Is cyber terrorism the new swine flu?

I would strongly recommend, especially if you are of a nervous disposition, that you avoid reading the Strategic Defence and Security Review released by the UK government recently. The document makes uneasy reading.

The UK spends over £33-billion a year on defence. This is the equivalent of the total gross domestic product (GDP) of Mozambique, Namibia and Botswana put together. It is ten times the GDP of Zimbabwe and is three times the GDP of Afghanistan.

To justify this massive expenditure, even with a proposed 8% expenditure cut, the defence review is at pains to point out the numerous security threats to the UK. The threats read like the scripts for the next generation of disaster movies.

The issues posing the biggest security risks include terrorism, instability and conflict overseas, cyber security, civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, border security, and counterproliferation and arms control.

https://pixabay.com/service/license/ / CC0

Interestingly, the area that seems to have drawn much media attention is the newly identified threat of cyber security, which the defence review sees coming from hostile States, terrorists and criminals alike. The document notes: “Enemies will continue to attack our physical and electronic lines of communication. And the growth of communication technology will increase our enemies’ ability to influence not only all those on the battlefield, but also our own society directly. We must, therefore, win the battle for information, as well as the battle on the ground.”

It is strange to read a document that so blatantly calls for a war over information. But the most perplexing comment of all is that the defence review, a document allegedly focusing on security, highlights that the new threats from cyber terrorism are also an opportunity. The threat of cyber warfare, the document notes, means that the “UK government and British businesses . . . will derive benefits from the protection that effective cyber security measures bring to the UK economy”.

Such a statement guarantees substantial commercial interest in new profit-making security ideas. But this has also left me wondering if cyber terrorism is going to be the new battleground for scaremongers.

Just as we were told to fear bird and swine flu, mad cow disease and the potential impact of sheep with blue tongues, will we now be periodically subjected to public hysteria about cyber threats? I predict a steady flow of millennium buglike fiascos where threats are identified, millions invested and spent, and then threats disappear without a trace.

This is not, of course, to belittle the prospects for real cyber terrorism. Recently, for example, a computer worm known as Stuxnet, which damages computer systems, was identified on machines linked to Iran’s nuclear programme. This looks like one of the first successful and systematic attacks on a State installation presumably by a country or group of individuals trying to scupper Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The problem with all this, however, is that most of us know very little about cyber terrorism, hacking and computer security. The mere mention of cyber terrorism feeds into fantasies of computers slowly taking over the world as geeky James Bondlike cyber heroes battle their malevolent intent.

But computers do not make viruses or introduce them into systems by themselves – humans do. Most security breaches still happen through human error and through good old-fashioned security leaks like leaving documents unsecured.

The UK defence review acknowledges that “simple, common-sense security measures available to ordinary citizens and businesses would make a major difference if used widely”.

But I wonder, now that cyber terrorism has been put on the national security agenda, if common sense will prevail. Sadly, I suspect the business sector’s desire to make a quick buck and general ignorance about the limits of what computers can and cannot do will leave the taxpayer bamboozled and ripped off yet again as the UK government invests in all sorts of flashy, yet ultimately useless, new security technologies.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 29 October 2010 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Does it matter that Obama is black

The election of Barack Obama as President of the US was momentous and filled with historic firsts. The first black President of the US, the first woman moose-killing candidate running for Vice-President, and a record turnout of voters eager to make their mark on history. Importantly, and probably the first time in the Western world, the issue of race was also central to the election campaign.

Throughout the election, there was much talk of the Bradley effect. This is the tendency of white voters when choosing between a white or black candidate to tell pollsters that they will vote for the black candidate; however, when they enter the voting booth, they vote for the white nominee. In other words, when polled many white voters do not want to appear racist and, therefore, claim their preference is for the black candidate even if this is not the case.

What was interesting, however, was that there was little evidence of the Bradley effect in the election. In fact, the opposite might have happened. Some Republicans who said they would vote for McCain might well have decided at the last minute to vote for Obama. Obama got more white votes than most of the previous Democratic nominees. So does this mean race no longer matters in US politics?

I heard one commentator talk about a new “post racial” period in the US. What he meant by this was that race was no longer the electorate’s first point of reference. Rather it was competence and policies that drew people to politicians, not to mention the failures of previous governments.

This should be what we strive for the world over, but race, unfortunately, is still an issue. The fact that thousands of African-Americans turned out to vote, many because there was an African-American candidate, and the unambiguous elation many felt at electing a black man specifically suggest that race is still extremely important to many Americans.

