My RankingsMy critique of the manifesto proposes that cyber-terrorism is an excellent addition to the Global Security Matrix. In theory, the category makes much sense, but I wanted to conduct some research to further investigate this topic. A 2002 article written by Mark Ward for the BBC blames overzealous American officials for hyping up the idea of terrorists attacking their targets in cyberspace. The article points out that disrupting services we have all come to depend on via the Internet pales in comparison to bombings and other physical acts of terrorism. Ward quotes security expert Bruce Schneier: “Breaking pager networks and stopping e-mails is not an act of terror…If I cannot get my e-mail for a day, I am not terrorised. [sic]” A 2005 article in the Christian Science Monitor is much more specific and less pessimistic about the prospects of such attacks creating large-scale ramifications. The article mentions cyber assaults on power grids and chemical processing plants as possible tangible manifestations of this form of terrorism. The author, Nathaniel Hoopes, also presents the notion of a cyber attack that is coupled with a physical assault resulting in a debilitated response by officials during the subsequent emergency. My conclusion mirrors that of the Global Security Matrix’s manifesto in some ways. Although cyber-terrorism is currently regarded as a minor threat, it has the potential to cause immense damage to an economy and could be used to augment the impact of an attack if used properly. Links: Cyber-terrorism Failed States Posted by Joshua Rosenthal on October 6, 2006 12:40 PM | Permalink |
Ranking ExplanationMy threat ranking focused on the ever exacerbated problem of resource conflict and failed states to the stability of the international system. I do not see pandemics and environmental degredation as posing a threat to system survival and continued expansion anywhere comporable to the competition of actors over natural gas, oil, metals, timber, and other necessary goods that fuel the global economy. A pandemic, while devastating when it strikes, is a spontaneous event and periodic in its devastation. The Bubonic Plague, which cose Europe one quarter of its population between 1347-48, was a consequence of overcrowding, almost non-existent sanitation standards, and horrific urban management. Nevertheless, the impact of the plague did not see Europe fundamentally shift its political and economic foundations (with the possible exception of reduced Church attendance and increased banditry). Westphalia would take place more than three centuries later. In fact, it is during periods of modern pandemics or threats from them (e.g AIDS, SARS, of the Avian Flu) that states strengthen pre-existing levels of cooperation and the international system becomes less exposed to critical danger. In my estimation, therefore, pandemics pose little true danger to states, systems, or networks. Their periodic occurence reduces them as a sustained global threat. Failed states and resource conflicts are, however, lethal and continuous threats to the international system that cannot be underestimated. Increased competition and the desire for strategic advantage has led to higher rates of intrastate rivalry (Sierra Leone for the diamond trade, Somalia for basic food stuffs, Cote D'Ivoire for ivory, and Middle Eastern oil). These resource conflicts have led to fundamental adjustments of foreign policy. Putin is eyeing for a possible military reaction to Iranian moves in the hopes of driving up oil prices for his national reserves. The Chinese import close to 1/4 of their crude from Iran, and had previously invested heavily in Saddam Hussein's regime. Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, has argued for increased coca leaf production and nationalized his state's natural gas facilities, leading to ire from Washington. Posted by Boris Ryvkin on October 1, 2006 03:16 PM | Permalink |
Rankings of MatrixI am going to focus on explaining why the most red blocks/ highest security threats of my matrix are concentrated on humans for States at Risk, Resource Conflict and Pandemics. I believe that individuals are greatly affected when states fail. The government is no longer able to provide important needs such as education, security or governance. Without these basic functions, people fall victim to competing factions, civil war, poverty, displacement etc. For example, the war in Bosnia which took 200,000 lives and up rooted thousands of people was caused by the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. (Lecture by Professor Andres of PS40) It is the people who suffer the most from a failed government and even though it might not seem like a huge threat to us in the United States but it is a huge threat to more unstable states. Another area in my matrix where humans on an individual level are threaten the most by is resource conflict. I picked resource conflict as a great threat because as I mentioned in my critique of the Global Security Manifesto, people are being hurt and killed because of the need and want of vital and luxury resources. If the United States is fighting the war in Iraq to safeguard its oil interest, think about how many lives of soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being negatively affected by this? Also, there