Tag: China
Is the Middle East only about oil?
Increasing energy demand in the East, decreasing energy demand in the West, and North America’s shale energy revolution have sparked debates regarding the future of OPEC and US-Arab relations. But focusing on energy risks neglect of non-energy dimensions. This week’s National Council on Arab Relations discussion hosted by the international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP discussed the myths and realities surrounding US-Arab energy relations. Paul Sullivan of NDU, former Shell President John Hofmeister and former Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy Randa Fahmy Hudome pariticipated. The discussion focused on the following questions:
1. Will increasing domestic energy supply cause the the US to disengage from the Middle East, jeopardize US-Arab relations and reduce American influence in the region?
Shale oil and gas have significantly boosted US prospects for attaining energy self-dependence. Projections suggest the US will become a net oil exporter by 2030. Natural gas will replace oil as the country’s main fuel. BP goes so far as to declare the US will become 99% energy self-sufficient by 2030. With this increased supply the US has reduced its oil and gas imports from every Arab country except Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Despite the reduced imports, Middle Eastern stability and protection of the energy resources there remain a US priority. Because the oil market is a global one, the US still has an interest in continuing its role as protector of the choke points, sea-lanes of communication and stability needed to secure world access to Middle Eastern energy resources.
Paul Sullivan emphasized the importance of “virtual energy.” China imports 90% of its oil from the Middle East. A disruption in that flow would affect the price and access to imported Chinese goods. Any US import from China (or India, or Japan, or South Korea, or Europe for that matter) is a “virtual” import from the Middle East. Reduced dependence on Middle East energy imports will not end the strategic importance of the Middle East or strong relations with the Arabs for the US.
2. Is there more to the US-Arab relationship than oil?
The energy dimension represents only one aspect of US-Arab relations. The US and Arab nations cooperate in the defense, military, intelligence sectors, on cyber security and financial markets. If strengthened, these aspects could ensure the survival of strong US-Arab relations despite the decreased relevance of the energy relationship.
Fahmy Hudome noted that OPEC too has begun to invest heavily in renewables. Saudi Arabia plans on generating a third of its electricity from solar energy by 2030, and has formed a joint venture with the US SolarReserve to pursue this goal. The UAE is investing in nuclear energy and signed the 123 Agreement with the US. Fahmy Hudome suggested policymakers view the relationship between the US and the Middle East as cooperative, not adversarial.
3.With the evolution of natural gas as a transport fuel, will OPEC lose its relevance in the energy market?
John Hofmeister was adamant that OPEC’s price-setting days are numbered. He argued that reduced US dependence on oil imports and China’s unilateral approach to energy security through cash-for-oil undermines the cartel. Natural gas will replace oil as a cheaper, more available alternative. Liquid natural gas could increase train and freight mobility in the US and compressed natural gas could fuel the trucking industry. Natural gas can also be converted into methanol, a cheaper, more-efficient alternative to ethanol. With natural gas’s comparative practicality and affordability there is no question the cartel will lose relevance, Hofmeister argued.
