Tag: Security

NATO’s Warsaw Summit

At the end of this week, leaders from the United States and Europe will convene in Warsaw, Poland, for a NATO summit. The meeting – only the second summit since Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine – will include high level strategic discussions, and will likely see the announcement of an increased NATO troop presence in the Baltic States to counter potential Russian aggression there.

The biggest question leaders intend to address in Warsaw is how to deter Russian aggression towards NATO members in Eastern Europe following its seizure of Crimea and involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. In effect, leaders will try to find a compromise solution which reassures NATO’s eastern members, provides additional deterrence, but does not provoke further military buildup and distrust from Russia. They will almost certainly fail in this endeavor.

In fact, the expected announcement of the deployment of 4 battalions of additional troops to the Baltics has already produced heated rhetoric from Russia. These deployments will likely lead to a Russian response, ratcheting up tensions and increasing the risk for inadvertent conflict in the region. In other words, they will contribute to a classic security spiral of mistrust and overreaction. The irony is that such deployments are largely symbolic, not strategic. Even four battalions will not change the fact that Russia could likely conquer the Baltics quickly if it so chose. And even though some would argue that their deterrent value is largely as a ‘tripwire,’ it isn’t clear why the existing Article V guarantee is insufficient for that purpose.

To be frank, in the focus on how to defend the Baltics, leaders have largely overlooked the low likelihood of a conflict in that region. For one thing, there is a qualitative difference between attacking Ukraine and attacking a NATO treaty member; Vladimir Putin certainly knows this. For another, Russia’s force posture simply doesn’t indicate that it has any intentions on the Baltics.

The Strategic Opportunity and Strategic Imperative of TTIP’s Success

In her Cato Online Forum essay about the strategic dimensions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, Fran Burwell of the Atlantic Council sees both opportunity and necessity in its successful conclusion.  The opportunity comes from – among other things – combining the strength of the transatlantic economies (which currently account for 46% of global GDP) through greater economic integration, which will provide the leverage necessary for the United States and Europe to continue to exert dominance over global trade rulemaking and standards setting.

The necessity of TTIP’s success stems from the threat to Europe (and, thus, to the transatlantic relationship) posed by Vladimir Putin, who is working to subvert the deal.  ”[F]ailure of the negotiations,” Burwell writes, “would be one of the best indications possible to Vladimir Putin and others that the U.S.-European partnership is just rhetoric without the capacity for action.”

Read Fran’s essay here.

Read the other essays published in conjunction with Cato’s TTIP conference last week here.

Europe Must Abide TTIP’s Geopolitical and Security Implications

In today’s Cato Online Forum essay, Judy Dempsey of Carnegie Europe argues that the geopolitical and security implications of TTIP are immense, and that the EU and its member states need to wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge reality. This is the third essay focused on the geopolitical implications of the TTIP published in conjunction with the Cato Institute conference taking place October 12.  Previous essays – to compare and contrast – were written by Phil Levy and Peter Rashish

Read them. Provide feedback.  And please register to attend the conference.

Geopolitical Dimensions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Four of the participants in next month’s Cato conference have written essays pertaining to the geopolitics surrounding TTIP.  Today, we publish two of those essays in our Online Forum.

First, in this piece, Phil Levy of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management notes the interrelatedness of economic and security interests in the TTIP and writes that “A successful TTIP would have a number of salutary effects on the geopolitical scene. The necessary corollary is that a failed TTIP effort could be costly…”

Second, in this piece, while acknowledging that “TTIP can be a valuable geopolitical tool for the United States,” Peter Rashish of Transnational Strategy Group LLC, also cautions that “policymakers need to weigh carefully how far trade policy should go in promoting U.S. foreign policy objectives.”

Your comments are welcome.

Topics:

Bandying “Terrorism”

George Clooney has now joined North Korea’s United Nations ambassador Ja Song Nam in bandying charges of “terrorism” against a foe. North Korea’s emissary in New York complained in July that the production of Sony’s film, The Interview, was “the most undisguised sponsoring of terrorism as well as an act of war.”

So, too, according to Clooney, was the threat leveled by unknown persons against theaters that might show the film: “Then, to turn around and threaten to blow people up and kill people, and just by that threat alone we change what we do for a living, that’s the actual definition of terrorism,” he said.

We don’t know more about the definition, but the ambassador and Mr. Clooney do teach us about usage. “Terrorism” is a debased, all-purpose charge anyone can use against anyone. There is a special variant of the word in which the results of an action provide conclusive evidence of the motive behind it. Because U.S. theaters yanked The Interview from their Christmas Day schedules, Clooney can plausibly call the threat “terrorism.” Had most people, like me, assumed the threat to be an idle prank, it would not have been terrorism.

I remain unpersuaded of a North Korean connection or anyone’s meaningful capacity or willingness to attack theaters. The most proximate cause of The Interview’s cancellation, it seems to me, is risk aversion on the part of theater owners’ lawyers. They apparently concluded that an attack could be a foreseeable cause of death and injury, for which owners could be liable. (Go ahead, reformers. Call trial lawyers “terrorists.”)