The election of Obama shatters the myth that there is a racial ceiling in American politics. But Obama’s story is the exception rather than the norm. A 2008 United Nations Habitat report that focused on the state of the world’s cities found that race was still one of the most important factors determining levels of inequality in the US, as it is in many other societies. Electing a black President does not eradicate the legacy of inequality and discrimination that still affects contemporary life.

The ideal situation would be that Obama’s race, or anyone’s for that matter, is of no significance in politics. The fact that the Bradley effect did not come into play suggests that race is not as big an issue as before. However, at the same time, pretending that Obama’s Presidency has now moved the US into a “post racial” period is somewhat premature. Some real work remains to be done.

That said, I do not think we should undermine the importance of what has happened. Hope needs room to breathe and should not be crushed with cynicism at this early stage. If nothing else, it is of massive symbolic importance in the US and globally that the most powerful man on earth is black.

Of course, race needs to remain on the table and will need to be continually addressed in the US and elsewhere. I hope Obama uses his position to raise the issues of racial inequality and racism in the US and elsewhere, especially in relation to Africa.

But before raising even higher expectations of what Obama can achieve, I want to take pleasure in the wave of optimism that has swept the world through his rise to power. Whatever happens next, Obama’s story is inspirational and demonstrates, despite all the structural impediments in society, that sometimes individuals can change the world, and affect their and other people’s destiny in the process.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on  14 November 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

A war on terror or a war on reason

India defies description, especially after you spend only a week there and in one city, Delhi. Delhi is a great city of the world, embodying dozens of cultures, old and new. The city survives on teeming markets selling anything from bananas to electronics and a modern financial sector that is expanding rapidly.

The Indian economy has been growing at an annual rate of 8% to 9% recently, the second-fastest expanding economy in the world, behind China.

However, when I first arrived in Delhi, the signs of this new economic giant were hard to spot. The airport was underdeveloped – OR Tambo International Airport, in Johannesburg, makes it look like a small regional airport time-warped in the 1960s. At first glance, the city looks like it is more in decay than development. Crumbling buildings, beggars and poorly kept streets with children in gutters and thousands of people peddling cheap small items is the norm.

However, as I acclimatised to the bustling capital, I started to see development everywhere. In the middle of a row of rundown buildings and behind people, cars, animals and bicycles are upmarket clothes stores, software companies and international banks. Once you start to head out of the city, it becomes even more evident: new shopping malls, office blocks and modern apartments for sale. This is a country on the move, although still with a massive underclass.

Billboards advertise "the lifestyle you want", complete with pictures of compact apartments, swimming pools, fully equipped with 'German kitchens' and a photo of a smiling family, which invariably includes daddy, mommy, son and daughter. The influence of the West is pervasive and growing.

However, it is not only the Western lifestyles that is being imported. Ethnic strife, marked by what George W Bush would call the 'war on terror', is also notably present in India.

This was made all too real on the last night of my stay, when a series of five bombs exploded across Delhi, killing 25 people and injuring over 100. Two of the bombs went off fairly close to my hotel. I had eaten in the bombed district and driven through the area numerous times. The attacks were claimed by a group called the Indian Mujahideen, which is said to be linked to al-Qa'ida.

Immediately following the blasts, eerily familiar debates began playing themselves out on television. Was the government tough enough on radicals, asked the media. And the word 'terrorism' was thrown about by the Indian government in a way reminiscent of a US Republican convention or Sunday lunch on the Bush ranch.

Of course, the bombs in Delhi are acts of terror. Blowing up innocent people is immoral. But is it helpful to lump every act of terror in the same boat? Those setting off the bombs and world governments are equally guilty in that.

It is comfortable for governments to frame all extreme acts of violence as being about the war on terror. Such language justifies tough military action and tighter police control, while often diverting attention from other problems, such as poverty, structural discrimination and long histories of political tension. Governments seem to take perverse pleasure in being part of the global 'war on terror' club.

The alleged perpetrators also like to oversimplify matters. In an email from the Indian Mujahideen, the bombs are said to be a response to the "hostile hatred" of Islam and justified punishment for the "sins" of the people.

But when did global politics and political ideology become so simple?

Bush wants us to believe that there is only one war, and the bombers that there is only one justifiable struggle.