Hudome was less convinced. She rejects the idea that the shift in global energy demand and supply represents a zero-sum game between the US and the Middle East. The US and its Arab partners can both gain from the rise of natural gas and renewables. She argued world energy supply and demand projections base themselves on difficult to predict variables: shale oil, the rise of renewable energy, and the future regulatory environment in the US. All these factors will influence OPEC’s future role in the global energy market.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks April 2 – 5
We are late with the peace picks, but here they are for the remainder of the week:
1. Nagorno-Karabakh: Understanding Conflict, Tuesday April 2, 4:30 PM- 6:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Rome Building, Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW DC
Students from the January 2013 SAIS trip to the Caucasus region will discuss their findings and present reports based on their interviews with leaders and members of international organizations in the region about the roots of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-04-02…
2. ‘New Challenges in Europe and the Middle East: A Conversation With Julianne Smith’, Tuesday April 2, 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Rome Building Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW DC
Speakers: Julianne Smith
Julianne Smith, U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Office of the Vice President, will discuss this topic.Note: The speakers comments will be off the record. A reception will follow the event immediately after in Room 812, Rome Building.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-04-02…
3. Colombia: Land and the Agenda for Peace, Wednesday April 3, 1:00 PM -5:30 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington
Speakers: Absalón Machado, Carlos Salgado, Ricardo Sabogal, Ángela Suárez Álvarez, Zoraida Castillo, Yamilé Salinas and more
Five months ago, formal peace talks were launched between the government of Colombia and the FARC-EP guerrillas. The early rounds of talks have focused on the issue of agrarian development-the first of six agreed agenda items. Highly skewed land tenure patterns, a root cause of Colombia’s longstanding internal armed conflict, have worsened over time as guerrilla insurgents, paramilitary groups, drug traffickers, agro-industrialists and the State battle for control of land, resources, and geo-strategic corridors. This violence has displaced five million Colombians, forced the evacuation of an estimated 20 million hectares of land, and produced a ‘reverse agrarian reform’ that consolidates one of the most inequitable land tenure systems in the world. What proposals are being developed to address these land inequities, to restitute the victims of Colombia’s internal armed conflict, and to build sustainable peace?
Please join us on April 3, 2013 to discuss the relationship of land and the peace agenda. The event will provide a platform for discussion among a variety of stakeholders from the U.S. and Colombian governments, victims and affected parties, academics, international organizations, and NGOs. This event is co-sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace and the U.S. Office on Colombia, with the support of U.S. Agency for International Development, U.N. Development Program, Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Mercy Corps, Inter-American Foundation, and Lutheran World Relief.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/colombia-l…
4. Muslim Nationalists and the New Turks — A Conversation with Jenny White, Wednesday April 3 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 Lindner Family Commons
Speakers: Jenny White
Jenny White, Associate Professor and Director, Undergraduate Studies, Anthropology Department, Boston University
Jenny White is an associate professor and director of undergraduate studies in the anthropology department at Boston University. She is the former president of the Turkish Studies Association and of the American Anthropological Association Middle East Section, and sits on the board of the Institute of Turkish Studies. She is the author of Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics (2002, winner of the 2003 Douglass Prize for best book in Europeanist anthropology) and Money Makes Us Relatives: Women’s Labor in Urban Turkey (second edition, London: Routledge, 2004). She also has written three historical novels set in 19th century Istanbul, The Sultan’s Seal (2006), The Abyssinian Proof (2008), and The Winter Thief (2010).
She will be discussing her most recent book: Muslim Nationalists and the New Turks.
*A book signing and wine reception will follow. Limited copies of the book will be available for GW students.*
RSVP: tinyurl.com/afppzwu
Sponsored by the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/c…
5. China’s Maritime Disputes in the East and South China Seas,Thursday April 4 9:00 AM- 3:00 PM
Venue: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE, Washington, DCG-50
The hearing will explore the security, political, and economic drivers of China’s maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas. In addition, this hearing will examine the implications of these disputes for the United States as well as prospects for resolution.
Website: http://www.uscc.gov
6. Women in a Changing Middle East: An Address by Under Secretary of State Tara Sonenshine, Thursday, April 4 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Falk Auditorium Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW D.C.
Speakers: Tamara Cofman Wittes, The Honorable Tara Sonenshine
As Arab citizens struggle to rewrite the rules defining their societies, the role and status of Arab women is a sharp focus of debate. Arab women have been at the forefront of change, but have also faced unprecedented challenges. How central is women’s empowerment to the success of Arab societies, and how important are women’s rights in the struggle for democracy? What is the U.S. doing to help Arab women (and men) to advance women and girls in their societies?
On April 4, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine for an address on women in the Middle East. Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate a discussion with Under Secretary Sonenshine after her remarks.
Website: http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~r/Broo…
7. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Next Four Years, Thursday April 4 6:00 PM-7:15 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Lindner Family Commons,
Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, D.C.
