Open-Ended Issues

Based on the above scenarios see the following new OEIs

United States proclaims martial law, with indicators: red, even chance
United States cancels 2008 elections, with indicators: red, even chance

This gives the following Key Global Issues Monitor.

(more…)