Bad actors, for example, would likely cheat on such a ban. Russia, for example, has a long track record of cheating on international agreements. As with all law, it is only the honest who follow the rules. The dishonest are incentivized to cheat in order to employ nuclear coercion, or even nuclear attack, in a time of crisis.

Scenario analysis of possible results from denuclearization suggest there is significant risk to such a move. Removing the constraints on conventional war, which mutual nuclear deterrence has provided since 1945, could serve as the catalyst for expanded conventional conflict. Disarmament would not eliminate nuclear arms design knowledge. Instead, the world would rely on a shaky monitoring regime to ensure no misuse of such knowledge.

Without the impediment of a nuclear-armed adversary, great-power war would return with gusto. Some simple actuarial calculations are revealing. First, about 80 million soldiers and civilians were killed in World War II. An equivalent war today, accounting for population growth, gives an approximate death toll of 325 million. This estimate could be too low, given modern military capabilities.

There is a myth that modern war produces less collateral damage and fewer civilian casualties due to precision-guided munitions, prevailing humanitarian restraint, and improved medicine. Actual conditions in Gaza, Syria, and Ukraine illustrate that this is a myth. Modern conventional warfare tends to equal the destructive capacity of that in the twentieth century.

Similarly, the idea that ethnic cleansing (genocide) is a thing of the past is also false. The Balkans, Ukraine, and Xinjiang are all examples.

Other likely side effects of conventional great-power war deserve consideration. War creates refugees, expanding troop requirements, violence, stress, deprivation, and overtaxed medical systems.

If Americans thought the loss of life during the COVID-19 pandemic was terrible, and the global death toll was about seven million, how many more will the next world war kill? Lest we forget, the American medical system was overtaxed by a flu virus that left only a small percentage of the population needing medical care. If the next world war brings the fight to the United States and the American people, the medical crisis will prove far greater.

Furthermore, during the next world war, the current focus on manufacturing consumer goods will shift to a focus on producing war materials as nations exhaust their financial resources to wage war. Environmental regulations, child labor laws, and the other luxuries of peace will certainly be cast aside as victory becomes the primary concern.

Nuclear disarmament also has another consequence that should enter the equation. The nation(s) losing the war or those fearful of being pulled into war may very well turn to the covert development of nuclear weapons to either win or prevent attack. In short, the genie will likely escape the bottle once again, but without the benefit of providing pre-war deterrence. The scientific knowledge and engineering know-how to build nuclear weapons will never go away. Neither will ample supplies of special nuclear material.

A race among combatants to be the first to build new nuclear weapons would likely result. With trust at zero, an incentive to go nuclear is certain. As a conventional World War III wore on, anger, panic, grief, and revenge would likely feed the collapse of restraint. A rebirth of the most powerful nuclear weapons possible is likely. International law would prove meaningless as the fear of defeat loomed. Events far more terrible than Hiroshima and Nagasaki may follow.

Advocates of nuclear abolition argue that without global denuclearization, the accidental launch of a nuclear weapon or use by miscalculation is very likely, even if deterrence never fails. The disarmament community wants it both ways, while ignoring basic human nature.

Focusing on solid risk-mitigation decisions is a better option than the risky course of nuclear abolition. Assertions that general nuclear war is inevitable and will kill millions before bringing about nuclear winter is bad science and worse strategy. It attributes high probabilities where none exist.

Effective nuclear deterrence can sustain peace as it has for seven decades. Efforts to abolish nuclear weapons are based on emotion rather than a well-founded understanding of human nature. It is time we fully consider the consequences of a world without nuclear weapons. They are certainly not attractive. We know what that world looks like because we have seen it before.

Aaron Holland is an Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.

Joe Buff is a risk-mitigation actuary researching modern nuclear deterrence and arms control. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own.

The Consequences of Nuclear Disarmament was originally published on Global Security Review.

In 2024, the world’s population surpassed 8 billion citizens. This is more than a 300 percent increase since 1950, which is an important year for global warming. It was this year when carbon-dioxide (CO₂) emissions began to increase dramatically—driving up the global temperature.

Today, the average American emits about 15 tons of greenhouse gases annually, while the average African emits less than 1 ton per year. The global mean is about 4.3 tons per person per year, a 4.8 percent increase over the previous year.

As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists points out, the planet is now feeling the devastating effects of the 1.1-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature since 1880. According to the Bulletin, recent global warming is responsible for the increased risk of wildfires, the rise of rare diseases, the decline in global crop yields, and may even cause a “mosquito-pocalypse.”

Nuclear weapons deserve a large share of blame for these events. Let me explain.

Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change

As the graph below illustrates, 1–2 percent of the global population, mostly civilians, perished annually because of war between 1600 and 1945. Since 1950, with the development and fielding of great-power nuclear arsenals, that number has declined to less than 0.1 percent.

It is no mere coincidence that the global population has increased 300 percent in only seven decades. The fielding of large nuclear arsenals by the United States and Russia ensured that the great powers and their allies would not engage in World War III, or any other great-power war, that historically ensured the planet did not become overpopulated. Built on a foundation of White privilege, nuclear deterrence created a fear of utter destruction, which completely eliminated great-power war and led to a marked decline in the frequency and severity of all conflict—causing the human population to explode. Thus, the check on population growth was removed.

These weapons not only limit war, but they also decrease defense expenditures and the resources required for reconstruction after war. For example, the United States spent almost half of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) waging a world war from 1942–1945. More recently, the United States spent at least $3 trillion fighting limited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, because of the Soviet and American nuclear arsenals, American defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, averaged a mere 5 percent during the Cold War and is now at a low of 3.5 percent.

The consequence of this reallocation of wealth from conventional warfare was unprecedented economic growth, which not only allowed populations to increase but also allowed societies to improve the health, prosperity, and consumption of their citizens—dramatically reducing poverty and increasing the average life expectancy (62 percent). This prosperity also led to the most rapid increase in technological development in human history.

The population growth and human prosperity brought about by seven decades of effective nuclear deterrence may appear to be a net positive, but a closer look reveals that human prosperity comes at the cost of devastating increases in the rate of global warming. There are simply more humans generating more greenhouse gases than ever, and the problem is only getting worse. There is a solution.

Solving the Climate Change Problem

It is time for the United States to take the lead in nuclear disarmament. If the United States, Great Britain, and France disarm, Russia, China, and North Korea will surely follow suit. The global community can then pressure India and Pakistan to disarm as well.

This does not mean we must put an end to war. Nuclear disarmament properly allows the world to return to waging large-scale conventional wars, which regulate population growth and economic prosperity. Such wars will help bring man-made global warming to an end. For example, a war between the United States, Russia, and China—post nuclear disarmament—would optimistically eliminate 80–160 million people. The planet would receive a respite in CO₂ production not enjoyed since the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns of 2020–2021.

The return to large-scale warfare will also ensure worldwide economic degrowth, which will further reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. It is only through a less prosperous world that we can ensure global warming ends. Another equitable feature of this strategy is that population will be reduced among the richest, most consumptive nations, possibly leaving room for some modest increases in the developing world.

Some may balk at this solution because they believe a return to great-power wars is not necessary because green energy will solve the problem. Unfortunately,  green energy’s high cost, unreliable energy production, and visible failures in Texas, Germany, and elsewhere are likely to turn people against a degrowth strategy relying on a green energy transition. Despite our best efforts, renewable energy simply cannot meet the insatiable demand of a wealthier and healthier global population. A return to widespread warfare is the only feasible solution.

It is time we follow the advice of Jonathan Swift, who, in his pamphlet, “A Modest Proposal: For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick,” courageously sought to solve the Irish poverty problem by encouraging the Irish to sell their children as food for the hungry. Making the world safe for war is an equally innovative approach to ending global warming and deserves the same consideration Swift’s proposal received. We must act before it is too late.