Speakers: Maurice Mickey East, Harry Harding, Michael E. Brown, Hope M. Harrison
Maurice Mickey East, Dean, School of Public and International Affairs, GW (1985-1987); Dean, School of International Affairs, GW (1987-1988); Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW (1988-1994)
Harry Harding, Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW
(1995-2005)
Michael E. Brown, Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW (2005-Present)
Moderated by:
Hope M. Harrison, Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
RSVP: go.gwu.edu/ThreeDeans
Sponsored by the Elliott School of International Affairs
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/c…
8. Afghan Elections: One Year to Go, Friday April 5 10:00 AM-12:00 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW D.C.
Speakers: Nader Nadery, Scott Smith, Hossai Wardak, Scott Worden
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET on April 5, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast.
April 5 marks the start of the one-year countdown to Afghanistan’s presidential election. Because of constitutional term limits, this will be the first time in post-9/11 Afghanistan that Hamid Karzai is not on a presidential ballot. The fact that this unprecedented handover of presidential power occurs in the same year that international forces hand over security responsibility to Afghan national forces further increases the importance of the presidential election.
Afghans frequently highlight the inter-related nature of the upcoming security and political transitions in Afghanistan, and the importance of elections that produce a legitimate outcome for future peace and stability of Afghanistan. Furthermore, previous flawed elections have made many Afghans doubt the integrity of the democratic process.
If the April 5 election is not a marked improvement on past elections, the democratic progress that Afghanistan has made so far will be put in jeopardy. Please join a panel of experts at USIP to discuss the critically important technical and political issues that need to be addressed during the next 365 days in order for the elections to produce a credible and legitimate outcome.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/afghan-ele…
9. Women’s Roles in Terrorist Movements, Friday April 5 6:00 PM-8:00 PM, Institute of World Politics
Venue: Institute of World Politics, 1521 16th Street NW DC
Speakers: Paula Holmes-Eber, Christopher C. Harmon
This event is hosted by IWP’s Student Government Association.
In the Latin, Asian, Middle Eastern, and European regions, revolutionary political movements have been accepting and deploying women in various and important roles: cadre; mid-level organizers; intelligence agents; couriers; combatants of many sorts; and suicide bombers. In unusual cases, women have also held senior leadership posts in undergrounds; a few have run their own terror organizations. What are the reasons for, and effects of, incorporating females into sub-state fighting organizations? What are the ‘lessons learned’ for intelligence analysts, military personnel, and students of the social sciences focused on culture and war?
IWP is holding a lecture-and-discussion opening to such issues on Friday, April 5, at 6:00 PM. The speakers are Dr. Paula Holmes-Eber (anthropologist) and Dr. Christopher C. Harmon (who teaches a terrorism course for IWP). Both represent Marine Corps University in Quantico, VA.
Paula Holmes-Eber, Ph.D. is Professor of Operational Culture at Marine Corps University. She is responsible for creating and teaching curricula on cultural aspects of conflict for all four schools at the university: Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College, School of Advanced Warfighting and Marine Corps War College. She also supports and advises staff at the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning, Quantico, VA on academic matters concerning warfighting and culture, Islam, Arab society and North Africa.
Dr. Holmes-Eber completed her Master’s and Doctoral degrees in Anthropology from Northwestern University. She holds a B.A. magna cum laude from Dartmouth College, a Certificate in African Studies from Northwestern University and a Certificate in Tunisian Arabic from the Ecole Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes in Tunis, Tunisia. Her research and expertise focus on kinship and social networks in Arab and Muslim culture in North Africa.
Prior to her current position at Marine Corps University, Dr. Holmes-Eber was an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a Visiting Scholar in the Middle East Center at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. She is fluent in French, Arabic, German and Italian and has lived and traveled in over forty countries around the world including Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Israel, Mongolia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Russia and Tonga.
Christopher C. Harmon, Ph.D. has had 21 years of teaching security studies, strategy, military theory & history, and courses on terrorism at six graduate schools, including a division of National Defense University, and the Naval War College.
Currently, he teaches Terrorism and Counterterrorism at IWP and is MajGen Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University.