are so parts of the world like India, China, Philippines, Africa where people don’t have enough water or food and this lowers the standard of living for them and puts safety and well-being at stake. The last area which I want to discuss is the threat of pandemics to human individuals. We all know that diseases like AIDS and SARS are life threatening diseases, however, they might seem removed or distant threats to a lot of us who have had no interaction with people who have the disease or no interaction with the disease itself. I lived in Hong Kong during the SARS epidemic and experienced it first hand. At that time it was very much a real and scary threat. People were catching it everyday and people were dying every week. I felt that if there was something that was going to hurt me it would have been SARS. Posted by Brietta Tsang on October 1, 2006 01:22 PM | Permalink |
Rankings Explanation - Cristina FoungIn the following few paragraphs, I will attempt to explain my rankings of high risk in the areas of environment, resource conflict, and pandemics, and how all three are interconnected. The environment affects everyone and everything. Since the Industrial Revolution, human impacts on the environment have increased exponentially. For example, climate change is a threat to all actors, from human to state to system to global. Change in weather patterns and intensification of storms cause damage to homes and businesses and affects agriculture. Sea level rise threatens the very existence of small island states and coastal regions. Environmental degradation and changes can cause human health impacts, such as the spread of disease. As we (as the human race) overexploit our resources, conflict will arise. This resource conflict is and will continue to be exacerbated by climate change and its impacts on ecosystems. It is interesting to note that few people have noted pandemics as a global security threat. I agree with Emeline Lemoine that pandemics are in fact a great risk for human health. As Emeline notes, HIV and AIDS are continuously destructive. Other illnesses are also risks. The reemergence of infectious diseases thought to be eradicated, such as tuberculosis, is a serious threat. Environmental changes can cause the spread of diseases such as malaria and cholera through contaminated water supplies. As temperatures rise and as certain areas become moister, mosquito borne illnesses will arise where they have not been seen before. However, currently the big name pandemic that everyone is talking about is bird flu. While I do not think that I will contract bird flu from the organic smoked chicken breast I ate yesterday, pandemics are real. And while the spread of avian flu has mostly been seen due to sick domesticated and farmed birds and human-to-human transmission appears to be rare, influenza viruses change. Beyond the potential for the development of new strains (and particularly more resistant, infectious strains), avian influenza is interesting given the system of globalization: in a study of influenza patterns, two researchers with Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School indicated that a 27% decrease in flight activity delayed the spread of flu viruses by two weeks; they estimate that given air travel reductions, an avian flu pandemic could be delayed by up to two months. Resource conflict is widespread. The definition of the Global Security Manifesto includes “critical and scarce resources,” such as water, food, medicine, and oil. Water access has been an important issue throughout history. It is just as important today: Article 1; Article 2. Water in turn affects agriculture as well as human health. In many states, where water is an issue, access to medicine and health care is also an issue, giving rise to a double-edged sword. Without access to clean drinking water, illnesses can be contracted. Without access to medicine, illnesses cannot be alleviated. However, as noted by Joshua Rosenthal, resource conflict can be extended to include luxury goods, such as coffee and diamonds. Conflict and harm have been widespread due to such goods which can hardly be classified as necessities. A hazardous environment is the greatest global security threat because it affects all aspects of human life. No network or system or state or human can be effective if the globe is unhealthy. Posted by Cristina Foung on October 1, 2006 12:07 PM | Permalink |
Rankings on the Global Security MatrixThe rankings I proposed for the Global Security Matrix are the result of my interpretation of global security threats. The key levels to consider here vary depending on the threat that is being considered. Due to the word limit, I will focus on the rankings which I considered most important and why. Posted by Ivan Maldonado on October 1, 2006 11:55 AM | Permalink |
Justification of Rankings - Nick Greenfield In performing my threat analysis, I tried to constrain myself in a few ways which I thought might enhance an outsider’s ability to compare my rankings. I performed my ranking horizontally rather than vertically; an action that I hope will emphasize the relative danger of various threats within each paradigm. I find this preferable to a horizontal ranking, because it allows me to rank (1 through 8) the dangers to a specific category, and then compare the gravest threats by paradigm (the horizontal approach, it seems to me, requires a somewhat arbitrary assignment of values as the number of values (8) exceeds the number of categories (5)). By forcing each threat into a hierarchy, I hope not to express one’s supreme importance, but rather to facilitate easy comparison. Posted by Nick Greenfield on October 1, 2006 11:45 AM | Permalink |