Postscript

For those wondering if this is a serious article, the answer should be obvious, no. The article employs a rhetorical technique, reductio ad absurdum or, as Jonathan Swift called it, satire, to make a point. In short, a world without nuclear weapons is prone to frequent great-power wars that create greater human misery. No amount of hope can change what history and human nature have, for at least five thousand years, shown to be true.

Adam Lowther, PhD, is Vice President of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

The Climate Change Consequences of Nuclear Weapons was originally published on Global Security Review.

The terms of extremism and terrorism have been used interchangeably. However, there is a crucial distinction between the terms: all terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists. Despite the latter, a fine line separates extremists from the turning point of embracing violence—thus becoming terrorists. This is because extremism is generally regarded as “the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and respect and tolerance for different faiths and beliefs” as per the 2015 UK’s Counter-Extremism Strategy. Furthermore, extremists may resort to terrorism to coerce governments and the general public to give in to their cause.

Over the past couple of decades, extremism and terrorism were mostly associated with religious causes, especially Islamic extremism, which present a persistent threat to numerous states. Yet, the current pandemic crisis may fuel such a risk and threats from other extremism categories. This includes the right-wing, left-wing, and single-issue extremism. While clearly articulating from now why and how the case is cumbersome, government and national security leaders can relate early warning signs to counter these threats.

Some arguments are claiming that terrorist groups are currently preoccupied with protecting their members against the coronavirus. However, different incidents that took place over April 2020 points to the direct opposite. In fact, in its mid-March al-Naba newsletter, ISIS urged its followers to launch attacks in times of crisis and show no mercy.

Earlier in April, 25 soldiers in Mali were killed in a jihadist attack. On the 14th of April, in an operation where one police officer killed, Egyptian security forces exchanged fire. They eliminated seven terrorists who were part of a cell planning to conduct attacks during the Easter holiday in Egypt. Also during mid-April, the Tunisian security authorities foiled a terrorist plan to spread the coronavirus to Tunisian security forces by coughing, sneezing, and spitting.

On the 21st of April 2020, it was announced that one of Europe’s most wanted terrorists and ISIS affiliate, Abdel Majed Abdel Bary, was recently arrested by the Spanish police in Almeria where he settled in during the coronavirus lockdown. Abdel Bary reached Spain via a boat, and local newspapers indicated that he intended to return to the UK. The return intentions of Abdel Bary – who was arrested with another two persons in his apartment – remains unclear. In France, on the 27th of April, a 29-year-old Frenchman was also arrested. The man, who was not identified, has slammed his car into police cars and motorcycles, injuring three officers. It was found that the man has pledged allegiance to ISIS in a letter found in his car. A couple of days later, in a statement by the Danish authorities on the 30th of April, the police in Denmark prevented a terrorist attack with a possible “militant Islamic motive.” The arrested man was already suspected of attempting to obtain ammunition and firearms. On the 30th of April, in one of the deadliest attacks that month, ten Egyptian army personnel were killed in a terrorist attack. The incident, which included an officer, a non-commissioned officer, and eight soldiers, had an improvised explosive device (IED) detonated under their armored vehicle in Bir El-Abd in North of Sinai.

Looking at Iraq, we can see a rise in ISIL (ISIS) operations over the past few months, wherein the first three months of 2020, 566 attacks were conducted by the group in Iraq. Not only that, the group’s attacks have intensified, but the group appears to be strengthening. Given their recent attacks in Syria and Iraq, it is argued that the current pandemic has already demonstrated how durable and resilient ISIS ais In addition to that, other armed extremist groups are scaling up their targeted attacks. This can be evident by the recent assassination of Hisham al Hashimi, 47, who was fatally shot outside his house in Baghdad. Hisham was among the world’s leading security experts on ISIS and other armed groups. Iraqi officials indicated that Hisham received threats recently from Iran backed militias.

Because of the abovementioned incidents – even if they may appear minor and sporadic to some security strategists – it is worth noting that terrorist groups may take advantage of the global focus of countering the pandemic and launch attacks. Furthermore, terrorist groups may view the global pandemic crisis as an opportunity to win more recruits, supporters, sympathizers, and then strike harder than before should the right moment be presented. In this regards, Al-Qaeda suggested in its statement on the 30th of March, that non-Muslims use their time in quarantine to learn about Islam. In addition, these groups have never failed to exploit social media to advance their cause and propaganda. That said, as the pandemic continues, people are spending more time online, terrorist groups are likely to amplify their utilization of social media to further spread their dangerous rhetoric along with widely used hashtags of the terms: #Coronavirus, #COVID2019 or #COVID19 to ensure a wider audience reach for their social media posts.

Not only that, terrorist groups may use the time of the pandemic crisis to propagate their ideology or launch attacks but also use the time to reinforce their bases to remerge in a more potent form after the pandemic crisis. This can be specifically true given that most terrorist groups are taking some of the African and Middle Eastern countries like Libya, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others as their hubs and operational base. Most of these nations are developing countries, so it is possible that while these nations’ authorities and security forces are focusing their capabilities on curbing the coronavirus spread, that terrorist groups would utilize such a window period to harness their abilities. This is particularly evident from the very recent series of terrorist attacks launched by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, killing dozens of soldiers. The attacks probably took advantage of the local authorities scaling back the number of troops on the ground due to the coronavirus pandemic. A similar expansionary approach is also seen by jihadists in the Sahel region. Thus, further confirming the threat resurgence of organized terrorist groups as a result of the pandemic crisis.

Although the terrorism threat appears to be relatively regional, it requires intergovernmental and a multinational collective counterterrorism approach. With many of the terrorist groups and affiliates adopting a horizontal structure, one group in one country might be influencing the actions of other groups in many other different countries. Not to forget lone wolf terrorism, which would only take the individual perpetrator to be radicalized by merely reading and following the propaganda and extremist ideologies widely available online.

While intergovernmental counterterrorism frameworks, cooperation, and efforts already exist, the current pandemic crisis still presents an unprecedented challenge to many countries. This includes the redirection of security forces and militaries’ actions in curbing the pandemic spread, implementing lockdowns, curfews, regulating borders entry, and supporting the national overwhelmed healthcare authorities. Though the latter is important to ensure the general public safety, security bodies mustn’t lose their focus on countering terrorism, reinforcing border security, and stepping up surveillance and intelligence activities to anticipate any risks or terrorism plots. Additionally, extremist – but nonviolent – groups should be closely monitored during the pandemic and economic crisis to counter how such groups might use the pandemic to advance their propaganda and gain more sympathy from the general public. This includes right-wing, left-wing, and single-issue extremism groups such as climate activists who turn to terrorism.

Furthermore, as the economic recession builds up, different countries may implement spending cuts and reduce budgets dedicated to national security, intelligence, military, and law enforcement concerning various security programs, including counterterrorism. Accordingly, this should not be the case at all. Even if the economic recession is currently taking its toll on all sectors, government spending, and budgets dedicated to national security, intelligence, military, and law enforcement, counterterrorism efforts should not be reduced. As extremists and terrorist groups are likely to exploit the coronavirus pandemic and post-pandemic economic crisis for their benefit and incite violence, national governments should not undermine such a dormant yet imminent threat while tackling the economic consequences of the pandemic crisis. In this respect, military, national security, intelligence, and law enforcement bodies across the world should increase, and hone their counterterrorism capabilities, intelligence sharing, and international cooperation.

COVID-19 and the Increasing Risk of Terrorism was originally published on Global Security Review.