Dr. Harmon has served as Curricula Director for the Program on Terrorism and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch Germany. He has also served as the Kim T. Adamson Chair of Insurgency & Terrorism, Marine Corps University at Quantico, VA, and as Professor of International Relations at the University’s Command and Staff College. He has done academic research fellowships with the Earhart Foundation; Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Claremont Institute.
Dr. Harmon holds a B.A. in History and French Language from Seattle University, where he graduated summa cum laude, and an M.A. in Government and a Ph.D. in International Relations and Government from Claremont Graduate School.
Dr. Harmon is the author of Terrorism Today, co-author of Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism, and co-editor of Statecraft and Power. His article ‘Spain’s ETA Terrorist Group is Dying’ was published in the geopolitics journal ORBIS in Fall 2012.
Website: http://www.iwp.edu/events/detail/wome…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Beijing needs to reign in Pyongyang
North Korea’s announcement that it plans to reopen its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon clarifies at least one reason for its belligerent statements in recent weeks. It will take some years to restart the reactor, which was partly dismantled in a 2007 deal that Pyongyang has in effect renounced. Kim Jong-un is however making it clear that North Korea intends to remain a nuclear weapons power. He (rightly) perceives that the United States would like to see his regime collapse and his people liberated. Nuclear weapons are his security guarantee.
It is doubtful he can be bought off this idea. Pyongyang has appointed a (relatively) “reformist” prime minister, one likely at least to continue the liberalization of the agricultural sector that has reduced economic pressure on the regime in recent years. The people of North Korea are used to extraordinarily harsh conditions. It does not take much to make them feel better off.
The White House is making it clear it sees no signs of preparation for war on the part of Pyongyang. The American deployments of aircraft during the ongoing military exercises with South Korea are intended to back Seoul but also restrain it from precipitating a conflict.
So should we forget about Pyongyang and turn our attention back to Iran? No. Iran is apparently going to be well behaved on nuclear issues at least until its election in June. South Korea will be under enormous pressure to respond if the North were to attack. Even if both sides remain restrained, the Americans have a serious problem with North Korea, which has threatened to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to forget about the threat just because the capability does not exist today.
How long will it take to acquire the capability? It is hard of course to tell, but easy to picture that in ten years Pyongyang could have both the missiles and the nuclear weapons to strike Japan if not the United States. I’d be surprised if there weren’t someone in the Pentagon suggesting that it would be better to deal with that threat now rather than wait. If North Korea attacks the South, Americans and Koreans may be surprised at the extent and force of the response.
War on the Korean peninsula is a frightening proposition, even if a strike on North Korea’s missile and nuclear facilities were 100% successful. Pyongyang would presumably respond with a massive artillery barrage against Seoul, which is well within range. Who knows what the Chinese would do. Last time there was war in Korea they threw their full weight behind the North. South Korea is a major economic power these days that could suffer massive damage. Spread of conflict to Japan and Taiwan is not inconceivable.
Even if the prospects are not good, we are thrown back to the need for diplomacy to restrain North Korea. That’s where Beijing comes in. The Chinese don’t like the idea of a nuclear North Korea. They are terrified of anything that would open the door to a massive flow of refugees from the hermit kingdom. As next door neighbors and allies, it is up to Beijing to reign in Kim Jong-un. If they fail to do so, the consequences could be catastrophic.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Optimism/diplomats = courage/soldiers
Chas Freeman appeared Thursday at the Carnegie Endowment to introduce his new collection of essays on China, Interesting Times: China, America and the Shifting Balance of Prestige. Those who know Washington will understand right away that such an event promises more wonkish amusement than dry analysis, as Chas is one America’s premier racconteurs and iconoclasts. From his early reference to DC’s “belief tanks” to his later claim that optimism is to diplomats what courage is to soldiers, Chas was in good form. To acclaim by several in the audience, he characterized the Chinese system as a unique form of “cadre capitalism”: a party-based system of political boosterism and entrepreneurialism.
