The Center for Preventive Action، Preventive Priorities Survey: The Global Conflicts to Watch in 2015 “Conflict zones during 2015″” #report

(PPS

Foreign policy often involves making difficult and debatable choices about which parts of the world matter more to a given country—and which, by extension, matter less. It’s about defining national interests and determining where those interests are most evident and endangered. This is why the United States has done far more to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq than, say, sectarian war in the Central African Republic.
In short, it’s about priorities. And according to a new survey of U.S. foreign-policy experts and practitioners, those priorities could look a lot like the map above in 2015, at least from America’s point of view. The map sorts potential conflicts around the world into three tiers of risk: red for high-priority threats, orange for moderate-priority threats, and yellow for low-priority threats. According to Paul Stares, the report lead author, it’s a color-coded snapshot of “where the balance of U.S. attention and resources should be devoted” in the coming year. As such, it’s also a guide to the places and conflicts that are likely to receive relatively little attention from America’s national-security apparatus in the months ahead.

The survey, this year’s edition of a study conducted annually by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Center for Preventive Action

View the web interactive, the Global Conflict Tracker

The Top Ten U.S. Conflict Prevention Priorities in 2015:

  • the intensification of the conflict in Iraq
  • a large-scale attack on the U.S. homeland or ally
  • a cyber attack on U.S. critical infrastructure
  • a severe North Korean crisis
  • the renewed threat of Israeli military strikes against Iran
  • an armed confrontation in the South China Sea
  • the escalation of the Syrian civil war
  • rising violence and instability in Afghanistan
  • increased fighting in eastern Ukraine
  • heightened Israeli-Palestinian tensions

936a20e1a

Risk Assessment Matrix ”Definitions” impact on u.s. interests

■ High: contingency directly threatens the U.S. homeland, is likely to trigger U.S. military involvement because of treaty commitments, or threatens the supply of critical U.S. strategic resources

■ Moderate: contingency affects countries of strategic importance to the United States but does not involve a mutual-defense treaty commitment
■ Low: contingency could have severe/widespread humanitarian consequences but in countries of limited strategic

likelihood
■ High: contingency is probable to highly likely to occur in 2015

■ Moderate: contingency has about an even chance of occurring in 2015

■ Low: contingency is improbable to highly unlikely to occur in 2015

Tier I

Contingencies judged high preventive

priorities for U.S. policymakers

impact: high

likelihood: high

■ intensification of the conflict in Iraq dueto territorial gains by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and operations by Iraqi security forces, as well as ongoing Sunni-Shia sectarian violence

impact: high

likelihood: moderate

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

■ a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure

■ a severe North Korean crisis caused by a military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities

■ renewed threat of Israeli military strikes against Iran as a result of a breakdown in nuclear negotiations and/or clear evidence of intent to develop a nuclear weapons capability

■ an armed confrontation in the South China Sea between China and one ormore Southeast Asian claimants to disputed maritime areas

impact: moderate

likelihood: high

■ an intensification of the Syrian civil war resulting from increased external support for warring parties, including military intervention by outside powers

■ increased violence and instability in Afghanistan resulting from the withdrawal of coalition combat forces and strengthening of the Taliban insurgency

■ an intensification of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed militia forces and Ukrainian security forces, with potential overt Russian military intervention

■ heightened tensions within Israel and the Palestinian territories leading to widespread protests and armed confrontations

Tier II

Contingencies judged moderate preventive

priorities for U.S. policymakers

impact: moderate

likelihood: moderate

■ continued political fracture and growing militancy in Libya resulting in state failure, minimal governance, and further military intervention by Arab states

■ increased instability and terrorist attacks in Egypt, particularly in the Sinai Peninsula, resulting in a military crackdown

■ deepened political instability and civil violence in Jordan triggered by spillover from the Syrian civil war

■ increased sectarian violence and political instability in Lebanon due to spillover from the Syrian civil war

■ increased internal violence and political instability in Pakistan stemming from Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan militancy

■ intensified political violence in Turkey between various Kurdish groups and Turkish from the Syrian civil war

■ strengthening of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula resulting from continued political instability in Yemen and the expansion of Houthi rebel territorial control

impact: high

likelihood: low

■ an armed confrontation in the East China Sea between China and Japan stemming from tensions over the Diaoyu/ Senkaku islands

■ escalation of organized crime–related violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States

impact: low

likelihood: high ■ an intensification of violence and political instability in Nigeria related to Boko Haram, as well as surrounding the general elections

Tier III

Contingencies judged low preventive

priorities for U.S. policymakers

impact: low

likelihood: moderate

■ growth of political unrest in China, particularly among the Uighur population

■ escalation of sectarian violence in the Central African Republic between the Seleka rebels and “anti-balaka” militias, possibly resulting in mass atrocities

■ intensification of sectarian violence between Buddhists and Muslim Rohingyas in Myanmar

■ protracted civil war in South Sudan stemming from political and ethnic divisions

■ surge in popular unrest and political instability in Sudan

■ growing political instability and unrest in Thailand, potentially exacerbated by a royal succession crisis

■ deepening political crisis in Venezuela leading to civil violence and potential regional instability

■ political instability stemming from the impacts of Ebola in West Africa, with potential spillover into neighboring countries

 impact: moderate

likelihood: low

■ a severe Indo-Pakistani military confrontation triggered by a major terrorist attack or heightened violence in Kashmir

impact: low

likelihood: low

■ an outbreak of military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh

مخاطر الصراعات في عام 2015 من منظور أمريكي

Preventive Priorities Survey: 2015 Report

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s