At the international level, top United Nations officials have warned that “cybercrime is also on the rise, with a 600 percent increase in malicious emails during the current crisis.” The United Nations (UN) officials described the COVID-19-related cyber threats as an “infodemic” of misinformation. It is a situation where people received misinformation, disinformation, and rumors during a health emergency.  Cybercriminals have been conducting attempted ransomware attacks in which their phishing and ransomware campaigns are using the coronavirus pandemic to actively target healthcare workers. The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) also sees an increase in counterfeit medical products, fraud, and cybercrime. Cybercriminals would disguise themselves as the World Health Organization (WHO) to conduct scams or to steal personal and sensitive information.

One direct and obvious factor contributing to the rise of cyber threats is the drastic increase of internet users – from students, teachers, government workers, to private-sector employees and politicians. After the shutdown of schools and many governmental and non-government sectors, all face-to-face meetings were transferred into online platforms. The Internet has become the primary tool for many people to conduct their works. The amount of time that people spend on the Internet increased, exposing themselves to the risks of cyberthreats. Private-sector data revealed a 350% surge in phishing websites since the start of the pandemic.

Another factor is the inadequate cybersecurity education to raise public awareness in many countries, including the United States. With the sudden change of people’s online-using habits before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19, people (old and young) have not yet realized that they could be in danger online – even staying at home. This is not a new problem. For example, one article pointed out that employees of healthcare organizations in North America lack cybersecurity education and awareness in three main areas: regulation, policy, and training.

With the increasing number of internet users in the event of COVID-19, there are three areas that we need to take immediate action. First, one of the most vulnerable groups during COVID-19 is school-aged children. Most of the school children had to used e-learning in the past spring semester and now have entered their summer vacation, and it is difficult to have a comprehensive study about how much time they spend in front of the “screens.” The amount of time they use electronic devices has drastically increased. Since they could not quickly distinguish between the real and virtual worlds, there has been an immediate risk of falling prey to cybercriminals.

The second area is the protection of information and finance for enterprises and workers. The world’s dependence on information and telecommunication technologies is unprecedented. The Business Email Compromise (BEC) is on the rise, especially during the pandemic, and there is much work to be done. The growth of digital dependency in the workforce worldwide has increased the vulnerability to companies and their employees.

The third area is the cybersecurity infrastructure in many developing countries are not strong enough. According to the International Telecommunication Union, nearly 90 countries are still only at the early stages of making commitments to cybersecurity.” It relies on multi-national efforts to assist those countries, including adjusting national legal and regulatory frameworks in the cyberspace and unifying cybersecurity awareness campaigns, despite it is challenging to conduct on-site capacity building during this situation.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to change our way of life, it is a daunting alarm that people are exposing more to the increasing cybersecurity threats while not having enough awareness and education. For the private sector, the improvement of data management, IT security, and employee education are critical to prevent cyber hacking and BECs. We need to push governments to work more with private sectors and international partners toward feasible and effective campaigns.

The worst-case scenario is that the governments are more concerned about the economy than the increasing level of cybersecurity threats.  Whether governments and companies learn security lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic remains to be seen.

COVID-19 & Global Cybersecurity: Urgent Action is Needed was originally published on Global Security Review.

The spread of the virus caught the U.S flatfooted and disoriented as Washington found itself with no capacity to contain the virus effectively nor willingness to lead a unified front of the leading nations to blunt the crisis.  The lack of U.S leadership to call countries to act, to set the agenda and to chart a path beyond the point of crisis, raised doubts about its role in the world and opened the way for China and Russia to cast themselves as the new leaders filling the shoes of the United States.

The public health crisis laid bare the limits of international organizations and global institutional frameworks as they seem to be watching from the sidelines. By downplaying the severity of the novel coronavirus and delaying the declaration of a worldwide health emergency for two months, not to mention Beijing’s growing influence on its decision making, the WHO failed its core mission to alert the international community about the COVD-19 and its possible ramifications, contributed to the ongoing crisis. In parallel, the inaction of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to organize a response to the global pandemic further undermined the legitimacy of the world’s highest deliberative body.

Furthermore, the crisis has exposed the structural deficiencies of the European Union. As healthcare (in addition to national security, terrorism, and fiscal policies) remains the responsibility of national governments, so Brussels no capacity nor authority to lead an organized response, conceding to the member states to take the lead on the issue. Moreover, the combination of the pandemic, the economic implications of the crisis and the continued failures of member states to agree on recovery programs, could also conspire to reverse the gains that the European project has made in the last few decades and radically shift the European political landscape.

Meanwhile, in the face of global institutional paralysis, the nation-state reasserted itself. This has been particularly evident in the EU, where the virus accentuated the existing distrust between the EU members and revealed deep-seated structural weaknesses of the Post-Westphalian frameworks. As the member states, closed down borders, refused to aid one another and focused on distinct crisis management methods, they revealed their deep-seated Hobbesian selfishness, undermined intra-European solidarity and increased the sense of coming apart while reinforcing the sense of the indispensability of the nation-state for expertise, control, and assurance.

The absence of the U.S. leadership and the disorganization and preoccupation of its European allies with their domestic health crises has disabled NATO’s ability to function effectively and act decisively against the pandemic. NATO’s inexperience to deal with such a challenge, led some members even to signal that the virus was not something they needed to act upon. However, the fast spread of the coronavirus made a crippling impact on the U.S. naval activities and NATO military exercises. The spread of COVD19 on the USS Theodore Roosevelt paralyzed, albeit not operating under the auspice of NATO, an American aircraft carrier, the first time since World War Two. NATO was forced to scrap its largest military exercise, DEFENDER-Europe20. Furthermore, several other exercises linked to DEFENDER-Europe20, including and not limited to the Dynamic Front, the Joint Warfighting Assessment, and the Saber Strike and SwiftResponse have been postponed as well, underscoring the fragility of NATO’s military operations and deterrence posture in Europe while questioning its credibility and purpose again.

The global pandemic intensified and accelerated the global great power rivalry as Beijing and Moscow have moved quickly and effectively to take advantage of the openings created by the U.S. retrenchment and inward-looking policies to fill the void of  Washington’s global leadership. Although both China and Russia are revisionist powers by nature, and both are trying to weaken the U.S., their objectives and visions of the world order differ markedly. While Russia intends to undermine the current international order, China is seeking global leadership within the order.

China intends to cast itself as a global savior. It wants to tout its authoritarianism as the key and decisive factor in defeating the pandemic while chipping away at the U.S. dominant status. With massive lockdowns, the imposition of electronic surveillance measures, and the arrests of those who may have exposed its deficiencies, Beijing managed to put this fast-spreading virus under control, striving to create a strong case for authoritarian rule. As Beijing dispatched the bulk of masks, ventilators, respirators, protective suits, test kits, and medical workers to Europe, China tried to boost its role and international status as well as advertise the efficiency, effectiveness, and indispensability of its authoritarian model. In parallel, Beijing organized and led international forums, videoconferences, and panel discussions to highlight, publicize and politicize its policy decisions while attempting to displace the U.S. as the world’s first responder, the global crisis manager, and the world role model.

Russia did not let a good crisis to go waste either as it unleashed a barrage of disinformation campaigns aiming at on the one hand to sow distrust and discord in the West, and on the other to burnish its tainted image, portraying itself as a good neighbor willing to assist all countries in dire need of support. Pro-Kremlin media outlets accused a Harvard professor of creating the COVID19 and blamed the U.S. army for disseminating it. In the same vein, the Kremlin sent medical equipment, health responders and other forms of medical aid to European countries not to assist the virus stricken states, but to aggravate public health calamity, undermining public trust in the healthcare systems, the local governments, and democratic institutions. Moreover, Russia shipped medical gear to New York to undermine the U.S. role as a leading health care provider and to showcase Russia’s clout.