The rise of the totalising discourse is of great concern. Surely, it denies complex local politics, individual power struggles and massive cultural variations in how the so-called war on terror plays itself out. Painting everything with the same brush is not only lazy, anti-explanatory and culturally vacuous, but dangerous.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 3 October 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Let's forge alliances with US liberals and progressives

Rite and Reason: Serious analysis of conservative politics developing world and tiger economies is desperately needed, writes Dr Brandon Hamber.

Millions of Americans feel that the moral world is crumbling around them. When asked shortly before the election last year what issues mattered most in choosing a president, a New York Times survey revealed that "moral values" ranked top with the economy and jobs, followed by terrorism and the Iraq war.

Tax, education and healthcare were not ranked so highly. In the eyes of many Americans, a strong, principled leader that can oppose abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage is needed. Just over half of voting Americans feel that George Bush is such a person. To the remainder, Bush as a moral icon is laughable given his warmongering overseas.

But democracy has spoken and Bush is now embedding the conservative revolution he began in his first term. This is typified by the nomination and subsequent appointment of Paul Wolfowitz, a staunch advocate for military action, as head of the World Bank.

It is easy to treat the conservative turn in US politics as the result of misguided support for Bush by foolish Bible-bashers.

But the problem is more complex. It is time to face the fact that the right-wing in the US is organised. The Republicans moved door-to-door securing their position utilising 1.2 million volunteers to win votes. They sold "faith, family and flag" and most voters bought it. This suggests many fear a global moral vacuum that they think the Republicans can fill.

Such views litter internet chat rooms. As one Bush supporter put it, "I'm sorry but I don't lose sleep over Iraq. What I do lose sleep over is my children's future in the immoral cesspit that this country is becoming".

Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash

We all want a safe and decent world that embodies good values. This is why Bush has the support of some moderates as well as his traditional neo-conservatives and Christian fundamentalists. Their votes have endorsed, whether knowingly or not, an approach whereby the language of moral values will continue to be used to hide a value-free political and economic agenda.

The politics of morality is the new global battleground. The results can be disastrous. Estimates put the death toll in Iraq at between 20,000 and 100,000 civilians. They were killed in the name of freedom, democracy and to allegedly make the world a safer place.

But who has really benefited from this "moral" campaign?

Mostly those who sell weapons, reconstruction contractors and private security firms, many close to the Bush regime. Defence contracts worth $76 billion have been connected to nine out of 30 members of the US defence policy group.

The developing world, too, cannot ignore this situation. The influence of the Bush administration is going to be increasingly felt in the coming years. Negotiating investment may soon not only be about crude economic negotiations. Is it possible that, for example, South African constitutional approaches to issues such as gay marriage could be on the table in future trade talks?

The language of morality may find resonance in conservative parts of Africa and Ireland alike. Think of the views of some churches on homosexuality. Will these confluences of interest be used to open more doors for Republican-aligned companies that give little back to local economies?

A serious analysis of the politics of morality and conservatism, and its implications for the developing world and tiger economies such as Ireland, is desperately needed.

It is time for new alliances with liberals and progressives in the US, many of whom feel besieged in their own country right now. After all, there are only about 1,000 days to the next US election.

Originally published by Brandon Hamber in The Irish Times, 28 September 2005

Dr Brandon Hamber, a South African living in Belfast, is a consultant on conflict resolution and political transition-related issues.

Forget the war on terror, it's morals that count

It was a strange time to be in Boston in the midst of the US election. The tension was palpable and the support for Kerry-a native son of the city-pervasive. Right up until counting started the mood was optimistic. Early exit polls suggested a Kerry victory. But very soon it all started to turn for the Democrats. By 5:30am on election day, as I sat glued to the television abandoning my plans to observe the downtown Kerry “victory” rally, it was all but over. Bush was going to win.

The following day the usually lively city seemed melancholic. Over breakfast, hotel patrons spoke openly about their disappointment. Some told me they were embarrassed to be an American. They felt isolated and that they were living in another universe to their Bush-supporting compatriots. That evening in a shop I greeted an attendant “Hi. How you doing?”

His response: “I'm looking for a new country to live in,” his words indicative of the deep ruptures that now exist within the US.

Sometime on Wednesday, President Thabo Mbeki officially congratulated George Bush. He wished him well and “fervently” hoped for “greater world stability and peace under his leadership”. No one noticed. The US is a country that is wrapped up in itself these days despite its military exploits abroad. Those of a liberal persuasion-or at least a sizeable proportion of the 56 million people or 48% of the electorate who voted for Kerry-are struggling to figure out what went wrong and what is going on. Much soul searching is being done.

