Cyber: what are our strategic levers?

In every relationship, personal, professional and diplomatic, negotiations and their subsequent compromises take place every day. Advantages are leveraged and exploited continuously. Some situations see small concessions or trade offs for mutual satisfaction while others are thinly veiled power plays that blatantly favour one side over the other.

The hottest topic of the year thus far has been China’s increasing use of cyber attacks on both government and businesses. Cyber is gaining ground as an internationally important issue for anyone that does anything on a computer, ie everyone.

But what leverage does the rest of the international community have when it comes to changing the behaviours of China? What can be done to realistically change actions that are suiting the needs of one player not others? Read more

Iran, and the approaching nuclear red-line

President Barack Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office. May 18 2009.President Obama’s recent comments in an interview with an Israeli TV show about the Iranian nuclear program are a timely reminder that the issue hasn’t gone away. In the interview, which aired on 14 March, he said that an Iranian nuclear weapon was still more than a year away but ‘we don’t want to cut it too close’, and restated his position that Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon was ‘a red line’ for the US. On Monday 18 March he called for full disclosure of the Iranian nuclear program, arguing that such disclosure would be a prerequisite for ‘a new relationship’ between Iran and the United States.

These comments are a reminder that the Iranian nuclear issue continues to simmer. It’s been somewhat marginalised in the headlines this year because North Korea has been grabbing all the attention. Kim Jong-un has cards to play—including actual nuclear tests—that are considerably more worrying than just about anything Iran can do in the short term.

Obama’s comments need to be read alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear activities (PDF). Late last year, Iran bought itself a window for negotiation on the enrichment front—apparently Tehran was just as nervous as some in Washington about the prospect of an Israeli ‘October surprise’. It certainly hasn’t slowed its production of enriched uranium, and has in fact begun introducing more advanced centrifuges at its facilities. But it’s diverted a portion of its stockpiled 20%-enriched uranium to its nuclear fuel plate facility to be transformed into triuranium octoxide (U3O8), one of the more common forms of yellowcake. Read more

Reader response: prudence in indeterminacy

For a sovereign democratic nation, Andrew Davies’ contribution ‘The who, what, where, and why of the future submarine’ posits some alarming notions. The first relates to an assumption that irrespective of a direct threat to Australia or the engagement of vital Australian national interests we would enter into a major conflict with China simply to meet US expectations. Secondly, is that on this basis it is a reasonable policy position for any government to divert unknown billions of dollars to procure and operate a submarine fleet on this basis: billions of dollars that could be spent addressing disadvantage or nation building projects. From a strategic policy perspective, the most alarming notion in the contribution is the acceptance of the wisdom of committing in advance to making a marginal contribution to fighting a war about which currently we are unable conceive of the circumstances in which it might arise, or to predict its outcome and consequences, let alone made a judgement about its justification. The hubris of contemporary strategists is impressive.

As strategic policy the statement that,

The conclusion I came to is that the most compelling reason for us to operate in that theatre isn’t the military impact we could have, which with only a boat or two at sea would necessarily be modest in the big picture, but because the US would welcome our efforts. In other words, the biggest payoff is the alliance benefit

is seriously defective. The future, as Aristotle pointed out nearly two and a half millennium ago, is indeterminate and whether or not there will be a war between China and the US will be determined by currently inconceivable and unknowable factors, but include the impacts of human volition and the vagaries of fortune (or non-linear complexity in contemporary parlance). The first of these submarines is optimistically 25 years away but the simple act of justification of their procurement on the basis of siding with the US in a war on China potentially affects the likelihood of that eventuality. Aristotle’s conclusion that under circumstances of precariousness, where the ultimate survival of the political entity is a stake—a reality were Australia to side against the China that emerges over the next decades, prudence in decision makers is to be highly valued.

Mike Scrafton is a consultant and former senior defence executive and chief of staff to the Minister for Defence.

Nuclear disarmament – all in good time

Are we ready for total nuclear disarmament?What of the issue of nuclear deterrence in the US–Australia alliance, and more generally in the western Pacific region?