The U.S. Can’t Afford to Lose its Leadership Role

The United States could have galvanized allies, partners, and even competitors into action against the pandemic and avoided the global authoritarian pushback as the U.S. has extensive experience in mobilizing broad coalitions to address challenges to similar nature. The U.S. led all-out efforts to contain the spread of infectious outbreaks in the early 2000s. Both President Bush and Obama successfully employed the G-20 to contain the spread of HIV and Ebola outbreaks. In 2003, George W. Bush mobilized around $90 billion, the largest amount of money ever committed by any nation to a single disease, for his emergency program to ensure HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention, and research, saving over 17 million lives. While rallying the UN Security Council (UNSC) behind his plan and assembling thousands of medical workers, Barak Obama deployed the 2,800 troops in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to detect, contain, and eliminate Ebola.

An international order strained by the virus had already faced challenges more significant than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Rising authoritarian states such as China and Russia have been threatening to undermine the Liberal World Order that has subdued great power conflicts and kept global peace in the last few decades. In Asia, Africa, and a vast swath of Europe, China has been expanding its clout and trying to control a considerable share of global commerce flows. While invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, and attacked Eastern Ukraine, Russia carved out a sphere of influence in the former Soviet space and created the first major crack in the international security architecture. With supporting Bashar al Assad in Syria, backing Iran and alienating Egypt and Turkey from the United States, Moscow increased its influence in the Middle East and challenged the U.S.  unipolar moment in the region. Moreover, Russia’s hybrid attacks on the West that includes and not limited to disinformation, propaganda, cyber-attacks threaten the cohesion and legitimacy of the Western political establishments while making Russian narratives effective factors in shaping attitudes, public opinions, and false perceptions in Western societies.

Considering visible authoritarian pushback, the United States can’t afford to give up its global role as its disengagement would far outweigh its costs. It would weaken NATO, undermine the EU and deepen Moscow/Beijing tandem’s bilateral ties with individual nation-states in Europe while helping mushroom authoritarian regimes across the old continent. In parallel, the re-assertiveness of the nation-state coupled with the increasing nationalism, growing inequality, and economic recession could also play into the hands of the revisionist powers and lead to the unprecedented social and geopolitical ruptures in Europe. Consequently, the growing political divergence, division or fragmentation of the EU in any sort, could shatter the European project, the cornerstone of the U.S. international security architecture and precipitate the final collapse of the world America made.

Given the growing dangers of the great power rivalry and ongoing power shift to the East, both sides of the Atlantic need to be reminded of what is at stake here, as the survival of the Liberal World Order as we know it lies in the strength and unity of the transatlantic community. Thus, U.S. engagement and leadership can make an enormous difference over how the world could look like the 2020s and 2030s. Washington’s passive role will be dangerous. U.S. isolation and retrenchment in the 1930s created a breeding ground for Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and imperialist Japan, inviting the most destructive conflict in history.

The U.S. engagement and commitment to its allies after World War Two, spearheaded by the Marshal Plan, laid the groundwork for strong NATO, the prosperous European Community, and final victory over the Soviet Empire. The newly emerged the Liberal World Order, after the collapse of the communist bloc in the1990s, led by the United States, benefited billions of people around the world. It helped Europe thrive, raised the standard of living, lifted billions out of poverty, brought unprecedented economic prosperity, opened political systems, and kept the world a peaceful place.

Thus, none of this would have been possible without the U.S. strong global leadership and willingness to work closely with allies and partners through NATO, the EU, and other global and regional international frameworks. The pandemic has shown how interdependent and integrated the world has become in the last three decades. Considering the global trends such as the revolutions in the communication and information technology as well as dramatic changes in population, resources, economics, governance, and security, not to mention “the rise of the rest,”  any radical shift towards isolation or autarchy would have devastating effects on social, cultural, political, economic and military aspects of the West.  To meet and overcome these challenges, the United States needs to call into action not only allies and partners, but leaders in business and civil societies to coordinate their actions. Notably, the U.S. needs to think more comprehensively about NATO-EU strategic partnership and invest more in their approximation efforts as the cooperation between the two will be vital in determining the winners and losers as well as shape and characteristics of the Post-COVID world.

Will the United States Lead the Post-COVID World? was originally published on Global Security Review.

In the following, I will take stock of the lessons and conclusions I have drawn from the global crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, focusing on the main actors of international politics and the world order. Drawing from international relations theory, I make the somewhat surprising claim that a Realpolitik lens would suggest self-interested cooperation among countries in the age of COVID-19. The countries of the world would fare better at managing the coronavirus pandemic if they were to cooperate—cooperation is in their national interest.

But first, a disclaimer. The lesson of Captivity is that we, as human beings find it challenging to see the most critical processes in the present, and we can rarely predict what the future may bring. As we are currently in the middle of this pandemic crisis (or perhaps only at the beginning), we cannot see clearly in the captivity of our current situation, from the captivity of our contemporary perspective. Nevertheless, I will attempt to draw out the most important lessons, while remaining cautious about predicting significant trends in the future.

What is Realpolitik?

Although Realpolitik was conceived by Prussian journalist-politician Ludwig von Rochau for domestic politics in the 19^thcentury, it has since become a prominent concept in the theory and practice of international politics. Henry Kissinger defines Realpolitik as “foreign policy based on calculations of power and the national interest.”¹ According to Kenneth Waltz, Realpolitik “indicates the methods by which foreign policy is conducted and provides a rationale for them.” Waltz lists the elements of Realpolitik as follows: “the state’s interest provides the spring of action; the necessities of policy arise from the unregulated competition of states; calculation based on these necessities can discover the policies that will best serve a state’s interests; success is the ultimate test of policy, and success is defined as preserving and strengthening the state.”² The 20^th century theorists of Realpolitik argue that such a concept (not necessarily under the same name) has been an ever-present thread running through the history of thinking about international relations. Kissinger associates Realpolitik with Napoleon III and Bismarck, while Waltz traces the concept back to Machiavelli in the Italian Renaissance and Thucydides in ancient Greece. Realpolitik is as old as humankind.

International Cooperation based on Self-Interest

Overall, the response of countries and governments around the world to the COVID-19 epidemic has been a significant failure, and this has been primarily a failure of global governance. The virus has spread globally, but in its management,  we barely find any traces of international cooperation. It has been handled entirely on the level of the nation-state. This is not surprising to those who look at the world through a Realpolitik lens.

International politics is characterized by anarchy, as there is no world government. Nation-states consider their interests first and shape their foreign policies accordingly. That is why it is telling that even Henry Kissinger, a diplomat-scholar often associated with Realpolitik, advocates for international cooperation on COVID-19 in his recent Wall Street Journal article. I agree there is a role for global governance in stopping this pandemic. Nation-states cannot do it on their own. Let’s see why.

The European Union

The European Union (EU) as a community and as an institution was virtually invisible in the period following the outbreak. Italy, the first and most dramatically affected member state in the EU, received assistance from China sooner than from the EU. It is no coincidence that the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, had to apologize to the Italians for the EU’s delayed reaction. The EU’s image and the popularity of the pro-federalist position are significantly undermined by the fact that each EU member state has responded to the epidemic on a national level. In contrast, action at the EU level has been almost wholly absent.

Even the fact that the EU eventually provided substantial funding to help member states take action improved the EU’s image only slightly. It is also clear that a strictly national approach combined with a failure to share best practices has resulted in very different levels of effectiveness in slowing the spread of the disease in each member state. Consequently, the problems each member state now faces are very different, hence the possibility of EU-level cooperation and solutions is next to nothing.