Explanation of my RankingsOut of the rankings that I choose, I feel that the biggest threat on a global scale which incorporates all other levels, is the environment. I think that we can all agree, except for some ultra-conservative denying scientists that this is a huge threat which we all equally face. The article which I bookmarked deals with how NASA;s mission was recently changed. This obviously is a concern for the environment, since if organizations like NASA have their ability to research the effects of global warming ripped from under them, this not only is a problem for the environment because we are ignoring the problem, but also since we are controlling the discourse. If research of the environment is slowed down or even halted in some areas, it keeps the problem out of the limelight, a major bonus to the energy sector which is invested in this issue being pushed to the margins. The other ranking which I believe is a large threat on the state level is the proliferation of WMD’s. Countries like North Korea which has 100,000 well-trained special operations forces and one of the largest biological and chemical arsenals poses concern for state security. Supposedly North Korea has stockpiles of biological weapons like anthrax and the plague (see the bookmarked article on North Korea that I posted). It is also impossible for us to know how much of a threat Russia poses to us since we do not have a correct count on what and how many WMD’s they have. Posted by Samantha Munro on October 1, 2006 10:32 AM | Permalink |
Explanation of my RankingI just completed my ranking of the international threats. As I can’t justify myself for each one, I chose to explain three of them. The three examples I chose are: the impact of pandemics on humans, the impact of terrorism on the system and the impact of WMDs on a global scale. I did not choose to examine those three rankings because I consider that they are the biggest threats but rather because my ranking is higher than the class’s average and I think that it is interesting to justify my decision. I consider that pandemics are one of the most important threats for humans nowadays, especially considering the impact of AIDS in the world. My argument is mainly based on a study made by UNAIDS in 2005: Secondly, in my matrix grid, I gave a quite high ranking to the terrorism threat on the international system. As much as terrorism can threaten humans and states, I think that it is mostly disruptive for the system. Indeed, terrorism clearly undermines the state system by giving it a fugitive adversary. Terrorism directly challenges the authority of the state and reconfigures the shape of the international society as terrorists become a new type a combatant. I consider that it is a threat to the current international system because terrorism blurs the limit between soldiers and criminals. The controversy over Guantanamo Bay prison and whether or not the presumed terrorists imprisoned there should be protected by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as prisoners of war is a good example. I think that the attacks on 09/11/2001 not only hit the United States as a country but also had an impact on the whole international society. It had consequences on the international society because it was the beginning of what it called a new type of terrorism bringing about a great deal of casualties but also because of the reaction of the states after the initial attack. Although the United Nations, as early as September 12th 2001, stated that the United States had a right to retaliate after the terrorist attacks and though the war in Afghanistan was authorized by the UN Security Council and encompassed an international coalition; the American “war on terror” caused a lot of controversies between countries, especially when the US took the decision to invade Iraq. The war in Iraq was illegal in the sense that it was not backed up by the Security Council. So terrorism modifies the international society directly by challenging the system of states and indirectly, through the way states respond to this new threat. Finally, I consider that weapons of mass destruction are a very important threat on a global level. I do not think that WMDs are the most important threat facing the world today and I gave environment and resource conflict a higher ranking but I consider that those two threats are almost self-explanatory and do not need as much clarification. During the cold war, any student would have put WMDs as the most critical threat facing the earth. But, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it seemed that the threat of a nuclear apocalypse was fading away. I partially agree with this statement. Indeed, I think that the prospect of a nuclear war between two countries is quite modest. However, I do not think that WMDs do not represent any threat anymore. I think that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially to terrorist groups is still an important threat nowadays. Indeed, the research of the French analyst, Bruno Tertrais (see for example http://www.eusec.org/tertrais.htm or http://aei.pitt.edu/1607/) shows that proliferation of WMDs is a serious threat in the world. The Non Proliferation Treaty (from 1968) on which the whole system of non proliferation of nuclear weapons is based, is clearly in crisis especially since it could not prevent North Korea or Iran from developing nuclear facilities (or even detect their programs). Moreover, networks such as the Doctor Khan’s network reveal an important breach in the regulation of WMDs. Considered as the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapon; A. Q. Khan provided nuclear technology and information to different countries, including North Korea and Iran. The biggest threat associated with WMDs is certainly terrorism. Without even considering the possibility of a transfer of technology to a terrorist group, the threat of seeing a terrorist organization launching a massive biological or chemical attack is high and could have very important consequences on the world. Posted by Emeline Lemoine on October 1, 2006 12:00 AM | Permalink |
Critique of Global Security Matrix as well as explanation of RankingsThe Global Security Manifesto presents a clear and complete analysis of the threats facing humans, states, networks, systems and the globe as a whole. The structure of the Matrix allows a participant to clearly follow the more traditional threats to security, such as warfare, to the more modern constructions of fear, such as information war. The Manifesto offers detailed explanations of each threat as well as explaining the actors in global society. The examples it introduces, also provide the participant with background knowledge, which will inevitably help them pursue their own conclusions as to which threats constitute the greatest danger. With this knowledge a participant will be better able to rank particular threats to security on a personal, state, system, network and global basis. Although I think the Matrix Manifesto is very straightforward, there may be certain areas of overlap. For instance, while I think resource conflict is a threat to security, this conflict usually manifests itself in warfare or terrorism, and therefore could be included in either one of these particular areas of the Matrix. This is true for infowar as well. Although these threats to international security are prominent in the current system, the primary threat, in my opinion, to individuals, states, systems, networks and the globe as a whole, is still warfare. States exist in a constant state of competition and while these other threats can motivate fighting among states, the primary threat to the international system is warfare. I think that it is important to include the Environment in the Global Security Matrix because its abuse is increasingly becoming a danger to the world as a whole. I think Resource conflict is very tied to the Environment. If humans did not abuse the environment, reource conflict would certainly be less of a concern in international relations. I am, however, not that clear on how Resource conflict affects particular actors of the Global Security Matrix, such as networks or systems, so perhaps it does warrant its own category in the Security grid. All together, though, I do think the Manifesto provides a descriptive analysis of the threats facing the world today. Posted by Allison Wright on September 30, 2006 08:03 PM | Permalink |
RankingsMy critique of the manifesto proposes that cyber-terrorism is an excellent addition to the Global Security Matrix. In theory, the category makes much sense, but I wanted to conduct some research to further investigate this topic. A 2002 article written by Mark Ward for the BBC blames overzealous American officials for hyping up the idea of terrorists attacking their targets in cyberspace. The article points out that disrupting services we have all come to depend on via the Internet pales in comparison to bombings and other physical acts of terrorism. Ward quotes security expert Bruce Schneier: “Breaking pager networks and stopping e-mails is not an act of terror…If I cannot get my e-mail for a day, I am not terrorised. [sic]” A 2005 article in the Christian Science Monitor is much more specific and less pessimistic about the prospects of such attacks creating large-scale ramifications. The article mentions cyber assaults on power grids and chemical processing plants as possible tangible manifestations of this form of terrorism. The author, Nathaniel Hoopes, also presents the notion of a cyber attack that is coupled with a physical assault resulting in a debilitated response by officials during the subsequent emergency. My conclusion mirrors that of the Global Security Matrix’s manifesto in some ways. Although cyber-terrorism is currently regarded as a minor threat, it has the potential to cause immense damage to an economy and could be used to augment the impact of an attack if used properly. Movable Type ate my links, so here they are: Cyber-terrorism Failed States And on my first post: http://www.sierra-leone.org/panelreport.html (Sierra Leone) ~Josh Rosenthal Posted by Joshua Rosenthal on September 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Permalink |
