The role of "cyber" in the international system

IN AN ever increasingly connected world the role of "cyber" has taken on a new level of importance. Its place, and by extension its function in society has, however, become something of a debate in its own right.

For the purposes here we can distinguish between online and cyber. We are not talking about buying things or streaming movies. We are instead looking at the connectivity which "cyber" has provided in the arena of global governance and whether this has removed or created boundaries.

While it may have an effect on the debate it is also unnecessary here to discuss the concerns raised by some experts in the field, including "father of the Internet" Vint Cerf, that changing technologies may lead to the loss of vast stores of data and information, other than to say that if this were to happen its impact on global information distribution, and particularly its importance in the promotion of emerging economies, may have long term unforeseen implications. Such a loss, and with it the associated loss of production possibility and sustainability for developing countries, would likely cause severe between country instability and destabilise portions of the international system. 

Before this becomes a global doomsday prophecy it is worth clarifying that such an impact would likely be mitigated by the gradual nature of the information loss and the ability of states and large multinationals to update their technologies gradually thereby mitigating such loss.

We are brought back therefore to "cyber" as an increased form of connectivity and what impact this can have on the international system.

There are those who view the increased communications abilities provided as a risk to global security and the international system as a whole. For some states the risks have been judged as too high and as such they have attempted to impose stringent controls on their populaces ability to access such resources. A similar debate occurred however when the printing press was first used and when Gutenburg's bible was produced. The debate now will end in the same outcome, as has already been demonstrated by the means by which some activists have circumvented government controls to spread information via social networking sites and the "dark web".

For network theorists the enhanced role of "cyber" has provided a way for "bottom up" change to take place as transnational advocacy networks can communicate more effectively and thereby put increased pressure on states to take action on a range of topics.

This same mechanism however has also given criminal entities and terror networks the same advantage leading to a spread of ideologies and increased ability for global recruitment. No longer is Walter Lacquer's view of terror groups as small, contained entities, viable in the new "cyber" world.

The impact of TANs is, by their very nature, limited by the will of the states they are attempting to change. For those using "cyber" to destabilise civil society they are equally limited by the ways in which states will respond, as seen by removal of internet capabilities.

"Cyber" therefore means as much now as the printing press did then. It is a tool which has not yet seen its potential. That potential however is limited by the will of the international system, which despite the best wishes of the network theorists is still ruled by the sovereignty of states and a realist perspective. 

The West must shoulder blame for Ukraine

IF the current crisis in Ukraine demonstrates anything it is that the Cold War far from thawing has entered a new phase.

Rather like some prehistoric monster from a bad B movie it appears that the Cold War has been in a state of deep freeze just waiting for the right climate to appear for it to make its grand resurgence.

Ukraine has provided just such a catalyst. The old rivalries between two dominant forces are reawakened. There is a misconception however that the growls from the aged Soviet bear are the cause of all today's ills. In international politics it still takes two to tango and the West must foot its fair share of the blame.

As the doyen of international relations John Mearsheimer stated: "The   United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West." (Mearsheimer, 2014)

The United States logically wants to maintain its position as the only hegemon in the global debate, China may be approaching this state but has not yet achieved the same level of cultural or political dominance. 

For Vladimir Putin this poses a direct threat to the sovereign interests of Russia. A Ukraine without Russian ties would pose a problem for him, by, as Mearsheimer points out, giving the West a strong staging point right on his border. 

Imagine for a second that Scotland had voted for independence and England refused to allow it. Would the West defend China if they interceded on Scotland's behalf? It may sound particularly far fetched yet in rational terms the situation is not that much different than the one currently facing Ukraine and its surrounding areas.

Of course with Ukraine however there are far deeper veins to plum for information on the cause and effect of the situation. In historical terms it would be more akin to France throwing its support behind an independent Scotland against the English.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia is arming rebels, a useful but not entirely fair term. So long as it doesn't become explicit however it must be seen as part of the great game. Suggestions that the West could overtly arm Ukrainian forces is a dangerous idea. While support is restrained to words and sanctions, with armed support kept to the shadows, there is a possibility for both sides to walk this back. 

If either side admits openly to supplying military assistance though it will force the situation into a whole new phase. The crisis in Ukraine may be devastating but an escalation would be catastrophic and the West would well and truly have the blood on its hands.

The enemy of my enemy

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron drew ire this week after daring to suggest that his responsibility to the UK outweighed his views of Saudia Arabian human rights issues.

The simple fact is that ethics do not come into the relations between states in the international system. The concept of human rights abuses, which in and of itself is a matter for contention in the face of different legal systems and philosophies, is only a matter of debate for state leaders if they lead to fundamental instability within the country which can destabilise the international system. 

This doesn't make it right, it doesn't act as justification, it does mean that larger interests and the security of international States can be maintained. 

This is not to say that human rights abuses should be ignored. They must, however, be placed in context of the norms governing the situations. Transnational advocacy networks, groups such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, humanitarian agencies and even international organisations, such as the United Nations, have a clear responsibility to address these issues, while also placing them in the context of the cultural and legal positions within the states themselves.

It is clear though that Mr Cameron's primary responsibility is to the United Kingdom, preserving its security, maintaining its position in the international system and, where appropriate, increasing its global power position. It would be wrong to assume that he should risk the safety of his own state to condemn the legal system in another. 

This however is what his critics currently want. In his defence Mr Cameron was reported as saying: "I can tell you one time since I've been prime minister, a piece of information that we have been given by that country has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in Britain.

"Now, you can be prime minister and say exactly what you think about every regime in the world and make great headlines, and give great speeches.

"But I think my first job is to try and keep this country safe from terrorism and if that means you have to build strong relationships sometimes with regimes you don't always agree with, that I think is part of the job and that is the way I do it. And that is the best way I can explain it."

If we were to condemn all our allies for failing to uphold the ideal of humanitarian values we would expose ourselves to not only the same scrutiny and condemnation but also to an increase in threats against us. 

Our ability to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom would be irreparably damaged if we were to base our foreign policy decisions purely on ethics and morals rather than logic and reason. Our key ally America would be the first we would have to distance ourselves from and with it Israel, Jordan et al. 

International relations is not a kind game. It is not about only playing with the nice kids. It is about taking the action needed to preserve the power and security of the state. It is for this reason that organisations such as Amnesty International are so important. When states cannot act others must be able to.