China

Undoubtedly, China is primarily responsible for the outbreak and global spread of the epidemic. The Chinese Communist leadership practiced one of the worst traditions of their Soviet predecessors, the so-called “Chernobyl method,” at the beginning of the epidemic: denial and silencing. The existence of the outbreak was denied, and doctors who sounded the alarm were silenced and arrested. Then by mid-January, the Communist leadership realized that the coronavirus was a real problem and needed practical solutions. Subsequently, the government introduced strict measures in Wuhan and a few other parts of China, from curfews to mandatory mask-wearing to quarantining of those suspected of illness. All these measures were enforced by the iron fist of the Chinese police state. With these measures, the spread of the coronavirus in China was slowed down and then halted by March.

However, in the meantime, from November to January, the virus had already spread to most of the world. If China had not denied the existence of the epidemic and had closed its borders late last year, it could have spared the world its current level of suffering. In parallel with the rigorous management of the epidemic, China has also been working since the beginning of the year to spread misinformation about the American origins of COVID-19, and to portray itself as a “benevolent superpower” by sending masks and ventilators to many countries around the world. China is once again playing the game of international politics very shrewdly (applying a distorted sense of Realpolitik), and this time it is trying to strengthen its international image, its soft power, which has always been a weak point.

The United States

The number of Americans infected with the coronavirus is now over 1.7 million. This shows that American society has so far failed to deal with the coronavirus epidemic. I’ve identified five reasons for this, which fall into two groups: governance-related and socio-cultural factors.

The first group of reasons includes the fragmented nature of the U.S. government system and the public health management failures of the federal and state governments. (1) Unified action against a nationwide epidemic has been made impossible by the federal structure of the U.S. government, which has produced a fragmentation of authority and capabilities. While the federal government has deep financial pockets, it lacks many public-health authorities. At the same time, the state governments lack financial leverage and have limited legal authorities of their own. (2) President Donald J. Trump and his administration delayed by several months the necessary preparations for the epidemic despite having the world’s most extensive intelligence apparatus. Many constituent agencies were alerting the White House to the news of the coronavirus as early as November 2019. (3) State (and local) governments also woke up too late to the threat of the coronavirus (especially in the state of New York and in New York City, from where the virus spread all over the country). As I mentioned, state governments lack the financial resources to deal with such an epidemic, so they need the help of the federal government. The Trump administration has not responded to state requests for assistance very effectively either, and for weeks the president himself has been embroiled in a highly partisan war of words with the mostly Democratic governors of the most heavily infected states.

However, the delayed responses of political leaders alone do not fully explain the current catastrophe situation in the United States. There are also very deep-rooted socio-cultural reasons for the failure to manage the coronavirus. (4) American society has traditionally exhibited a high degree of individualism and a strong attachment to individual freedoms, and the role of the “state” is consequently limited. While in much of the world, a full lockdown has been imposed by central governments and enforced by police, in the United States, most “lockdowns” have been nothing more than a stay-at-home advisory from state governors. The federal government formulated even more restrained advice. (5) Finally, an essential socio-economic reason behind the extent of the outbreak in the United States is the privately operated and fragmented health care system—some of the demographic groups most exposed to the coronavirus do not even have access to adequate healthcare.

U.S.-China Competition

The dominant geopolitical competition of the 21^st century is unfolding between the United States and China. As a result, there is much discussion about which great power the current situation will propel forward and which will fall far behind. The jury is still out. Both great powers have been hit hard by the virus, but it currently appears that America has taken the harder blow. However, we must be careful with such a comparison because we do not exactly know what is going on in China, as the Chinese Communist leadership does not provide real data about either the epidemic or the economy. Joseph Nye shares this view in his recent Foreign Policy article; despite significant speculation to this effect, the coronavirus will not decide the competition between the United States and China, since more important factors play a role in it. His article fits into the debate of recent years among U.S. political scientists and historians about U.S.-China competition, in which Graham Allison and others warn that China, building on its significant resources (cheap labor, global trade network, fast-paced economic and technological development), will soon overtake the United States economically and push it off the top of the international system. On the other hand, Nye, Michael Beckley, and others emphasize that the United States has important structural advantages (geographic location, democratic political system, R&D capabilities, soft power, etc.) over China, and, on the other hand, the Asian superpower has many internal problems and weaknesses (demographic crisis, corruption, social inequality, regional disparities).

I share the latter point of view, but with one qualification. The United States starts from a good position in its competition with China, but its abovementioned domestic problems (fragmented government structure, polarization, weak healthcare system, growing social inequality) pose serious risks for the United States in this rivalry. The United States can compete with China and maintain its position of international leadership only if it remedies these deep domestic structural problems in the years to come. It is certainly relevant to the competition that China—having managed to control the epidemic domestically—has been building a new international role for itself, extending aid to many countries in fighting the pandemic. At the same time, the United States is currently hardly able to deal with its internal problems managing the pandemic, and cannot play any real international role in the fight against the coronavirus. What is more, the Trump administration has even withdrawn its support from the World Health Organization (WHO).

The Global Economy

The global economy is facing an unprecedented recession. As part of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, most countries in the world have shut down significant portions of their economies. Prolonging this situation for months is leading to a severe economic downturn. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the recession has been brewing for quite some time. China’s economic growth – even based on unreliable official data – plummeted to around 3 percent in the last quarter of 2019, an incredible dive compared to the 7 percent expected by Beijing or to China’s average growth in recent decades. As a result of COVID-19, China’s economy suffered a 6.8 percent contraction in the first quarter of 2020; for the first time since 1976, the Chinese economy has shrunk and not expanded. The economic downturn in the European Union had also begun earlier. In the last quarter of 2019, the EU achieved 0 (zero) percent growth. Therefore, the economic crisis may have happened even without the coronavirus pandemic.

The United States recently joined China and the EU among the crisis hubs. The number of unemployed in America has risen to 43 million in the last ten weeks. The U.S. GDP posted a 4.8 percent decline in the first quarter of this year, and analysts expect an almost unprecedented 30 percent (!) contraction in the second quarter. World oil prices reached historic lows in April. We have to gradually reopen the economy everywhere as soon as the public health situation allows. However, I would caution against the overly optimistic view that reopening the economy now will avert the economic downturn. Even if the economy was reopened today, the virus is here to stay (until there is a vaccine), and many people will be afraid to resume their previous lifestyles completely; therefore, economic recovery will remain limited. And the coronavirus has already done much damage to our economies. The long-feared global economic recession is no longer on its way. It has already begun.

World Order

In the United States and elsewhere around the world, there has been a serious debate for some years now about how the world order is changing, what has characterized the international order so far, and what can replace it in the future. The abovementioned two articles, by Henry Kissinger and Joseph Nye, are also part of the continuation of these debates. Kissinger’s article is titled “The Coronavirus Will Forever Alter the World Order,” while Nye’s article counters with, “No, the Coronavirus Will Not Change the Global Order.” Indeed, the coronavirus has not changed the world order (yet), but the world order is changing.

There are several ways we can talk about the world order. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989-1991, the international system changed from bipolar to unipolar. With the rise of China, however, a bipolar international system has re-emerged. This system, nonetheless, also bears some semblance to multipolar systems, as there are currently no two allied blocs behind the two superpowers like there were during the Cold War, and even America’s allies are busy building ties with China.

The United States established the current so-called liberal international order after World War II. After decades of successfully deepening and expanding this order, America has been gradually withdrawing from its leadership role under the administrations of Barack Obama and especially Trump. Kissinger writes in his article that to overcome the health and economic effects of COVID-19 and to defend the values ​​of the liberal international order, the world needs international cooperation, in which Washington must play a leading role. On this point, Joseph Nye formulates an idea similar to Kissinger’s: “Both for self-interested and humanitarian reasons, the United States should lead the G-20 in generous contributions to a major new COVID-19 fund that is open to all countries.” I agree with these suggestions because they combine Realpolitik and cooperation. Unfortunately, it seems there is little chance of the current U.S. administration leading such initiatives. Instead, it is imaginable that China will play such a role. It would certainly strengthen China’s position in the currently emerging new world order.