For some, in America as well as Australia and elsewhere, this is chiefly a matter of moving as fast as possible to a nuclear-free world, in keeping with the hortatory goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as President Obama’s Prague speech of April 2009. For others, the problem is almost exactly the opposite. The real dilemma is ensuring continued nuclear deterrence as proliferation continues in places like North Korea, and China, India, and Pakistan continue to modernise or enlarge their arsenals.

More specifically, members of the so-called Global Zero movement often aspire to a time line in which negotiations on a treaty would begin within ten years, with the global elimination of nuclear weapons ideally to occur by 2030 or 2035. On the other side of the coin, many foreign policy pragmatists and traditionalists are content to imagine a nuclear-free world as a worthy goal but see absolutely no way to contemplate it at this moment in history. Read more

ASPI suggests

U.S. Army Spc. Joshua Philbeck plays a video game after getting off guard duty at the Iraqi police station in Buhriz, Iraq, Feb. 15, 2007.As the military modernisation the Asia Pacific continues, Taiwan is now looking at whether it can build its own submarine fleet.

If you’ve seen the movie Argo—the Hollywood version of the rescue of six US diplomats by the CIA and Canadian government—here’s the memoirs of CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck’s character) (PDF) on how things really went down.

In the 21st century security corner for this week: An update on the PLA’s UAV program (PDF) from Project 2049, Study on Chinese UAVs, and CSIS’ Peter Singer looks at the growth in capabilities like drones and cyber, and says that Obama needs to take a greater role in articulating norms for their use.

From CSIS we have a report on the nuclear aspect of Sino-US relations. The dynamic, they say, is stable for the moment, but the US will need to accept a Chinese minimum deterrent to keep it that way.

To mark a decade since the Iraq War, Foreign Policy have published a photoessay that looks at an operations journal of a young American lieutenant. The photos and entries depict his perspective of a post-9/11 America and his deployment in Iraq (warning: it’s grittier than most links we suggest).

Events

Canberra: ASPI’s Andrew Davies and Ben Schreer will provide their thoughts on the 2013 Defence White Paper, hosted by RUSI tomorrow, Wednesday 20 March at 5pm at the R1 Theatrette at Defence’s Russell Offices.

Former DFAT Secretary, Mr Ric Smith AO PSM, will be speaking about Australia in a world of change, covering the global shifts in power, the Indian Ocean and other foreign policy issues. Hosted at AIIA ACT’s branch in Deakin, the event is on Monday 25 March at 5.30pm.

Sydney: Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, will deliver a presentation on United Nations Security Council challenges for Australia at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, 22 March at 12.30pm.

Brisbane: Lieutenant Colonel Peter Monks (currently serving in the Australian Army) will address security challenges facing Afghanistan and future challenges for the Australian Army and ADF on Tuesday 26 March at 6pm.

Image courtesy of Flickr user The US Army.

Cyber goes strategic

President Barack Obama confers with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as he talks on the phone in the Oval Office, Feb. 6, 2013. In my last blog post I explored how the New York Times hacking incident had raised the stakes in the cyber domain to an unprecedented degree. Having had time to reflect on this statement, I’ve reached the conclusion that we have entered a time when cyber issues have shifted from a technical, low priority matter to a strategic issue which not only carries significant risks but demands increased prioritisation and engagement from governments if it isn’t to become a significant hindrance to international relations.

There’s now so much malicious cyber activity, a significant proportion of which can be reliably attributed to state-actors, that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for countries to not face up and seriously address the issue diplomatically. The need for action will only increase as pressure rises from the civilian population and the private sector companies who are currently suffering the most.

The shift in the perception of everything cyber has been a slow one over the past two decades. We used to focus on cyber hackers, who were deemed nothing more than intelligent ‘nerds’ who spent more time than was healthy learning and typing malicious code in order to hack into increasingly difficult targets. However, their purpose was one of competition between one another, and ultimately humiliation of the target website/organisation they targeted. However, by the turn of the century, governments had began to slowly wake up to the realisation that in many respects the ‘horse had bolted’ and that many of their computer systems and departments had already been subjected to some kind of attack, not just from individual ‘hacktivists’, but from state sponsored sources. Clearly there was an increasingly urgent need to secure those systems and create substantive policy to address the growing security risk posed, but movement on these fronts was slow. Now the bigger picture is becoming clearer, and the full extent of hacking, espionage and data theft across the public and private sectors is evidenced in the media almost daily. Only last week the Reserve Bank of Australia confirmed it had been hacked by ‘Chinese’ sources. This relentless tempo of events demands action—so what’s happening? Read more

Introducing the Alliance 21 series

In March 2011, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recognised the importance of the Australia–United States alliance by funding the three-year Alliance 21 project. Led by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, the project has enlisted 50 prominent strategic thinkers on both sides of the Pacific to identify the new challenges and opportunities, and set out policies for reinforcing US–Australia links and fostering future benefits.

