With an average of 300 days of sunshine a year, India is a country where solar power can technically flourish. In an act of recognition and confirmation of this potential, the Government of India announced in November 2009 an ambitious nation-wide initiative to promote solar energy.

The Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission is a major initiative to “promote ecologically sustainable growth while addressing India’s energy security challenge.” The objective of the scheme is to enable the rapid scale-up of capacity and technological innovation so that the cost of solar energy by 2022 would be comparable to the cost of conventional energy like coal or oil for electricity. The Clinton Climate Initiative is even more optimistic, stating that “Solar power in India will cost less than coal energy in five years.” The use of solar power will also help India to curb carbon emissions and ease its frustrating power shortage.

Dubbed “the most ambitious plan to develop solar energy over the next three or four decades,” its target is the deployment of 20,000 MW of solar power by 2022. To see just how ambitious the plan is, consider that as of October 2009 there were only 6 MW1 of installed solar power capacity in India. The plan also seeks to deliver 20 million solar lighting systems for rural areas by 2022, but as of October 2009 only 510,877 have been installed. Through this policy, the government has provided the market with a strong signal that is sure to attract many investors to reconsider the potential solar opportunities in India. Aided by generous incentives from the central government, that target might yet be met.

One of these incentives is concessional financing in the form of low interest loans and accelerated depreciation for up to 80% of the capital cost. Others include generation-based incentives which means that the central government will pay the power producer Rs 12 for every unit of electricity that is fed into the grid. Another part of the policy that is expected to be a key driver of solar generation is the fixed obligation of state utilities to purchase solar power from independent developers.

To be sure, the scaling-up of solar energy on such a massive scale is a risky undertaking. In this regard, India is arguably the global pioneer among developing countries. Critics argue that the money poured into this scheme could be better used to connect the rural poor to the existing grid infrastructure in order to connect them with a large-scale, conventional power source. But fossil fuel is quickly reaching its limits, both in terms of fuel availability and the environmental damage it causes. The Government of India has made the right move to place their bet on a cleaner, newer type of technology. Jeffrey Sachs argues in The End of Poverty that energy systems for remote rural areas are one of the essential elements for ending poverty. With the help of a forward-looking government and energy sector, Solar energy definitely has the potential to be such an element.

For more information on the JNNSM, visit: http://mnes.nic.in/pdf/mission-document-JNNSM.pdf

1. In addition to 2.4 MW of off-grid solar photovoltaic power plants and street lights

Turkey enjoys a privileged geographical position, at crossroads between South-East Asia, Europe and the Middle East, which she has been able over the past decade to translate into geopolitical advantages1.

In regards to her economy, Turkey is the world’s seventeenth largest economy, Europe’s sixth largest economy2, and from 2005 to 2008 she doubled her trade exchange with her eight nearest geographical neighbors, which encompasses countries such as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Georgia3. Turkey is also growing as an energetic corridor, with the Baku-Ceyhan gas pipeline and the oil pipelines from Iraq and Iran, in addition to becoming an exporter of water to other regional states, such as Libya4. Moreover, Turkish tourism is booming and the number of Arab and Persian tourists to Turkey has multiplied over the past few years, while Arab television channel are buying in large number Turkish television series, which are very popular among Arab viewers5.

In regards to military capabilities, as commonly known Turkey has the second largest army in NATO6. However, what is less known is Turkey current military upgrade, such as already having the second largest inventory of F-16 fighters in the world and the recent acquisition of modern frigates and submarines to update its Navy traditionally viewed as poor7. Moreover, Turkey has been developing domestic military building capabilities that make her independent from foreign suppliers8, such as the United States or Israel.

Besides, Turkey started playing an instrumental role in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, by mediating direct talks between Syria and Israel, diffusing tensions between Lebanon and Israel and holding talks with Saudi-Arabia on the matter.

Turkish military recent upgrade trend, combined with strong economic ties to the Middle East region and her active participation in the Israel-Palestinian conflict clearly indicate a desire to become a regional hegemon.

Sources
1. Chubin S. “Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions” Carnegie Endowment, Washington DC, 2006, P.15
2. Ahmet Davutoglu “Turkish Foreign Policy and the EU in 2010” Turkish Policy Quarterly, Fall 2009, p.15
3. Yigal Schleifer “The Ottoman Revival” Foreign Policy May – June 2009
4. Edward J. Erickson “Turkey as Regional Hegemon – 2014: Strategic Implications for the United States” Turkish Studies, Vol.5, No.3 Autumn 2004, p.37
5. Sahin Alpay “Turkey’s EU membership and the Muslim world” Turkish Weekly 5 March 2007 24
6. (Erickson , 2004, p.34)
7.Ibid
8.Ibid

James Fallows has a highly relevant article about China’s new “cyber warrior” culture and leanings towards asymmetric warfare in this month’s Atlantic.