What the different international actors do not realize is that more cooperation would have helped avert the current pandemic or at least mitigate its spread and consequences. Theorists in international relations have long sparred over whether states are inherently more or less prone to cooperate. Realpolitik argues that cooperation is the exception, not the rule. A country will work with another country only if it is in its national interest. In this case, ironically, a Realpolitik lens would tell us that it is in countries’ national interests that they cooperate against the Covid-19 pandemic.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, billions of us have become captives in our own homes. Not only are we physically in captivity, but the economy (national economies and the world economy) has also become a captive of the coronavirus, and it is in this captivity that international politics also finds itself today. Moreover, just as the lesson of the novel Captivity shows us, our governments have been captives of their own circumstances and perspectives, and have not been able to see beyond them and to look at the crisis from a more holistic view. Such a view, in line with Realpolitik, would have shown us the path toward self-interested cooperation.

Once the immediate crisis is over, countries will need to rethink their cooperation in the fight against pandemics. A Realpolitik lens, however, shows that individual countries will only do this when they realize that such cooperation is in their well-conceived self-interest. Let’s hope they realize it. The sooner they do, the sooner our captivity ends.

¹ Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 137

² Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1979), p. 117

Realpolitik & Cooperation in the Age of COVID-19 was originally published on Global Security Review.

An example of possible obstruction to diplomacy is the clash between the United States and China. An article in the New York Times stated that “Mr. Trump was scathing as he accused Beijing of concealing the outbreak first detected in Wuhan that has become a pandemic now paralyzing the United States.” The contentions were also become worse because of the words used by President Trump during his speech in White House briefing in calling coronavirus as “Chinese virus” and the term “Wuhan virus,” which was used by the Secretary of State Mr. Pompeo. Moreover, other top American officials also expressed their criticism against the Chinese government, particularly on withholding and distorting vital health data, which could create a global health risk. In response, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that there might be a conspiracy theory that the US Army might have produced the virus and brought it to Wuhan. Another picture of obstruction to diplomacy is the halting of trade relations between Southeast Asian countries and China.

Due to the restrictions in the travel of both humans and goods to prevent virus transmission, imports and exports are greatly affected. The spreading of coronavirus has been an obstruction to many economic relations, especially to Southeast Asia, which has been over-reliant on China as its vast market and trade partner in recent years. Furthermore, it is not only trade relations that have been affected by the COVID-19, but it also temporarily stops diplomatic meetings. A Foreign Policy article mentioned that “The coronavirus has all but halted the world of international diplomacy, derailing major summits and leaving diplomats stranded as governments temporarily ban international travel.” Socially, racism could also be experienced by the Chinese people as their country is the epicenter of the virus outbreak. Now there is a stigma among peoples that they are more likely to be carriers.

The above scenarios have described COVID-19 as obstructing diplomatic relations. However, there are also opportunities for diplomacy that could be seen in the world, along with fighting this pandemic disease. These are revealed in the actions initiated by the states in terms of collaborative efforts to stop the spreading of the virus. The continuous extension of help and donations across borders as well as the thawing of diplomatic ties despite political tensions. For instance, the meeting that was conducted last February 20, 2020, to talk about joint measures in combating COVID-19 has become an opportunity to bring closer the ASEAN member states and China.

Despite the ongoing territorial disputes between China and other Southeast Asian neighbors, this crisis has become an avenue for the contending parties to be united, prioritizing regional and global health and safety. Writing in The Diplomat, Lucio Blanco Pitlo said: “The meeting was remarkable for tackling not only the health dimension of the crisis but also its social and economic impacts, as well as how technology can be harnessed to mitigate the fallout.” China is currently working on mitigating the lasting damage of the virus in the region and also aiming to reinstate regional unity with its Southeast Asian partners. Additionally, it was noted by Faisal Al Yafai, “Such disaster diplomacy is vital in the moment. It sends an important message that political tensions, no matter how grave, can eventually be overcome by common humanity. But longer-term, it could also lead to better politics.” This hope can be seen by what happened recently when North Korea sent a letter to South Korea expressing condolences due to the COVID-19 outbreak in the country. Canada also helped China by giving medical equipment despite the latest issue on the arrest of the Huawei executive in Vancouver. Recently, Japan generously donated masks with a poem, “Although we are separated by mountains and rivers, we live under the same sky.” In the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has extended its help to Iran, which is often at odds with its Arab neighbors, by giving 7.5 metric tons of medical supplies.

We can see that in these difficult times, diplomacy should be of great concern. COVID-19 is now a problem for all countries and all peoples of the world. A global challenge must be overcome globally. This virus might not only affect the physical health of humankind but also cause the outbreak of a global conflict among countries if diplomatic relations are obstructed. On the other hand, this global health crisis might also be an opportunity for the unity of the world because common humanity will be prioritized over political, economic, and social rivalry.

COVID-19: Diplomatic Obstruction or Opportunity? was originally published on Global Security Review.

Cyber-Espionage and the Economy

While the current pandemic crisis presents businesses with unprecedented economic challenges to their very existence, it has also created a tremendous level of cyber-risks. Heightened risks are present not only due to the significant numbers of individuals working from home, increasing the vulnerability landscape, but also because as states fall deeper into recessions, some may resort to cyber-espionage in an attempt to position better their post-pandemic political, economic, and industrial structures. Regardless of the industry, the intellectual property (IP) of any organization is likely to be a precious target for foreign government-sponsored hackers.

Whether they seek production know-how, manufacturing plans, patents, research, or trade secrets, foreign governments may resort to unethical means of acquiring critical industrial and trade information to enhance their domestic economy posture and further leverage their comparative and absolute advantages, while simultaneously imposing costs on their adversaries. Chinese government-sponsored hacking groups, as well as their Russian counterparts, have a long-standing history of engaging in such malicious acts.

Government-sponsored and international criminal hacking groups, particularly those sponsored by the Chinese and Russian governments, are likely already taking advantage of the pandemic to increase their espionage activities around the globe. In this respect, it was recently reported that the Chinese cyber threat group, APT41, has already launched “one of the broadest campaigns by a Chinese cyber espionage actor we have observed in recent years” according to the cybersecurity firm FireEye. The attacks targeted the healthcare sector, including the pharmaceutical industry as well as other industries, including banking, manufacturing, media, telecommunications, and non-profits in several countries. Though, arguably, different sectors might be more prone to cyber-espionage campaigns than others, depending on the level of the industry’s criticality and IP possession. Yet in desperate economic times, government-sponsored hackers are likely to “harvest” as much data as possible—even non-industrial data.

Politically Motivated Cyber-Espionage

Many would argue that an organization’s IP or industrial data are the primary targets for government-backed hackers and cyber-attacks. However, non-industrial data can also be of great value to adversary governments to leverage their political advantage and position. Such data can include the general online behavior of the public, which then can give adversary-states insight into public sentiment towards the government of a target country, thus allowing adversaries to more effectively plan and orchestrate targeted online disinformation campaigns. These online campaigns are usually conducted to degrade the credibility and trust between the targeted country’s public and its media and governmental institutions. In doing so, adversaries attempt to covertly shape political developments in targeted countries.

Accordingly, cyber espionage is an activity that effective online disinformation campaigns are built upon. Again, it is no wonder how Chinese and Russian backed cyber-troops pioneered the systematic use of online disinformation tactics and exploitation of social media for such purpose. The latter is particularly evident from the recent actions performed by China and Russia while the ongoing pandemic crisis is taking place, where both countries tried to push conspiracy theories targeting western audiences to create political divisions, fear, and confusion. Furthermore, as the pandemic crisis continues to profoundly disrupt the global economy, the debate on global power shifts, and the reshaping of the international order is already starting to take place. In this regard, one cannot ignore China’s hegemonic intentions, and neither should one be surprised to see a surge of Chinese cyber-espionage and disinformation campaigns.

Countermeasures

Undoubtedly, the current pandemic presents both public and private organizations around the world with unprecedented economic risks leading to severe consequences on a macro and micro-scale. Although macro-level implications are evident in terms of economic performance, unemployment, and economic security, micro-level consequences may include a rise in crime, public unrest, and threats to civil order. Furthermore, the micro-level effects mentioned can be further fuelled by foreign cyber espionage and disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining the internal stability of a targeted state by adversarial actors.

That said, protective measures and recovery plans must be collective, in coordination and close partnership between a nation’s government, domestic organizations, and the private sector. The current pandemic has narrowed the available options for mitigating the economic fallout given the unanticipated and significant decline many industries are facing.

As economic measures, including but not limited to stimulus packages—an integral part of a state’s national security—are being implemented around the globe, the focus here is on governmental countermeasures targeting the spread of foreign cyber-espionage and disinformation. Even a slight relaxation of counter-espionage and counter-disinformation measures could impact economic recovery efforts. In this respect, several actions can be taken at the national level:

1. Sovereign states should agree on a formalized collective, coordinated intergovernmental response of indictment, and sanctions against governments sponsoring hacking groups should be implemented.
2. Governments should reinforce and harness their cyber defenses and data encryption. Additionally, governments must continuously address the weakest link in their cybersecurity chain: the human factor. The human element is mostly thought of in terms of increasing cyber-awareness and hygiene training. However, the particular focus here is the importance of increased monitoring of staff to limit insider threats who can be recruited by foreign bodies for facilitating espionage or network access.
3. Existing data policies of every governmental institution should be reviewed to further control and limit who have access to what.
4. Governments should strongly encourage the private sector industries to harness their internal cybersecurity team. While medics globally are on the frontline of fighting the pandemic and coronavirus spread, the organization’s cybersecurity teams are on the frontline of fighting the dangerously rising level of cyberthreats and associated digital risks related to espionage. That said, regardless of the industry, organizations must empower their cybersecurity teams more than before to more effectively counter increasing vulnerabilities surface and cyber-risks. Especially that with the growing pandemic uncertainties, social distancing measures will undoubtedly increase the individuals use of internet, computers, tablets, and smartphones.
5. Governments should increase online cyber-hygiene and awareness training for their general public. While cyber-hygiene has been something long-time called for, yet it is currently more required than before. Individuals must ensure vigilance while digitally navigating. Especially in times of crisis and fear, due to human nature, individuals thrive on more news and updates on the internet. In this regard, cybercriminals will possibly exploit such concerns to distribute more malware, malicious link, malicious websites, phishing emails, and scamming attempts. Recent reports found that global phishing activity increased by 667 percent during March 2020.
6. Governments should as well as encourage the private sector industries to limit the access of employees working from home to the organization’s intellectual property. Whether confidential financial documents, business plans, or critical research in an R&D department, employees’ access to any document or material deemed as the organization’s intellectual property should be as limited as possible. Concerning point five, it is never guaranteed that employees will not fall prey to any online malicious trap that could infect their device.
7. Continuously re-evaluate the digital and online tools needed by public and private sector employees needs to work from home to ensure safety, privacy, and security as much as possible. As different organizations utilize different tools and thus requires a different level of assessment. However, one example we can indicate here is the rapid adoption of Zoom, a video conferencing website and app that saw a rapid rise globally over the past month as a result of the “working from home” implementation. Accordingly, it’s been reported that hackers are capitalizing on the current extensive use of communication apps, including Zoom and Google classrooms, and are trying to infiltrate online meetings. Furthermore, there are ongoing concerns over Zoom’s privacy practices, with countries like Taiwan already banning its use.
8. In tackling online disinformation threats, governments should set up a dedicated taskforce comprising stakeholders of its national intelligence, national security, media, and ICT authorities. Such a task force would contribute to protecting their nation’s citizens by ultimately monitoring continuously and responding to foreign media outlets, online propaganda, and social media for adversaries’ disinformation campaigns. Furthermore, such a taskforce should regularly communicate to the public the right and factual information to avoid unintentional misinformation spread by the public.
9. Governments should work at all levels to ensure the highest level possible of transparency and government performance with its citizens via daily press briefings, in appearances on national media outlets, and official social media accounts. In doing so, governments minimize the possibility of having its citizens falling victim to falsified information spread by adversaries online.

With the ongoing pandemic crisis combined with the “warning drums” of a deep economic recession, governments worldwide are facing a full-scale national crisis that perhaps the maximum was done prepare for it was a hypothetical simulation or a table-top exercise. Managing the crisis, in reality, can be much more complex and a nightmare for decision-makers. However, flexible, agile, and governments that are being flexible and adaptable while at the same time prioritizing their cybersecurity measures and counter-espionage efforts are more prone to survive the crisis as well as sustain domestic business operations with minimal loss.

A Global Recession Will Fuel Cyber-Espionage was originally published on Global Security Review.

China’s Pivot: The Great Recession

The Great Recession of 2008 was America’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes, and trillions of dollars evaporated from U.S. stock markets. By several metrics, the U.S. has yet to recover some 12 years later.

What is frequently overlooked is how well China weathered the financial crisis. At its worst, China’s economic growth slowed from a high of 14% in 2007 to a low of 9.4% in 2009. Meanwhile, the American economy’s meager 1.8% growth in 2007 eventually bottomed out with a 2.5% contraction two years later.

The Great Recession became a pivotal moment for leaders and analysts in China. Many took note of the discrepancy between the performance of the two economies, attributing the difference to how each government responded to the crisis in their respective countries. The change that the PRC’s success induced was psychological. It marked the moment that many in China began to give more support to two interrelated propositions. The first being that China is on the rise. The second is that the U.S. is on the decline. Many people in China did not hide or mask this conclusion. For example, in 2017, China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei wrote that 2008 was possibly the “watershed year” that ushered in the end of the era of American hegemony, Pax Americana.

Given this assessment, the PRC likely saw the Great Recession as a strategic opportunity. Its government proceeded to shepherd through challenging and profound changes to its foreign policy approach. The most notable of these changes involve the gradual but continued shift from a restrained policy to a more assertive one. In the decade since China has shown its ambitions to reshape the international order more to its favor, press forward with unilateral claims in the South China Sea, assert itself more forcefully in diplomatic encounters and countenance the prospect of maintaining unstable relations with the U.S. to achieve other strategic interests.

China reaped enormous gains as a result of the distraction and momentary weakness of America and its allies. Chinese-led multilateral institutions are increasing in number. The PRC continues to maintain militarily uncontested control over its illegal maritime territories. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping’s landmark grand strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative, has been pursued with vigor, mainly to the benefit of China’s economic, political, and security interests. Furthermore, China has yet to buckle under pressure from the U.S. to resolve the trade war.

Coronavirus: A Second Opportunity?

China reported an outbreak of a new contagion to the World Health Organization (WHO) in December 2019. This virus subsequently came to be known as COVID-19. After initially bungling its response, the PRC snapped into action and took drastic measures, enacting the most widespread and comprehensive lockdown of its population in the country’s history. Months later, the final weeks of March have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach. China regularly reports that homegrown cases are down to zero. Life in Wuhan will soon return to normal. And China is dispatching medical supplies and hundreds of doctors to Italy to help the country’s beleaguered hospitals.