But he was also serious in trying to dispel the misperceptions that cloud American and Chinese views of each other. Americans view the Chinese as their mirror image. But in fact the Chinese do not share our interest in military power, especially of the naval sort. China is an Asian land power as much as it is an Asian Pacific sea power. The Chinese are emerging from a lengthy period of weakness and humiliation, but their main concerns are economic and social. Our focus on the military dimensions of competition with China could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Americans need a more multidimensional and multilateral approach to China. This should not aim for dominance. Chinese power is growing far too rapidly for that. We have to be realistic about our own influence and power, especially in the current political and budgetary environment. The pivot to Asia was the right thing to do, but we should be careful not to let it be seen as antagonistic to China. Polarization will not serve our purposes. Nor will the Trans-Pacific Partnership. How can we hope to establish an economic partnership that excludes the biggest and most important economy in the region?
Chinese leaders are feeling domestically vulnerable, as the ideological underpinnings of the Communist system have rotted away. The leadership knows China needs economic, legal and political reform. Legitimacy is now based excessively on development, including breakneck export growth that has to give way to greater domestic consumption. Rule of law is lacking. The Chinese are defensive and suspicious, as they have no political model to offer the rest of the world. But the leadership is trying to dampen nationalism, not inflame it. Beijing wants to avoid territorial conflicts with neighbors, which in any event should not concern the US. China will not challenge freedom of navigation. It defends the Westphalian state system. We are the revolutionaries introducing new elements like responsibility to protect, which the Chinese see as destabilizing.
The “China dream” is not something Americans should fear. It is still inchoate. Xi Jingping thinks a great nation needs a great dream, but he hasn’t really said what it is to be. The Chinese are creating alternatives to the Bretton Woods financial institutions, but that is due to our own refusal to institute governance reforms that reflect the growing power of the BRICs and other emerging powers. On the many demographic, environmental and social challenges China faces, Chas was confident the Chinese would be able to manage.
What did he say about optimism and diplomats?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The dogs of war: bark or bite?
Tension has been building for weeks on the Korean peninsula. Kim Jong-un has unleashed a string of threats against South Korea and the United States after conducting a missile launch in December and a nuclear test in February in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. He gains domestic traction from this belligerence, something he no doubt needs after succeeding to the presidency last December at under 30 years of age. He also hopes for payoffs from the international community, which have been a common response to North Korean provocations in the past.
President Obama had been inclined to a low key response. The North Korean threats all too clearly aim at extorting aid and trade from the outer world. The President has said he won’t play that game.
Yesterday the Americans chose a different course: they advertised the flight of B2 stealth bombers from the United States that conducted a mock bombing mission at a range in South Korea. This was part of a military exercise the Americans and South Koreans regard as routine but the North objects to. The implication was clear: if the North attacks the South, the United States will assist in the military response.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The best account I’ve heard of the rest of it is Tom Gjelten’s piece on NPR this morning. It makes clear that the United States has committed itself to joint, coordinated action with the South against the North, if the North attacks and the Americans are consulted and agree on the response. But the bottom line of the piece is that the North may be getting enough of what it wants from threatening to attack and therefore will not go through with it.
For the Americans, there is a great temptation here. Diplomatic efforts to block North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and longer-range missiles with which to deliver them have failed. It is now only a matter of a few years before North Korea acquires and deploys a serious nuclear arsenal. This, it figures, will deter efforts at regime change and ensure regime survival, nullifying both internal and external threats. A sufficient Northern military provocation could give the Americans a reason to strike at Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear infrastructure. While some of it is hardened, the US could conceivably set back the North’s efforts at least a few years. Someone might hope Iran would take heed too.
The failure of diplomatic efforts may make that attractive to some in Washington. Making it appear a real possibility might also be useful in rousing China to do its best to restrain the North Koreans. The last thing Beijing wants is an American air intervention next door, especially one that might generate large numbers of refugees.
The United States does not need a war on the Korean peninsula either. However it turns out–and there is never a guarantee that things go well in war–it would cause serious damage to relations with China and give the pivot to Asia–intended as a peaceful and diplomatic effort–an entirely different cast. South Korea also has a great deal to lose if things get out of hand: the North can unleash a frightening barrage of artillery on Seoul. Let’s hope the dogs of war are barking and not biting.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How serious is the cyber threat?