Subject matter expert Paddy Hillyard, a professor of sociology at Queen’s University, Belfast, eschews the term “terrorism” for reasons he articulated in a 2010 Cato Unbound. He participated in Cato’s study of terrorism and counterterrorism (conference, forum, book). I’m one of many who don’t believe that “cyberterrorism” even exists.

The greatest risk in all this is that loose talk of terrorism and “cyberwar” lead nations closer to actual war. Having failed to secure its systems, Sony has certainly lost a lot of money and reputation, but for actual damage to life and limb, you ain’t seen nothing like real war. It is not within well-drawn boundaries of U.S. national security interests to avenge wrongs to U.S. subsidiaries of Japanese corporations. Governments in the United States should respond to the Sony hack with nothing more than ordinary policing and diplomacy.

Libertarians Shouldn’t Want Perfect Security—Reply to Professor Epstein

I was pleased to see last week that Professor Epstein had penned a response to my criticism of his recent piece on Hoover’s Defining Ideas in which he argued against treating protection of civil liberties and privacy as “nonnegotiable” in the context of counterterrorism. It is not the disagreement that is pleasing, of course, but the opportunity to air it, which can foster discussion of these issues among libertarians while illustrating to the broader world how seriously libertarians take both security and liberty.

What’s most important in Professor Epstein’s rejoinder is what comes at the end. He says that I should “comment constructively on serious proposals” rather than take an a priori position that civil liberties and privacy will often impede expansions of government power proposed in the name of counterterrorism.

I believe that Professor Epstein and I share the same prior commitments–to limited government, free markets, and peace. Having left it implicit before, I’ll state that I, too, believe that protection of life and property is the primary function of the state. But I also believe that excesses in pursuit of security can cost society and our liberties more than they produce in benefits.

Some years of work on counterterrorism, civil liberties, and privacy bring me to my conclusions. I had put in a half-decade of work on privacy before my six years of service on the Department of Homeland Security’s privacy advisory committee began in 2005. While interacting with numerous DHS components and their programs, I helped produce the DHS Privacy Committee’s risk-management-oriented “Framework for Privacy Analysis of Programs, Technologies, and Applications.” From time to time, I’ve also examined programs in the Science and Technology Directorate at DHS through the Homeland Security Institute. My direct knowledge of the issues in counterterrorism pales in comparison to the 30+ experts my Cato colleagues and I convened in private and public conferences in 2009 and 2010, of course, but my analysis benefitted from that experience and from co-editing the Cato book: Terrorizing Ourselves: Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy is Failing and How to Fix It.

Whether I’m operating from an inappropriate a priori position or not, I don’t accept Professor Epstein’s shift of the burden. I will certainly comment constructively when the opportunity arises, but it is up to the government, its defenders, and here Professor Epstein to show that security programs are within the government’s constitutional powers, that such programs are not otherwise proscribed by the constitution, and that they cost-effectively make our society more secure.

The latter two questions are collapsed somewhat by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness, or “fit” between means and ends when a search or seizure occurs. And to the extent I can discern the program that Professor Epstein prefers, I have commented on it as constructively as I can.

Silicon Valley Doesn’t Care About Privacy, Security

That’s the buzz in the face of the revelation that a mobile social network called Path was copying address book information from users’ iPhones without notifying them. Path’s voluble CEO David Morin dismissed this as a problem until, as Nick Bilton put it on the New York TimesBits blog, he “became uncharacteristically quiet as the Internet disagreed and erupted in outrage.”

After Morin belatedly apologized and promised to destroy the wrongly gotten data, some of Silicon Valley’s heavyweights closed ranks around him. This raises the question whether “the management philosophy of ‘ask for forgiveness, not permission’ is becoming the ‘industry best practice’ ” in Silicon Valley.

Since the first big privacy firestorm (which I put in 1999, with DoubleClick/Abacus), cultural differences have been at the core of these controversies. The people inside the offending companies are utterly focused on the amazing things they plan to do with consumer data. In relation to their astoundingly (ahem) path-breaking plans, they can’t see how anyone could object. They’re wrong, of course, and when they meet sufficient resistance, they and their peers have to adjust to the reality that people don’t see the value they believe they’ll provide nor do people consent to the uses of data they’re making.

This conversation—the push and pull between innovative-excessive companies and a more reticent public made up of engineers, advocates, and ordinary people—is where the privacy policies of the future are being set. When we see legislation proposed in Congress and enforcement action from the FTC, these things are whitecaps on much more substantial waves of societal development.

An interesting contrast is the (ahem) innovative lawsuit that the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed against the Federal Trade Commission last week. EPIC is asking the court to compel the FTC to act against Google, which recently changed and streamlined its privacy policies. EPIC is unlikely to prevail—the court will be loathe to deprive the agency of discretion this way—but EPIC is working very hard to make Washington, D.C. the center of society when it comes to privacy and related values.

Washington, D.C. has no capacity to tune the balances between privacy and other values. And Silicon Valley is not a sentient being. (Heck, it’s not even a valley!) If a certain disregard for privacy and data security has developed among innovators over-excited about their plans for the digital world, that’s wrong. If a company misusing data has harmed consumers, it should pay to make those consumers whole. Path is, of course, paying various reputation costs for getting it crosswise to consumer sentiment.

And that’s the right thing. The company should answer to the community (and no other authority). This conversation is the corrective.

Pages