When asked what issues mattered most in choosing a president, survey data in the New York Times revealed that “moral values” ranked top with economy and jobs, followed by terrorism and the Iraq war. Seemingly issues such as tax, education and health care were seen as less important. A swathe of Americans feel that the moral world is crumbling about them. A strong, principled leader that can oppose abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage is what they feel is needed. Just over half of voting Americans feel that Bush is such a person. To the remainder, Bush as a moral icon is laughable, given his warmongering overseas.

Meanwhile, Mbeki, in his message to Bush, appealed for “renewed support for, and interest in Africa and the developing world, reform of world institutions and an era of multilateralism marked by a concerted drive to deal decisively with the challenge of poverty and underdevelopment”. It is hard to imagine that this is even on the map for the US right now. A conservative revolution is on the march.

It is easy for those from a liberal perspective to write this off or treat Bush supporters as if they are misguided bible-bashers. But the problem is more complex than that. It is time to face the fact that the right-wing in the US is organised. They moved door-to-door securing their position. The Bush campaign utilised 1,2 million volunteers with four times as many workers in Ohio than 2000. They sold “Faith, Family and Flag” and the majority of the electorate bought it.

This suggests that many fear some sort of global moral vacuum that they think the Republicans can fill. Such views litter internet chat rooms across the US. As one Bush supporter put it: “I'm sorry but I don't lose sleep over Iraq. What I do lose sleep over is my children's future in the immoral cess pit that this country is becoming”.

We all want a safe and decent world; one that embodies good values. This is why Bush attracted the vote of some moderates as well as his traditional neo-conservative and Christian fundamentalist supporters. But their votes have endorsed, whether knowingly or not, an approach whereby the language of moral values will continue to be used to hide a value-free political and economic agenda.

The politics of morality is a new global battleground. The results can be disastrous. Estimates put the death toll in Iraq as anywhere between 20 000 and 100 000 civilians. These people were killed in the name of freedom, democracy and to allegedly make the world a safer place.

But who has really benefited from this “moral” campaign? Mostly those who sell weapons, reconstruction contractors and private security firms, many close to the Bush regime. The Bush administration has, in Iraq's most vulnerable moment, tendered it off to the lowest bidder with no discernible benefit to its indigenous economy. Defence contracts worth 76 billion dollars, for example, have been connected to nine out of thirty members of the US Defense Policy Group.

In South Africa we cannot ignore these developments. The influence of the Bush administration is going to be felt more than before in the coming years. Negotiating investment may soon not only be about crude economic negotiations alone. Is it possible that South African constitutional approaches to issues such as gay marriage could be on the table in future trade talks? As South Africans we must not simply beg for investment or bend over backwards to get it no matter the cost. We need to unmask what is going on and ask what the “real” price of investment might be.

This is particularly important given that the language of morality may also find resonance in conservative parts of Africa. Think of the views of some African churches on homosexuality. Will these confluences of interest be used to open more economic doors into Africa for Republican-aligned companies that give little back to local economies? We cannot simply dismiss the right-wing any more or get away with taunts of imperialism. Poking fun at Bush's gaffs on the podium is not enough. A serious analysis of the politics of morality and conservatism and its implications for the developing world is desperately needed. Supporting moral values sounds benign but we must ensure that the debate on morality is detached political projects.

It is time for a renewed interest in the US. We need to reach out to those who do not want morality used negatively. It is time for new alliances with liberals and progressives in the US, many of whom feel besieged in their own country right now. After all, there are only about 1 400 days to the next US election.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 19 November 2004 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

OK, I was wrong...Bush wins

OK, I was wrong in some of my earlier postings...Kerry is not going to be the new US President. All the initial exit poles were wrong. My optimism was misplaced. I am still in Boston and the city is in mourning. Last night I was in a shop and simply greeted a shop attendant saying "Hi. How you doing?". His response, "I'm looking for a new country to live in!". Says a lot, and it is important to realise at this time that 49% of North Americans are deeply distressed by this result (not to mention most of the rest of the world!)...that said, it is small comfort for what is to happen over the next four years...as someone else said to me this morning, "You ain't seen nothing yet...".

America War Dead and Princess Diana

A friend, Dom, just dropped me an email to note the irony of the fact that the US is said to be furious over the publication of photos of the coffins of American Iraq war dead (see BBC article), in the same week as it is found OK to publish pictures of a dying Diana. Strange old world. The BBC article also highlights the following stats, 135,000 US troops in Iraq, tour of duty extended for 20,000, 91 US soldiers killed in April (and hundreds of Iraqis, unofficial sources say) and nearly 600 US troops killed since 1 May 2003. What a waste all round.

