U.S. Intel: Water a Cause for War in Coming Decades

By Matthew Lee

Washington D.C. - Drought, floods and a lack of fresh water may cause significant global instability and conflict in the coming decades, as developing countries scramble to meet demand from exploding populations while dealing with the effects of climate change, U.S. intelligence agencies said in a report released Thursday.

An assessment reflecting the joint judgment of federal intelligence agencies says the risk of water issues causing wars in the next 10 years is minimal even as they create tensions within and between states and threaten to disrupt national and global food markets. But beyond 2022, it says the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism will become more likely, particularly in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.

The report is based on a classified National Intelligence Estimate on water security, which was requested by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and completed last fall. It says floods, scarce and poor quality water, combined with poverty, social tension, poor leadership and weak governments will contribute to instability that could lead the failure of numerous states.

Those elements "will likely increase the risk of instability and state failure, exacerbate regional tensions, and distract countries from working with the United States on important policy objectives," said the report, which was released at a State Department event commemorating World Water Day.

Clinton, who unveiled a new U.S. Water Partnership that aims to share American water management expertise with the rest of the world, called the findings "sobering."

"These threats are real and they do raise serious security concerns," she said.

The report noted that countries have in the past tried to resolve water issues through negotiation but said that could change as water shortages become more severe.

"We judge that as water shortages become more acute beyond the next 10 years, water in shared basins will increasingly be used as leverage; the use of water as a weapon or to further terrorist objectives, also will become more likely beyond 10 years," it said.

The report predicts that upstream nations — more powerful than their downstream neighbors due to geography — will limit access to water for political reasons and that countries will regulate internal supplies to suppress separatist movements and dissident populations.

At the same time, terrorists and rogue states may target or threaten to target water-related infrastructure like dams and reservoirs more frequently. Even if attacks do not occur or are only partially successful, the report said "the fear of massive floods or loss of water resources would alarm the public and cause governments to take costly measures to protect the water infrastructure."

The unclassified summary of the intelligence estimate does not identify the specific countries most at risk. But it notes that the study focused on several specific rivers and water basins. Those included the Nile in Egypt, Sudan and nations further south, the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq and the greater Middle East, the Mekong in China and Southeast Asia, the Jordan that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories, the Indus and the Brahmaputra in India and South Asia as well as the Amu Darya in Central Asia.

Keystone Pipeline Lobbyists Were Hillary Clinton Fundraisers

By Matt Bewig

 

United States - Environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOE) last week sued the State Department for access to communications between it and lobbyists promoting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, two of whom were prominent fundraisers for the 2008 presidential campaign of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That project, in which Canadian oil company TransCanada wants to build nearly 2,000 miles of pipeline to carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, requires a presidential permit from the State Department. FOE originally filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the materials in 2010.

 

Two of the lobbyists named in the FOIA request, Gordon Giffin of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, and James Blanchard of DLA Piper, were fundraising bundlers for Clinton’s presidential bid, and DLA Piper was the largest single corporate source of employee and PAC contributions to her campaign. Both Blanchard and Giffin served as U.S. Ambassador to Canada under President Bill Clinton, Blanchard from 1993-1997 and Giffin from 1997-2001.

 

A third pipeline lobbyist, Paul Elliott, worked on Clinton’s campaign as national deputy director and chief of staff for delegate selection. Although the Obama administration recently rejected the permit, TransCanada is preparing a new permit application, leading Damon Moglen, climate and energy project director at FOE, to explain the continued relevance of the request: “The communications we seek are key to ensuring that the State Department isn’t letting lobbyists’ personal connections to Secretary Clinton or President Obama bias its decision-making."

Keystone XL Pipeline Still Has Fight Behind It

United States/Canada - Although the Keystone XL pipeline legislation was pushed back due to President Obama vetoing it, there still seems to be an effort to push it through.




A new bill proposed by Republican Senator John Hoeven would allow the pipeline to start immediately and  without President Obama's approval, though the passage of the bill itself will require his signature.  The bill is sponsored by 43 Republicans and one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin.  Other Democrats have stated their approval of the pipeline in the past. The Congressional Research Service says Congress has the constitutional right to legislate permits for pipelines such as Keystone XL.

The State Department, which will conduct an environmental impact review before the project is officially given the green light, said authority for the pipeline should be with the administration because of foreign policy, economic, environmental and safety issues.

If this doesn't pass, TransCanada plans to apply for yet another presidential permit but it won't happen until after the election taking place later this year.

Anti-war Activist Speaks Against U.S. Treatment of Iran

Minneapolis - Anti-war activist Jess Sundin, one of several activists who were raided by the FBI in an attempt to find links between anti-war activists and groups in Colombia and the Middle East, condemned what she calls an “act of war against Iran.”