After that, be sure to check out Fallows’s blog entry on the same subject rounding up reactions to the imagery of a “digital Pearl Harbor” and whether or not that really is a valid concern (a topic about which I’ve previously expressed my own skepticism but is something well worth discussing).

Last month I complained, far too prematurely, that in the wake of revelations about Chinese cyberattacks against Google services, international rhetoric was largely ignoring the insidious underlying signals about the dangers of Chinese cybermilitary prowess. Since then, of course, news outlets have seen a deluge of commentary about the next “digital war,” enhanced by follow-up investigations into the Google attacks, as well as Hilary Clinton’s speech last month on Internet security. The general consensus seems to consistently boil down to two points: a) The world is speeding towards a trend in digital, highly networked warfare, and b) The U.S. is not nearly as prepared for this as it should be.

This is not a new criticism. But even if you take out the digital aspect of this new tide in warfare, criticisms against the U.S.’s approach to security operations and conflict still seem to suggest that the American military is slow to adapt. We still have the latest technology, the biggest guns, and thousands of nuclear warheads that can destroy that world several times over. Yet, in the “War Issue” of Foreign Policy magazine released just today, a commentary on the U.S.’s lack of understanding of networking stings:
“…the United States is spending huge amounts of money in ways that are actually making Americans less secure, not only against irregular insurgents, but also against smart countries building different sorts of militaries. And the problem goes well beyond weapons and other high-tech items. What’s missing most of all from the U.S. military’s arsenal is a deep understanding of networking, the loose but lively interconnection between people that creates and brings a new kind of collective intelligence, power, and purpose to bear — for good and ill.

Civil society movements around the world have taken to networking in ways that have done far more to advance the cause of freedom than the U.S. military’s problematic efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan at gunpoint. As for “uncivil society,” terrorists and transnational criminals have embraced connectivity to coordinate global operations in ways that simply were not possible in the past. Before the Internet and the World Wide Web, a terrorist network operating cohesively in more than 60 countries could not have existed. Today, a world full of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabs awaits — and not all of them will fail.”
The rest of the issue looks to be an intriguing read on the shifting tides in modern war. But perhaps even this one critique is myopic still. Unrestricted Warfare, a 1999 best-selling book in China and a heavy influence on the People’s Liberation Army, advocated this approach to war in the modern age:
“War which has undergone the changes of modern technology and the market system will be launched even more in atypical forms. In other words, while we are seeing a relative reduction in military violence, at the same time we definitely are seeing an increase in political, economic, and technological violence. However, regardless of the form the violence takes, war is war, and a change in the external appearance does not keep any war from abiding by the principles of war.

If we acknowledge that the new principles of war are no longer ‘using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will,’ but rather are ‘using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.’”
Perhaps this is what we really should be preparing for.

It’s official: the U.S. military, led by the Marines, have ramped up a new offensive in Afghanistan in order to make the country more secure. Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, near Kandahar, is the locus of this new offensive. Long a Taliban stronghold, the south of the country has been the most risky and least secure area for American and coalition forces.

Initially, the Marines and NATO troops met little to no resistance; what remains to be seen is the Taliban strategy. Are they on the run, or is this a strategic move to lure troops into a more difficult/dangerous place to fight?

This fight is just beginning, and no doubt will have many twists and turns along the way. But this is part of President Obama’s plan to finally secure Afghanistan and start the process of giving the country back to its people.

Personally, I’m not sure how this will all work out, for obvious reasons. Military maneuvers do not necessarily create political solutions. There are still questions about how Afghanis feel about our presence and new offensive. Plus, logistically there are numerous issues in creating a new society.

None of this touches on the major problems of corruption and drug trafficking, which are still weighing very heavily on Afghan society. Marines, stealth bombers and heavy artillery aren’t made to solve these types of problems. Hopefully, they can provide some “breathing space” needed to push the government forward and force it to make much needed changes.

To all those fighting for this cause, good luck and Godspeed. With any luck and some very talented people leading the charge, this could be the beginning of a new era.

For additional information on Afghanistan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35369975/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35387923/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

http://www.newsweek.com/ID/232825

The first episode of PGI’s new podcast series is now available! Our first show features an interview with Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review on the media coverage surrounding the devastating earthquake in Haiti last month. Brainard speaks with Brianna Lee on how the coverage has been so far, the reporter/physician controversy, and the state of local Haitian media in the quake’s aftermath.

(If you cannot see the mp3 player above, you can download the podcast here: http://www.perspectivesonglobalissues.com/Curtis Brainard.mp3