Center for a New American Security

The New York Times reported this morning that the United States is willing to wade into a dispute over “a string of strategically sensitive islands in the South China Sea.” The above photo is an aerial image of one of the small islands in the Spratly island cluster. The Spratly and Paracel islands in the South China Sea have long been a source of tension and even deadly dispute between Vietnam and China; they skirmished over them in 1988: dozens of Vietnamese sailors were killed, and several Vietnamese ships sunk.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, addressing a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), said, “The United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea,” the Times reported. The Times acknowledged that China “has long laid claim to islands in the South China Sea because they are rich in oil and natural gas deposits,” adding that Beijing  “has put American officials on notice that it will not brook foreign interference in the waters off its southeastern coast, which it views as a ‘core interest’ of sovereignty.”

Photo: Courtesy of flickr user Storm_Crypt.

Sometimes you get the rare opportunity to read something that is not only extremely interesting, and relevant to national security, but also makes you laugh. Such was the case yesterday when I came across this Foreign Policy article which discussed how Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva just can’t wait to lay some sugar on his new world power BFF, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Well, more accurately, a sugar-based product: ethanol. But the possibility to make childish jokes, masking the true urgency of the issue, was too much to resist, as FP guest writer Gal Luft and now I have just proven. . . hence the photo choice.

In the true spirit of Friday’s post, I won’t overburden you with an in depth analysis of the security implications this relationship could hold for the United States (there’s the original article for that), but what I will do is hit you with an abbreviated synopsis of why this is no laughing matter.

U.S. sanctions against Iran, which are working their way through Congress, take aim at Iran’s Achilles’ heel: its energy needs and inability to domestically refine oil from its own massive deposits. Brazilian ethanol could prove to not only be a means by which Iran could brave the sanction storm, but also give it the time it needs to bulk up domestic production capabilities.

In short, if Brazil were to become Iran’s sugar daddy, the United States may find that Achilles just got a hold of some serious Doc Martens, leaving nothing to aim at, and certainly nothing to laugh about.

• Forbes covers the role of alternative energy in the U.S. military on its Business in the Beltway blog.
• Iraq has plans to fund its national reconstruction by boosting oil production from 2.1million barrels per day to 10-12 million, reports UPI.
• Longtime CNAS friend Andrew Bacevich weighs in on U.S. security priorities, identifying environmental issues such as the Gulf oil spill as a key concern, in today's Boston Globe.
• The president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo calls for the removal of all U.N. forces, adding accusations that the U.N. wants to seize the country's mineral deposits, reports The National. 
• Check out Politico for some commentary on food issues and stability.

I picked up last week’s Rolling Stone for its cover story on the reissue and forthcoming documentary of Exile on Main St., but another story listed on the cover piqued my interest as well: “Capitalists of Chaos: Who’s Cashing in on Global Warming?”

As it turns out, this long piece is about the current wave of international investment in land that is or will continue to be arable and productive in the face of the effects of climate change. The thinking is that arable land is becoming squeezed by population and consumption trends, and that food and its production will become increasingly valuable. We’ve covered this a few times on the blog and in our publications, but not nearly to the depth this article presents – its author, McKenzie Funk, is writing an entire book on the subject.

Much of the article is focused on one man, Phil Heilberg, a former Wall Street commodities trader whose vision of future wealth centers on tracts of land he is purchasing in places such as southern Sudan. In style and content, it is not unlike reading about the international arms trade, and Funk focuses on Heilberg as one of the major forces in this growing industry much the way Viktor Bout was for his arms dealings. (While it is important to profile leaders within these often gray-market industries, like Bout, much of the Heilberg focus seems to derive from his openness in speaking with reporters rather than from him being the most important player.)

At first, the deal-making with African strongmen and tribal leaders for land seems shady. But as Heilberg explains, that’s the way things work in places like Sudan – you make deals with whomever you need to, or not at all. Heilberg operates within the existing system rather than requiring social or political change as a precondition for business. This is often one of the issues raised with China’s dealing in minerals, land and energy in Africa as well, but it is somehow less stark to read about it in the form of person-to-person transactions than in examining the issue at a country level. The article raises the question of whether modern ways of resource trading in the world are creating a new paradigm for international behavior at all levels that U.S. security analysts do not yet have a grasp on.