By now, Americans should be thoroughly acclimated to exaggerations of threat: the Soviet threat was inflated, the Iraq weapons of mass destruction threat was inflated, and the global terrorism threat has been inflated. Now we’ve got the Defense Science Board (DSB) and the Director of National Intelligence warning about cyber threats and the National Security Advisor fingering China. So how serious is the situation, and how far should we go in responding to it?
Like all the threats that came before it, cyber sounds serious enough: foreign powers could not only steal your emails and block your internet access but also disrupt power and water supplies, purloin valuable commercial secrets and render US military operations unusable, including our nuclear forces. If you believe the newspapers, we know the Chinese are already grabbing emails from organizations they are interested in as well as intercepting commercially important plans and data. We also know from the press that Israel and the US have used cyber attacks to slow the Iranian nuclear enrichment program, which suggests a capability to disrupt vital infrastructure. Iranians are smart–if we’ve done something to them, you can be pretty sure they are trying to figure out how to do it to us. The Chinese won’t be sitting on their laurels either.
The DSB gives this graphic description of the consequences of a full-spectrum cyber attack on US forces:
…attacks would be expected to include denial of service, data corruption, supply chain corruption, traitorous insiders, kinetic and related non-kinetic attacks at all altitudes from underwater to space. U.S. guns, missiles, and bombs may not fire, or may be directed against our own troops. Resupply, including food, water, ammunition, and fuel may not arrive when or where needed. Military Commanders may rapidly lose trust in the information and ability to control U.S. systems and forces. Once lost, that trust is very difficult to regain.
But that is only the military piece. A full-spectrum cyber attack would also target civilian systems:
The impact of a destructive cyber attack on the civilian population would be even greater with no electricity, money, communications, TV, radio, or fuel (electrically pumped). In a short time, food and medicine distribution systems would be ineffective; transportation would fail or become so chaotic as to be useless. Law enforcement, medical staff, and emergency personnel capabilities could be expected to be barely functional in the short term and dysfunctional over sustained periods. If the attack’s effects were reversible, damage could be limited to an impact equivalent to a power outage lasting a few days. If an attack’s effects cause physical damage to control systems, pumps, engines, generators, controllers, etc., the unavailability of parts and manufacturing capacity could mean months to years are required to rebuild and reestablish basic infrastructure operation.
While warning about the societal threats, the DSB focuses its recommendations on the Department of Defense. Most of what they say seems reasonable to me, though I confess I find it difficult to imagine–as the DSB does–the use of nuclear weapons to deter an “existential” cyber attack. We are going to threaten to nuke the nerds? We are not even likely to know which country they’ve launched their attack from.
The DSB proposes a three-tiered response to cyberthreats: defense, consequence management and deterrence. Here is where things get hard. Exaggeration of a threat is not in and of itself necessarily harmful, except insofar as it diverts resources from higher priorities. But it is arguable that we’ve done more damage to ourselves responding to threats than the threats themselves were likely to do. There aren’t too many people who think the Iraq war was worth it, since Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons and we’ll be paying the trillion-dollar bill for decades. The Soviet space threat got us excited enough to go to the moon, but how much good has that done for people in Peoria?
It would be easy to do serious damage to the openness of the internet and the social media it has spawned by too much concern about cybersecurity. Lots of us are already struggling to remember all our damn passwords and usernames. Adding levels of unnecessary security will make our entire economy less efficient and the benefits of openness more difficult to obtain. I’m really not all that concerned with the Chinese reading my emails. In fact, it might make them a bit less competitive than they would otherwise be.
I don’t mean to pooh-pooh the threat. I only mean to urge us not to overreact. Wisdom, not panic, should be the mood. What really needs to be done to reduce the vulnerability of our vital infrastructure? What are the cheapest and best means? The DSB takes a “systems” approach. That seems to me right: rather than clamping down on everything, which is the natural bureaucratic reaction, lets look at what is most serious and deal with that first. If our nuclear deterrent has to be protected from cyberattack, I’m all for it. But let’s not treat my emails the same way.
RSS - Posts