US offers two million dollar reward for Charles Taylor

Read today that United States has included a two million dollar reward for former Liberian leader Charles Taylor in its 87.5 billion dollar special budget for Iraq and Afghanistan. Tricky one when you agree with bringing someone to book but wonder about the motives of those offering the funds...is it me, or is the world becoming more and more like the Wild West? Wanted, Dead or Alive.

Been Away in the USA

I have been travelling over the last while. Was first at a conference at Notre Dame entitled Peacebuilding after Peace Accords. Thereafter took a short road trip from Chicago to Boston through the strange country of the US, via the Finger Lakes, Adirondack mountains and Vermont. As always it was full of surprises, very beautiful and a place one cannot simply put into a pigeon-hole. Constantly one runs into some of the nicest people on earth, which is always hard to reconcile given the countries foreign policy, but here is hoping for some changes in 2004....my brief sojourn tells me this is what most people want...

US Prison Population now 2.2m

According to the Economist the prison population in the US grew by 2.6% in 2002 and is now 2.2 million. One in ten black men aged between 25 and 29 are in jail in the US. Louisiana has the highest figure with 794 for every 100,000 residents being incarcerated. [Note to self: Seems like this is becoming an anti-American blog, this is not the plan....just seems to be a lot of what is sent to me these days, guess that says something].

All bets are off on terror, rules Pentagon

The Pentagon, writes Julian Borger, has dropped its plan to allow speculators to make bets on future terrorist attacks in the hope that it would help military planners to predict future threats. The $8m scheme, which would have allowed punters to speculate on the likelihood of assassinations, coups and the full range of possible disasters in the Middle East, caused uproar in Congress, where Democratic senators dubbed it a "terrorism betting parlour"....more...

McCarthy hearings online

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has published all of the transcripts of executive sessions held while Senator Joseph R. McCarthy chaired the subcommittee from 1953 to 1954. Publication of the transcripts, which marks the 50th anniversary of the hearings, constitutes the opening of the largest collection of documents related to McCarthy’s anti-Communist investigations.

With the subcommittee’s authorization, the Senate Historical Office edited the 160 transcripts—which contain testimony from over 500 witnesses—into a five-volume series published by the Government Printing Office (GPO). The Historical Office reviewed the transcripts, deleting nothing; prepared editorial notes; and created an index. The original records are available at the Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration. The entire text of these transcripts (S.Prt. 107-84) is available online, or may be borrowed from your local depository library.

View Here

Iraq Spinning out of control sent by Helen McLaughlin

My immediate concern about this war is about how it will affect civilians in Iraq. But I have a deep concern about the long term consequences of the US and UK going against the will of the UN. It has been bad enough to watch Tony Blair act as the palatable, smiling "reasonable" face of the monkey in the White House. It has been bad enough to watch them falling over themselves to start a war. But the thing that concerns me most of all is the way in which the US and UK have turned the blame for all of this on the UN itself for a failure of process. The UN has a process for agreeing military action, and all members of the Security Council agree that it is important for a veto option to be in place for permanent members, precisely to temper action in controversial situations. Indeed, the US has used the veto itself on at least 34 occasions (largely to block resolutions against Israel). I did not hear the US or UK declare this to be a failure of the UN process, but I am quite sure that on the contrary, the US welcomed the opportunity to block actions it could not support. Other members of the Security Council may well have been frustrated by the US veto on many occasions, but the process was upheld as one that they had all agreed to. Now, when France exercises its democratic right to veto, it is spun by the UK and US as a failure of the UN process. The spin says that because France threatened a veto, this forced them to take military action - surely the opposite is in fact the case - that a veto from a respected permanent member of the security council required them rather to back away from military action, and to seek alternative solutions. While France has its own case to answer for supplying weapons to Iraq along with US and UK in the past, this spin against France is entirely cynical. I have been dismayed and disgusted by the way this has been spun - the better Tony Blair & co get at spinning words around to suit their own ends the more certain I become that they are not to be trusted. It must equally dismay the Security Council to be told that Resolution 1441 constituted an approval for war, when the US ambassador, in order to cajole members into supporting the resolution, described it as having no "automaticity" or "trigger" for military action. Words are spoken, then the spin is applied with hindsight to render them lies at worst, meaningless at best. It is difficult to trust what you hear these days. The war on Iraq is wrong.