• According to Business Week, Turkmenistan will begin production of a $2billion gas pipeline to the West to provide an alternative to Russian energy.
• Pakistan and India are looking to establish a deal over two large hydroelectric plants in Kashmir, according to the Daily Times.
• Though the reference may be a bit outdated, San Fransisco's Bay News uses Avatar to frame conflict minerals in the Congo.
• China has announced even tighter controls on their strategic rare earth resources, reports China's own People's Daily.
• Reuters reports that Iran may have plans to cut national subsidies on electricity, water and food to Afghan refugees who have moved into Iran. 

• Amidst growing water disputes, Pakistan has approached the World Bank in seeking to halt to a 775megawatt hydrological plant in India, according to Yahoo Finance.
• The State Department released the U.S.-China Joint Statement on Energy Security Cooperation.
• The Department of Energy's ARPA-E is spends $40million for "crude-free" fuel projects.
• Bees and other pollinators are critical to world food security, but many of these organisms are rapidly disappearing, according to an article posted on AlertNet.
• USAID Administrator Shah discussed food security initiatives with Bangladesh, reports The Medical News.

A little pop analysis. Here are the number of mentions of our major natural security topics in the just-released National Security Strategy:

Energy: 49
Climate Change: 28
Food: 9
Agriculture: 3 (including specifically regarding India and Afghanistan)
Water: 1
Demographic: 1
Urbanization: 1
Commodities: 1
Conservation (forests): 1
Minerals: 0

By comparison - and this is very interesting:

Intelligence: 18
Nuclear (energy and other): 74
Engagement: 43
Development: 76
Military: 44

That's right, folks. The new NSS mentions "energy" more than "engagement" or "military." And "climate change" appears more than "intelligence."

And for full context, here is a word cloud of the document (note: removed the words "United States").

The big headline of the national security strategy, to me, is the major role conferred upon natural resources issues, for example reducing oil dependence, addressing climate change and food security. This NSS sets a proper path for ensuring American power in the long term: toward the intersection of natural resources and national security.

It is new to give natural resources challenges such a prominent role in mainstream U.S. strategic planning, as this National Security Strategy does. As such, mapping out new plans and ways of doing business to accommodate issues surrounding energy, climate, food and demographics is likely to be a taller task than for more traditional elements represented in this strategy.

At its heart, this document gets right that addressing energy, climate change, scarcity and environmental concerns can provide useful tools for engagement, for building governance and economic strength in partner nations, and for national security broadly. However, in many cases this will be more complicated than it may seem. Clean energy and climate change-based engagement with Indonesia, for example, must account for that country’s often contradictory goals of both producing and preserving its natural resources. The United States may wish to form cooperative relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan to address water, energy, food and demographic stresses, but China is swiftly moving to do the same. This strategy’s objectives of managing supply chains and maintaining access to scarce commodities, if not planned carefully, could also lead to minerals policies that run counter to its emphasis on human rights, transparency in trade and rule of law. This, to me, is one of the worrisome phrases within the document:

America – like other nations – is dependent upon overseas markets to sell its exports and maintain access to scarce commodities and resources. Thus, finding overlapping mutual economic interests with other nations and maintaining those economic relationships are key elements of our national security strategy (emphasis mine).

• According to the Associated Press, China and Brazil may establish a bond over Chinese assistance exploiting Brazilian Coltan mines.
• USAID's Famine Early Warning System Network released its 2010 April through September outlook for food security in Somalia.
• Check out BBC's audio track discussing the role rare earth metals play in the economy, the environment and technology.
• The New York Times' Green blog discusses the release of the United Nations's Biodiversity Outlook 3, which shows declines across the board.
• The nine Nile states of Africa are likely to come to an agreement over water usage, reports The National.

I don’t know about you, but my weekend RSS catch-up took me through approximately 9,000 pieces on the Gulf oil disaster. While that’s still obviously the biggest natural security story of the weekend, I’ll avoid pontificating on it yet again, as I assume it’s something you’re all caught up on.

I suggest instead that we take a moment to ponder the role of agriculture in Afghanistan given current operations. This is something we’ve covered regularly, and will a bit more heavily in an upcoming report on resources and security. Our colleague Nate Fick also highlighted agriculture as a “key business sector” in his recent CNAS policy brief with Clare Lockhart:

Promoting the growth of legiti­mate agriculture would have positive effects including providing jobs, encouraging economic growth, and slowing the drug trade as a major source of funding for the Taliban. Success in this sector may be achieved best through a National Agriculture Program that would focus on creating the value chain to form the right market linkages, appropriate marketing tools, access to credit, processing facilities, cold storage, irrigation and transportation. Such a program could be supported by a consortium of international inves­tors and a network of Afghan land-grant colleges with specialized agricultural knowledge.