Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on June 14, 2013

Bookmark and Share

Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks

Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks thumbnail

NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism

Top secret US National Security Agency (NSA) documents disclosed by the Guardian have shocked the world with revelations of a comprehensive US-based surveillance system with direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and other tech giants. New Zealand court records suggest that data harvested by the NSA’s Prism system has been fed into the Five Eyes intelligence alliance whose members also include the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis – or all three.

Just last month, unilateral changes to US military laws formally granted the Pentagon extraordinary powers to intervene in a domestic “emergency” or “civil disturbance”:

“Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

Other documents show that the “extraordinary emergencies” the Pentagon is worried about include a range of environmental and related disasters.

In 2006, the US National Security Strategy warned that:

“Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response.”

Two years later, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Army Modernisation Strategy described the arrival of a new “era of persistent conflict” due to competition for “depleting natural resources and overseas markets” fuelling “future resource wars over water, food and energy.” The report predicted a resurgence of:

“… anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability.”

In the same year, a report by the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute warned that a series of domestic crises could provoke large-scale civil unrest. The path to “disruptive domestic shock” could include traditional threats such as deployment of WMDs, alongside “catastrophic natural and human disasters” or “pervasive public health emergencies” coinciding with “unforeseen economic collapse.” Such crises could lead to “loss of functioning political and legal order” leading to “purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency…

“DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”

That year, the Pentagon had begun developing a 20,000 strong troop force who would be on-hand to respond to “domestic catastrophes” and civil unrest – the programme was reportedly based on a 2005 homeland security strategy which emphasised “preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents.”

The following year, a US Army-funded RAND Corp study called for a US force presence specifically to deal with civil unrest.

Such fears were further solidified in a detailed 2010 study by the US Joint Forces Command – designed to inform “joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense” – setting out the US military’s definitive vision for future trends and potential global threats. Climate change, the study said, would lead to increased risk of:

“… tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes… Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself – particularly when the nation’s economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected – the damage to US security could be considerable.”

The study also warned of a possible shortfall in global oil output by 2015:

“A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions.”

That year the DoD’s Quadrennial Defense Review seconded such concerns, while recognising that “climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.”

Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of “large scale economic breakdown” in the US impacting on food supplies and other essential services, as well as how to maintain “domestic order amid civil unrest.”

Speaking about the group’s conclusions at giant US defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton’s conference facility in Virginia, Lt Col. Mark Elfendahl – then chief of the Joint and Army Concepts Division – highlighted homeland operations as a way to legitimise the US military budget:

“An increased focus on domestic activities might be a way of justifying whatever Army force structure the country can still afford.”

Two months earlier, Elfendahl explained in a DoD roundtable that future planning was needed:

“Because technology is changing so rapidly, because there’s so much uncertainty in the world, both economically and politically, and because the threats are so adaptive and networked, because they live within the populations in many cases.”

The 2010 exercises were part of the US Army’s annual Unified Quest programme which more recently, based on expert input from across the Pentagon, has explored the prospect that “ecological disasters and a weak economy” (as the “recovery won’t take root until 2020”) will fuel migration to urban areas, ramping up social tensions in the US homeland as well as within and between “resource-starved nations.”

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was a computer systems administrator for Booz Allen Hamilton, where he directly handled the NSA’s IT systems, including the Prism surveillance system. According to Booz Allen’s 2011 Annual Report, the corporation has overseen Unified Quest “for more than a decade” to help “military and civilian leaders envision the future.”

The latest war games, the report reveals, focused on “detailed, realistic scenarios with hypothetical ‘roads to crisis'”, including “homeland operations” resulting from “a high-magnitude natural disaster” among other scenarios, in the context of:

“… converging global trends [which] may change the current security landscape and future operating environment… At the end of the two-day event, senior leaders were better prepared to understand new required capabilities and force design requirements to make homeland operations more effective.”

It is therefore not surprising that the increasing privatisation of intelligence has coincided with the proliferation of domestic surveillance operations against political activists, particularly those linked to environmental and social justice protest groups.

Department of Homeland Security documents released in April prove a “systematic effort” by the agency “to surveil and disrupt peaceful demonstrations” linked to Occupy Wall Street, according to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF).

Similarly, FBI documents confirmed “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector” designed to produce intelligence on behalf of “the corporate security community.” A PCJF spokesperson remarked that the documents show “federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

In particular, domestic surveillance has systematically targeted peaceful environment activists including anti-fracking activists across the US, such as the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, Rising Tide North America, the People’s Oil & Gas Collaborative, and Greenpeace. Similar trends are at play in the UK, where the case of undercover policeman Mark Kennedy revealed the extent of the state’s involvement in monitoring the environmental direct action movement.

A University of Bath study citing the Kennedy case, and based on confidential sources, found that a whole range of corporations – such as McDonald’s, Nestle and the oil major Shell, “use covert methods to gather intelligence on activist groups, counter criticism of their strategies and practices, and evade accountability.”

Indeed, Kennedy’s case was just the tip of the iceberg – internal police documents obtained by the Guardian in 2009 revealed that environment activists had been routinely categorised as “domestic extremists” targeting “national infrastructure” as part of a wider strategy tracking protest groups and protestors.

Superintendent Steve Pearl, then head of the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (Nectu), confirmed at that time how his unit worked with thousands of companies in the private sector. Nectu, according to Pearl, was set up by the Home Office because it was “getting really pressured by big business – pharmaceuticals in particular, and the banks.” He added that environmental protestors were being brought “more on the radar.” The programme continues today, despite police acknowledgements that environmentalists have not been involved in “violent acts.”