“The anti-war movement needs to take U.S. threats against Iran very seriously,” said Sundin. “Over the past several months we have seen more military deployments of U.S. forces into the Persian Gulf, a new round of U.S. sanctions - with more threatened from Europe - and the murder of Iranian scientists. The situation is looking a lot like the run-ups to the U.S. wars on Iraq. In and of themselves, the U.S. sanctions on Iran are an act of war. The sanctions are designed to harm Iran’s economy and cause human suffering on a mass scale.”


Despite the treatment she is facing from the FBI as well as a Chicago grand jury, she continues to speak out against state repression. When questioned about repression from the FBI she said “As peace activists, we need to continue to speak out against all U.S. wars and we need to condemn government repression directed against the anti-war movement, like the attack on Carlos Montes in Los Angeles. He is a veteran leader of the Chicano movement, who speaks out against U.S. intervention abroad. The government wants to put him in jail, and we say drop the charges. “People in this country can’t afford to let the government pick our ‘enemies.’ The State Department is trying to demonize Iran and pave the way towards another war. We have to speak out and say, ‘Hands off Iran.’”

The Keystone Pipeline and Obama's Missteps

The Proposed Keystone XL pipeline runs through six states

United States - While Republicans are saying the Keystone XL pipeline needs to be approved as soon as possible, the Obama Administration is still questioning if an alternate route would be a better solution.  Sadly the Obama's White House is seeing this project in the completely wrong light.

Republicans have announced, however, their game plan.  If Obama rejects it - and chances are he won't given he caves in to pressure - they will force it through Congress' power to regulate commerce with other countries.

Ryan Bernstein, energy adviser to Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, said in an interview "We believe that express authority in the Constitution gives Congress the ability to approve and move forward on such a project." While Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce states, falsely, the pipeline will create about 20-thousand jobs the day it's approved.  It will create about six-thousand menial jobs which are temporary until its completion, upon which only 20 people will have a permanent job.

If this happens this could put the State Department at odds with Congress, as it holds authority when it comes to cross-border pipeline permits.

What Obama needs to do is to look at the facts and go with them.  While labor organizations are supportive of the pipeline, believing the Republican lie about how many jobs will be created, the fact is it will not only create less of them, but actually take away jobs from people.  He also has to deal with the few environmentalists who are left on his side.  Moving forward with thi idea will cause almost all of them to abandon him completely and he needs every single bit of support he can hold for the election.  The only way to solve this issue is to work on genuine energy alternatives and leave the Keystone XL pipeline idea where it's sitting.  He then needs to get the Democrats who are supporting this project in line with him and state the actual facts about the pipeline.  It's supported by Republicans and Democrats who are in the pockets of oil interests, that it harms the environment in a devastating way, and if a spill happens it could destroy the Midwest for an untold period of time.  All the people who live there will get is a dirty life, 10 to 20 cents more per gallon  added to the price at the pump and dirty water.  Nobody wants any of that stuff.

Commentary: Obama and the Keystone Pipeline

President Obama's game of football when it comes to the Keystone XL Pipeline seems to have finally ended with the ball in his hands. Monday Jay Carney, his press secretary, said the decision on what happens with the pipeline will be in the State Department's hands. However the State Department really has nothing to do it. Tuesday he turned that around and said he himself will make the decision.

Obama said on KETV “We need to encourage domestic natural gas and oil production. We need to make sure that we have energy security and aren’t just relying on Middle East sources. But there’s a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected, and that’s how I’ll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me,” he said.

Note the emboldened words. These buzzwords need to be addressed. Instead of actually investing in alternative energy sources, probably because he's afraid of the conservative media backlash, President Obama is promoting dirty nonrenewable energy. As far as “energy security” goes what's more secure than harnessing natural and renewable sources? Is he afraid Iran will turn off the Sun (I admit I'd be fascinated if it happened)?

The fact several strong lobbyists, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Industry, and several more are backing this idea also should make one pause before they think this is a good idea. These are powerful groups which stand to make a huge profit if he decides to go forward with the pipeline. As usual they also hit their oft-repeated mantra of “This will create jobs and improve energy security.” I'd like to know how many jobs and lives would be destroyed if this pipeline – and it will if the oil lobbyists get this done – polluted the water, air, or ground. I'd also like to know who is going to be held accountable when people start getting incredibly sick. I promise you it won't be the companies. The BP oil spilled proved it.

Originally Obama's decision was supposed to come near the end of the year but now it seems it will be next year at the earliest.  Now, according to Reuters says an anonymous official said last week the deadline is likely to slide.