[bs-quote quote=”If the United States’ response fails to adequately address the crisis, the damage to the economy, people’s livelihoods, government credibility, and even international reputation could be tremendous.” style=”default” align=”left”][/bs-quote]

Meanwhile, almost 90 days after China’s first report to WHO, the U.S. has continued to struggle on nearly all fronts. The United States took virtually no action in the lead-up to its own outbreak and has had a disjointed and spastic response since. The process of manufacturing and procuring ventilators from the private sector has been marred by vacillations within the Trump administration. Efforts to obtain test kits and put them to use have faced complications due to uncertainties about financing and eligibility. Congress spent weeks haggling over much-needed bailout provisions. As of March 26, the U.S. has the highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases of any country in the world. Meanwhile, Americans are left confused by the tangled web of preventive measures that can differ from state to state, county to county, or even city to city.

If the United States’ response fails to adequately address the crisis, the damage to the economy, people’s livelihoods, government credibility, and even international reputation could be tremendous. This, of course, is all in addition to the tragic loss of human life that would result.

In contrast, China has recently gone on a propaganda blitz. PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang has stressed that the coronavirus will be a “major impetus” for friendship and cooperation. In phone calls with world leaders, Chairman Xi Jinping of the Chinese Communist Party has preached his country’s desire to offer assistance and cooperation. And Jack Ma, the founder of the Chinese internet juggernaut Alibaba, has pledged to send 500,000 test kits and one million masks to the U.S. China, in effect, is trying to frame itself as a global leader, a capable partner, and a steadfast friend in the fight to contain the coronavirus.

Apart from some criticism by Western officials such as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and EU High Representative Josep Borrell, China has faced little resistance in promoting its narrative as the world’s savior. One reason is that China’s help is genuinely needed in many countries struggling to battle the epidemic. But another reason is that China effortlessly stepped into a gaping leadership vacuum left by the U.S., Europe, and their allies. This may only be the first (and most innocuous) step in an intensified effort by the PRC to pursue greater strategic objectives.

Implications

It is still too early to say how this epidemic will play out in the United States. A lot may depend on what the U.S. government does—and does not do—in the coming weeks. However, it is not too early to speculate about how a perceived success by the PRC coupled with the perception of a U.S. failure could impact the former’s calculus. Similar to the Great Recession, the COVID-19 pandemic could yet again provide evidence to China’s leaders and analysts that their country is rising while the U.S. is falling. And just like the developments that followed in the wake of the Great Recession, this could once again energize China to take advantage of a relatively weakened and distracted West by doubling down on its commitment to proactive foreign policy pursuits.

[bs-quote quote=”China’s own rapid recovery is far from guaranteed, and the U.S. still has time to respond.” style=”default” align=”right”][/bs-quote]

At the same time, other factors could further facilitate Beijing’s ambitions. Reputationally, China may score additional gains among countries that recognize China’s response and recovery as more effective. Economically, U.S. businesses may be hit twice. First, American companies will suffer the direct effects of an economic slowdown at home. Second, U.S. businesses operating in a prolonged recession may be at a disadvantage to Chinese businesses enjoying the benefits of an earlier economic recovery, resulting in the potential loss of billions in missed business opportunities.

However, China’s own rapid recovery is far from guaranteed, and the U.S. still has time to respond. As Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said in a televised CNBC interview on March 10, COVID-19 is “a test of preparedness on all fronts […] The United States has got enormous resources at its disposal […] I would never count the Americans out.”

COVID-19: Crisis or Strategic Opportunity for China? was originally published on Global Security Review.

The decentralization of the ability to disseminate information at scale poses a challenge in the event of national and global security threats and incidents like terrorism, instability in post-conflict states, natural disasters, and public health crises, such as the pandemic we are currently experiencing. In all the examples above, without exception, individuals use social media to share opinions, news, photos, and videos of the incident and its aftermath. First responders and the relevant authorities—whether defense, intelligence, national security, law enforcement, and public health agencies—require accurate information in real-time, and can use social media as a tool for such information to assist in planning and response.

While social media is already widely used by law enforcement and national security agencies as to gather and disseminate information, this author argues there is an essential need to advance the use of social media in the public sector as a source of real-time information to enhance situational awareness, crisis preparedness, and disaster response efforts.

Social media is already utilized in counter-terrorism, criminal investigations, threat forecasting, and information operations. However, social networks can be even further harnessed by public sector agencies as a continuous, real-time source of intelligence, if leveraged appropriately, particularly given that improvements in technology applications mean that any individual with a basic camera-equipped smartphone can serve as a source of on-the-ground information at the epicenter of a significant incident.

Many would argue that continuous, in-depth analysis of social media content infringes on civil liberties and is invasive to the privacy of individuals, yet such an argument exposes a double standard relating to the use of information on social networks by public sector agencies. Many social media users share content publicly, therefore, analysis of publicly-available social media content by public sector agencies wouldn’t be a violation of user privacy. In the Intelligence Community, the use of social networks as a source of intelligence falls into the OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) category.

Regardless, whether used by law enforcement, defense agencies, the intelligence community, or the general public, social media is an immeasurably powerful tool for reaching and connecting people at scale. Relevant social media content and “hashtags” trend around the globe within minutes of a crisis event—such as an act of terrorism, political violence, a natural disaster, or a public health emergency—particularly when an incident rapidly escalates and is unpredictable in nature.

It’s therefore critical that defense, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, as well as first responders, maintain and have access to continuous monitoring of social media trends as they develop in real-time. In high priority incidents, individuals on the scene are likely to share photographs, videos, and text updates—information of great value in a crisis. Intelligence gathered from real-time analysis of social networks would include, but not be limited to, preliminary assessments of the situation’s complexity and the response required, as well as forecasting future consequences that could arise.

Citizen journalism and “whistleblowing” over social media can also serve as a critical indicator and a warning sign of worsening situations. A recent example of this was Dr. Li Wenliang, the Chinese doctor who issued a warning in a message shared on the Chinese social media platform Weibo on December 30th, 2019 about a “strange new virus,” which is now a pandemic impacting nearly every country in some way. In hindsight, had his post been viewed by intelligence agencies as an early warning sign, many states may have taken stricter measures earlier on to limit the impact of COVID-19.

In addition to systematic social media monitoring, automated text, and sentiment analysis of publicly shared user posts can provide crucial insights into the attitude of the general public and reactions towards an incident. This would further help first responders and security authorities when communicating with the public in an emergency, such as implementing enhanced security screening, border closures, and evacuations. Moreover, automated analysis of social media posts would assist first responders in their response factoring to avoid contributing to a public panic.

Social media in a crisis is a double-edged sword. As a crisis takes hold, a state’s adversaries are likely to take advantage of the situation and unleash a barrage of online disinformation and propaganda through social media channels in an attempt to foment public unrest. Such campaigns, usually initiated with a political agenda in mind to use the general public as unwitting proxy actors, present an additional challenge that further emphasizes the importance of maintaining continuous, real-time monitoring of publicly available user-generated social media content. Such a capability would effectively reinforce the efforts of first responders on-the-ground, and allow for public sector authorities to better mitigate the consequences of malicious disinformation campaigns.

Furthermore, continuous monitoring of social media platforms by a state’s security agencies enables those agencies to anticipate and counter unintentional misinformation. The spread of inaccurate rumors may have an adverse impact on public safety, a possible reason for the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Ghrebreysus, advocated for urgent measures to be taken to mitigate the fallout from the coronavirus “infodemic.”

Social Media’s Role in Disaster Preparedness & Crisis Management was originally published on Global Security Review.