The Pentagon knows that environmental, economic and other crises could provoke widespread public anger toward government and corporations in coming years. The revelations on the NSA’s global surveillance programmes are just the latest indication that as business as usual creates instability at home and abroad, and as disillusionment with the status quo escalates, Western publics are being increasingly viewed as potential enemies that must be policed by the state.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

UK Guardian

9 Comments on "Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks"

  1. rollin on Fri, 14th Jun 2013 7:32 pm 

    Nothing like a dash of sense mixed into a bowl of paranoia. I think that western governments are overreacting to a minor threat at most, at least in the US. Of course guilt at not attending to the protection of their citizens by aiding corporations in actions that will disrupt climate further and not soften fuel shortage, would tend to make governments paranoid. Maybe they need to do the right thing instead of preparing for a backlash from doing wrong.

  2. DC on Fri, 14th Jun 2013 7:42 pm 

    Q/NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism

    Bingo, this is what ive been saying all along. The *real* reason for the US\Canada police state. They know full well, that as environmental and economic catastrophes, created by corporations, slowly begin to manifest themselves in ways that the even the pacified public in N.A. can no longer ignore, there will be pushback. OWS was just tiny preview of what will be coming, and it terrifies the US elites what would happen(to them) if a *real* industrial or economic disaster. They are afraid the sleeping giant-and they aim to be prepared to beat it over the head with tasers, tear gas, prisons, and live ammo if need be.

    That is the sole reason for all these new ‘laws’ and police-state powers, on both sides of the border. Its to contain protests that will arise out of the corporate assaults on the people, and the environment. ‘Terrorism’ never had anything to do with any of it, unless you define ‘terrorism’ with environmental activism, opposition to the auto-oil cartel, poverty and so on, which increasingly *is* the case.

    Good article. People need to understand there are no ‘terrorists’ and what these police-state tactics and powers are really for and why. This article should be front page required on every paper in North America.

  3. J-Gav on Fri, 14th Jun 2013 9:56 pm 

    Nafeez is correct in pointing out that’s it’s not only climate ‘weirding’ which could tip the social balance but also financial/economic turmoil and energy shortfalls (rolling brown-outs anyone?)

    Why else do you think they’ve built all those huge (and, as yet, empty), detention facilities in the Mid-West? So “enhanced” communications monitoring and militarization of U.S. police forces at this point shouldn’t really come as much of a surprise to anybody who hasn’t been in a coma for the last ten years.

  4. BillT on Sat, 15th Jun 2013 1:10 am 

    A Police State needs cover so these are the ‘reasons’ they are giving for the fact that they are building a Police State and it is now becoming obvious to the sheeple. Detention camps cannot hold all 315,000,000 Americans. Not even a fraction and most of those 315,000,000 are armed.

    When the people find out that they are being raped by the banking cartel and the corporate elite, gated communities will be their first targets. And about time.

  5. GregT on Sat, 15th Jun 2013 2:02 am 

    Even in Vancouver BC, Canada, we now have police/ military vehicles. It really turned my head the first time I saw an RCMP armored personnel carrier driving down a suburban street.

  6. Stephen on Sat, 15th Jun 2013 8:08 am 

    Ultimately, I don’t foresee the military winning every battle if resources deplete.

    For example, what happens if rebels cut off fuel to military tanks, planes, the gun and bomb factories first, destroy all that equipment, steal bulldozer and knock down these so-called detention camps (with all people rounded up escaping to their families alive), and then invade the NSA and selective service system and erase its hard drives, and then all the soldiers go AWOL at once? Then, all the farms in the countries were sold to the poorest for a penny with no liens on the properties, and the people that bought them robbed all the NON-GMO seeds and learned to reproduce them and give them away in mass for free. Then the voters passed laws outlawing foreclosure and raising the personal property exemption to 1 billion dollars, banning wage garnishments, and the like from seizure when a judgment is issued. Lastly, the people decided to write in non-wall street backed people for every political office, people who recieved no campaign money from any bilderberg members, corporate CEOs, or SuperPACs and they all get elected. The people that got elected are extreme environmentalists, into organic farming, no NSA spying, and no police state. Say people like this got a 3/4ths majority in both the house and senate of every state plus the federal government, and the president and all nine supreme court judges support this (and all the judges were appointed who are only 21 years old at the time of appointment and are appointed for life).

    What would the NWO and Bilderberg leaders do in this doomsday scenario I wonder?

  7. BillT on Sat, 15th Jun 2013 9:21 am 

    I suspect that they The elite) are really running scared. There are only a few thousand of them at best, and most would not be able to defend themselves against even an unarmed mugger on a back street. And how many of those police even going to punch in when the SHTF? A few that have no family, maybe. Ditto, in the military. It’s one thing to be on a foreign street and another to be on your home town turf, being forced to fire on neighbors or family.

    Then again, I’m not sure that the numbers to actually over throw the government would appear. I read all of the comments on a dozen blogs like this one and the feeling I get is that there are a few thousand who might act, but there are many millions that would side with the Gestapo. Would anyone on government dole (~100,000,000 to date) even want to stand up for their rights as long as their money was coming in each month? I don’t think so.

    We live in interesting times. I don’t think anyone really knows what is coming, but odds are great that it is not good.

  8. kervennic on Sat, 15th Jun 2013 11:37 am 

    By definition, if there is a massive failure of the system, they will be powerless. Their power is only based on systemic strength.
    They haven’t read anthropology classics, like war before civilisation. When the logistic fails, primitive force always wins. These reports are useless as well as these people.
    We should rather put them to work in the fields to avert collapse.

  9. GregT on Sat, 15th Jun 2013 3:46 pm 

    The ‘elites’ have been buying land and building mansions accessible only by water or air off of the coast of British Columbia for over a decade. Complete with private golf courses, self standing hydro electric power generating stations and huge guest homes. I wonder why?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *