National Intelligence Council

NIC 2020 Project

Inaugural Conference

#### 6 November 2003

**The views expressed in this and other papers associated with the NIC
2020 project**

**are those of individual participants. They are posted for discussion
purposes**

**only and do not represent the views of the US Government.**

National Intelligence Council

NIC 2020 Project

Inaugural Conference

6 November 2003

Introduction

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) has launched an ambitious,
yearlong strategic review out to the year 2020. The **NIC 2020 Project**
will involve hundreds of experts from around the world in a series of
conferences and symposia spanning five continents. Its aim is not to
predict the future but to help us understand and prepare for it by
exploring the forces and trends that will shape the world of 2020.

Our previous such review, ***Global Trends 2015 (GT 2015)***, was a
trail blazing effort to bring together governmental and nongovernmental
experts in a yearlong dialogue about the future. GT 2015 identified and
drew conclusions about key "drivers" of global change, including
demographics, natural resources and the environment, science and
technology, the global economy, national and international governance,
economic globalization, and sources of future conflict.

**NIC 2020** will take up where GT 2015 left off. It will differ from
that effort in several principal respects:

• NIC 2020 will rely more on *scenarios* to try to capture where key
trends will lead.

• It will involve experts from around the world in a series of regional
conferences and so will offer a truly *global perspective*.

To launch the project, we brought together around 25 leading outside
experts from a wide variety of disciplines and backgrounds, together
with a similar number of governmental experts, for a broad-gauged
exploration of the future. We began by inviting three leading
"futurists\"---Ted Gordon of the UN's Millennium Project, Jim Dewar of
the RAND Corporation, and Ged Davis, former head of Shell
International's scenarios project---to discuss their most recent work
and the methodologies they employed to think about the future. Because
those who are most successful in thinking about the future also spend a
lot of time thinking about the past, we asked Princeton University
historian Harold James to draw lessons from prior periods of
"globalization." Their presentations are summarized below and are
available in fuller form on the National Intelligence Council's website
([http://www.cia.gov/nic/]{.underline}), as is the full text of GT2015.

Participants then broke up into four panels devoted to economic
globalization, social identification, science and technology, and the
future uses of force. Each panel identified key forces (or "drivers")
that will shape the world of 2020 and explored various scenarios of how
those forces might interact. Their findings, and recommendations for
further work, are also summarized below and on the website.

# Presentations

# Ted Gordon: Frontiers of the Future: Madmen, Methods & Massive Change

Dr. Gordon of the UN University said the **Millennium Project**, which
he manages, is an ongoing effort to identify key issues that will shape
the future. The project uses a broad-based international polling
technique to synthesize viewpoints and formulate policy options on such
diverse issues as the future of scientific innovation and the prospects
for Arab-Israeli peace.

Dr. Gordon began his presentation by saying that a scenario is not
intended to be a forecast; rather, it is a plausible description of what
*might* occur, or what *ought* to occur. Scenarios focus attention on
causal processes and decision points and can help identify policy
options across a broad range of circumstances. He was asked to focus on
just one area of the project's findings---the global management of
science and technology.

He outlined four scenarios, produced by polling 1,500 scientists on S&T
developments over the next 25 years. Dr. Gordon did not rank or identify
the relative likelihood of the scenarios he presented:

**Scenario 1: Science and Technology Develops a Mind of its Own**

The rate of scientific discoveries and advanced technological
applications accelerates, solving many problems for society. Science and
technology moves so quickly that government and international
regulations cannot keep pace with the rate of innovation.

**Scenario 2: The World Wakes Up**

A self-proclaimed Agent of God murders 25 million people in the
mid-2010s with a genetically modified virus. This event finally wakes up
the world to the realization that an individual acting alone can create
and use a Single weapon of Mass Destruction (SIMAD). Regulatory agencies
subsequently act to control science and scientific education.

**Scenario 3: Please Turn off the Spigot**

Science is attacked as pompous and self-aggrandizing, as encouraging
excesses in consumption, raising false hopes, and causing unexpected
consequences that can destroy us all. The poor are ignored. A
charismatic scientist arises to galvanize the public. A global
commission attempts to respond to public outrage by building safeguards
into the S&T development process.

**Scenario 4: Backlash**

Scientific and technological innovation speed ahead, but negative
consequences cause public alarm. Rogue nations and/or actors exploit the
downsides of scientific advancement. The level of concern rises. Mobs
protest. Regulation fails. Progress stalls.

**James Dewar: The Importance of Wild-Card Scenarios**

Dr. James Dewar of the **RAND Corporation** said that surprise is an
obvious driver of the future, but it is, by definition, basically
unknowable. Scenarios can help mitigate surprises, however.

The purpose of wild-card scenarios is not to correctly guess which
surprises will occur, but to identify, where possible, important
surprises that *could* occur. All good forecasters and strategic
planners recognize that there are innumerable plausible futures to
consider.

In the initial stages of a scenario project it is important to:

-   Argue the importance of explicitly including wild-card scenarios.

-   Describe a systematic means for identifying wild-card candidates.

-   Describe a means of selecting a set of wild-card scenarios.

Dr. Dewar's Assumption-Based Planning technique develops wild-card
scenarios from failed assumptions. He noted that a reliable and easy way
to begin the search for assumptions is to examine futures drafts and
reports for use of the word "will." (Dewar said that the Global Trends
2015 document uses the word "will" 854 times.) Then when assessing these
underlying assumptions, two questions need to be answered:

-   Could this assumption *possibly* fail in a way that has serious
    consequences for national security?

-   If so, is it *plausible* that the assumption could fail in that way?

Using this technique, the GT 2015 paper could have posited, for example,
a wild-card scenario that featured an influenza pandemic or the bursting
of the dot-com bubble.

# Ged Davis: Mental Maps and the Roots of Scenario Thinking

Shell International Limited has for decades used scenarios to identify
business risks and opportunities. For many years, Ged Davis led this
effort. In his presentation on how to develop effective scenarios for
the government he said that thinking in policy terms is critical.
Scenarios must be relevant and take from the policy community the
critical dilemmas and uncertainties that our political and military
leaders face. In other words, the scenarios must implicitly reflect the
policymakers' worldview---their position and interests, and the key
issues that they need help thinking through.

Scenarios are not projections, predictions, or preferences. Instead,
good scenarios identify emerging challenges, allow policymakers to test
strategies, develop focused alternatives, and establish a common
platform for learning and communicating.

# Identify Emerging Challenges

Scenarios help us to break through conventional thinking and basic
assumptions so that a broader range of possibilities emerge---including
new risks and opportunities.

**Test and Develop Strategies**

Many projects, policies, and strategies are based on linear forecasts.
However, large projects often require long lead times and are born in
environments that are radically different from those in which they were
conceived. Scenarios provide the context in which projects may come to
fruition, enabling us to make a more comprehensive review of possible
risks.

**Develop Focused Alternatives**

Scenarios need to embody relevant, challenging factors. Some will
involve broad, sweeping changes. However, we also need to take account
of more specific forces---for example, those relating to a particular
issue or region.

**Establish a Common Platform**

Scenarios can be used as a common basis for discussion. In a world of
information \"overload,\" scenarios also can us to prioritize
information needs.

Shell\'s two recent scenarios, ***Business Class*** and ***Prism***,
portray two distinctly plausible futures. Each causes the reader to
question underlying assumptions and examine potential implications for
the future.

***Business Class*** is a world that operates like a business, focusing
on efficiency and individual freedom of choice. Global elites and the
dominant influence of the US lead continued economic integration, but
established authorities face continual challenge with power diffusing
from states to other institutions.

***Prism*** is a world where different versions of modernity are
successfully pursued. Countries form regional groups to follow their own
development paths based on their particular economic, political and
social circumstances.

### 

### Harold James: The Lessons of History

Professor Harold James of **Princeton University** began his lunchtime
talk by noting that scenarios that are informed by history are effective
in explaining the future. For example, a long-term view of history can
be especially helpful in showing how discontinuities can occur (such as
the outbreak of World War I). We should be wary of extrapolating from a
period of only a few years and projecting the future as simply a
continuation of the present and recent past.

A great deal of literature on globalization makes the point that there
were several previous eras of increased worldwide integration that came
to a halt, and were reversed, with painful consequences. The most
familiar precedent for modern globalization is that of the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, which ended with the interwar Great Depression.
But there were also earlier epochs of integration: the Roman empire, the
economic rebound of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and the 18th
century, in which improved technology and increased ease of
communications opened the way for the British and French global empires.
These previous globalization episodes ended, almost always, with wars.

Many argue that the current wave of globalization will continue to
spread unchecked because we live in a world connected by
telecommunications and mass media. This is fallacious. The world of the
early twentieth century was connected by the new inventions of telegraph
and telephone, and yet World War I stalled the spread of globalization.

New opportunities can lead to radical changes in wealth distribution.
Large and perceived illegitimate gain may provoke resentment and a
populist reaction. There are clear historical precedents for the current
worldwide reaction against and rejection of what is now perceived as US
style capitalism. Thus, globalization might breed its own nationalist
responses that, if not counteracted, can lead away from free markets and
toward political dictatorship.

# Breakout Groups

# Highlights

The key findings are represented within the following categories:

-   The Outlook for Globalization and Scientific Innovation.

-   The Roots of Future Conflict.

-   The Use of Force in 2020.

**The Outlook for Globalization and Scientific Innovation**

In the future, we expect a shift in the forces that will shape
globalization and scientific innovation. The power of regulations,
pacts, and institutions will diminish and natural forces---including
demographics and migration patterns, the diffusion of technology, the
rise of enabling ideologies, the comparative advantage of countries, and
the schisms between rich and poor---all will take on greater
significance. In addition:

-   The American middle class could do the greatest damage to
    globalization---especially if frustration over lost jobs and
    declining standards of living energizes the US Congress to seek
    redress. Under this scenario, participants envisioned a model of an
    "integrated but dysfunctional" global economy that
    oscillates---lurching forward and backward, without steady movement
    in either direction. The Outlook for Globalization and Scientific
    Innovation.

-   Additional terrorist attacks within the United States could have a
    devastating impact on future globalization and scientific
    innovation, as increased security concerns inhibit the free movement
    of people, labor, goods and capital. Foreigners---who have flocked
    to the United States in pursuit of graduate-level education---could
    look elsewhere to seek education, develop innovative tools and
    techniques, and establish start-up companies.

**Wild Cards:** The following events likely would have a major impact on
the pace of globalization and technological innovation:

-   Political dissolution of the leadership---or the rise of
    democracy---within China.

-   Movement away from petroleum-based economies.

-   Peace and stability within the Middle East.

# 

# The Roots of Future Conflict

Social identity---be it based on ethnicity, religion, level of income,
or other factors---will be the principal driver of future intra-state
conflict, and if unchecked, the most likely cause of regional strife. In
particular, ethnicity and religious fundamentalism---including religions
other than Islam---will fuel conflict and political instability. In this
regard:

-   Radical Islamic beliefs will remain powerful through 2020 and will
    continue to spawn anti-American movements. Still, there will not be
    a unified clash of civilizations, as intra-Muslim conflicts will
    persist.

-   Populism may emerge as a potent social force---especially as
    globalization increases the gap between winners and losers---and
    societies become more aware of economic inequality. Increasingly,
    economic status will become a potent force underlying the populist
    movement and form the basis for identity movements.

-   The use of communications technology and the mass media to influence
    popular opinion will allow groups, separated by geography, to share
    grievances and spread identity messages, leading to the creation of
    global mega-movements.

Several factors will predispose states to identity conflict:

-   Countries run by predatory elites, who legitimize crime and
    corruption as tools of self-aggrandizement and social control.

-   Poor nations with rapidly expanding youth populations and have a
    history of seeking revenge to redress grievances.

-   States with limited economic and political links to the outside
    world.

-   Countries transitioning to democracy, who are unable to balance the
    growing disparity between "haves" and "have-nots."

**Wild Cards:** The following could lead to a broadening of
identity-based conflict:

-   A leader of a virulent terrorist group gains control of a political
    regime.

-   A convergence of interests between disparate groups leading to broad
    movements---such as Islamic extremists teaming up with aggrieved
    populations---or the development of strong links between different
    terrorist organizations.

# The Use of Force in 2020

The nature of war will be significantly different in 2020. The United
States will remain the only true superpower, without a military peer,
making war between the great powers unlikely. Future wars that engage
the United States will be conducted at a distance---on the frontier of
US power. They probably will be spawned because of differences in
identity---more specifically, ideology---rather than desire for
territorial conquest. Still, these wars will be low-intensity conflicts
that are difficult to wage because of the distance from US shore, and
likely to engage the US almost continuously for the next 17 years. For
the US, these conflicts increasingly will require:

-   A substantial commitment to postwar peacekeeping and humanitarian
    relief, which will have important budgetary consequences for the US
    economy.

-   An understanding that there will be substantial civilian
    casualties---as enemies seek to weaken US resolve through increased
    use of civilian populations to cover military activities.

-   Preparation for a scenario in which a state or terrorist group
    successfully detonates a nuclear device against a civilian
    population located in a "frontier" country.

-   An understanding that mainline protestant denominations will have
    pacifist tendencies---though they advocate humanitarian
    operations---and will be less inclined to support traditional
    national security interventions. Moreover, US religious activists
    are showing increasing concern for their co-religionists in other
    countries.

-   Greater consideration about which weapons to develop, as US weapons
    technology is a driver of the military capabilities of other
    countries.

**Wild Card:** If the US is perceived as failing to win the peace in
Iraq, what impact will this have on US attitudes concerning future
engagements?

At the wrap-up session, participants agreed that the conference provided
a unique opportunity to think strategically about the key trends that
will shape the future.