The project is providing analysis and strategic direction across six themes: Defence and security, Education and Innovation, Emerging Asia, Energy Security, Natural resources and the Environment and Trade and Investment. ASPI’s Andrew Davies and Mark Thomson are among the experts from both sides of the alliance who have participated in the Defence and Security theme, led by Professor Russell Trood, Adjunct Professor, Defence and Security Program, United States Studies Centre and former ASPI Council member.

The participants in Defence and Security workshops in Canberra last year and recently in Washington DC have produced a series of draft papers that will inform the later development of the project. The Strategist is pleased to be able to present over the next few weeks a series of posts that distil the key points of those papers. As the papers are finalised and made available, we’ll provide links to them in our weekly ‘ASPI suggests’ column.

Strengthening the Australia–US alliance in a period of constraint

General Martin E. Dempsey, salutes with Chief of the Defence Force General David Hurley, Major General Tim McOwan and Chairman, United States Joint Chiefs of Staff and Admiral Samuel Locklear, Commander, United States Pacific Command as they pay respects at the Western Australia State War Memorial. In a period of limited and increasingly constrained defence resources, both the United States and Australia need to be looking for defence options that promise especially high leverage in the context of the changing military balance in the Asia–Pacific region. Four such options stand out: developing an integrated ISR network in the Western Pacific, bolstering allied undersea warfare, expanding munitions interoperability, and investing selectively in high-payoff capabilities.

An integrated ISR network for the Western Pacific

In light of the changing military balance in the Western Pacific, it makes sense for the United States to seek new ways of reassuring allies and friends and generating collective responses to crisis and aggression. An integrated ISR network represents a promising approach to do just that. First, the United States is stepping up its ISR assets in the region and recently deployed Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs to Guam. Second, a growing number of US allies and friends in the region are interested in acquiring new ISR assets. As part of its ongoing force posture review, for example, Australia is exploring the use of the Cocos Island for maritime air patrol and surveillance activities. Read more

Announcing the first Australia–Africa Leadership Dialogue

Earlier this month, The Economist carried a front-page story on ‘Aspiring Africa’ with the tag-line: ‘The world’s fastest growing continent’. The article praised the significant progress that has occurred in Africa over the last decade, highlighting the continent’s increased stability, higher number of democratic states, better health standards and flourishing economy.

We seldom hear good news stories from Africa, but the reality is that Africa really is the world’s fastest growing continent right now: GDP is expected to rise to an average of 6% a year, foreign direct investment in Africa has tripled over the last decade, and consumer spending will almost double over the next ten years. By 2015, 100 million Africans will earn incomes greater than $3000 (the same income as India’s middle class today). Indeed, Africa is becoming more of a success story, in contrast to how it’s been depicted so often in the past, and Australia has much to benefit from and contribute to this aspiring continent. Read more

Iraq and the PM’s profound prerogative

SYDNEY, Australia (July 5, 2007) - Rear Adm. Rick Wren, commander of Carrier Strike Group 5, and Australian Prime Minister John Howard talk about flight operations while touring the flight deck aboard USS Kitty Hawk.The way Australia goes to war hasn’t changed in a century.

The Prime Minister declares the deployment or announces the conflict and the troops march and the ships sail. This is the leader’s most profound prerogative.

The constraint on the prerogative is that in making the declaration, the Prime Minister must be sure of the support of the Cabinet and of the numbers in the House of Representatives. The political test is the only limit. The PM confident of cabinet and party can act without need to consult Parliament. No new law is needed. The Parliament can be the stage for high drama, fine speeches and argument of great political import, but the policy substance rests with the executive. The war powers belong to the Prime Minister.

Nothing in our history or experience has placed any other check on this prerogative—from WWI to Iraq, the experience has been the same. Read more