geopolitech2014

[geopolitech2014]

ICT, women and entrepreneurship

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has just launched its first report on Empowering Women Entrepreneurs Through Information and Communications Technologies, with the aim of analysing key ICT dynamics that facilitate women entrepreneurship, especially in the developing countries. It strives to constitute a guidebook for development agencies, government ministries, SME partners and donor community to help them formulate effective strategies and policies.

 Why is it important?

 ICT constitute increasingly valuable business tools for women entrepreneurs in developing countries. As our ranking encompasses countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Turkey, where women’s social, economic and political rights are limited (albeit to a different degree), it is important to consider the potential consequences of women’s economic empowerment. If the economic potential of these women is released, it could not only help to improve their socioeconomic standing and reduce poverty at the micro level - as women’s microenterprises and small subsistence businesses ‘play a crucial role in the survival of poor households’[i], but also contribute to GDP growth, thus increasing national economic power and the position of a country in the international balance of power. It can contribute as well to creating jobs and driving innovation.

Where is the link?

The basic ICT tools are relatively cheap and easily accessible, mainly via mobile phones, to even the poorest population strata in developing countries. According to International Telecommunication Union, last year the number of mobile phone users per 100 inhabitants in Africa reached 72 (as opposed to 39 in 2008). This gives an idea about the potential scale for expansion, and about the extent, to which ICT changes the way people live, work and communicate.

The list of potential benefits of using ICT in business cited in the report is extensive. The most important are:

-       better access to crucial information in areas such as business development, market and pricing information, production technologies, compliance, forecasts and trading

-       enabling entrepreneurs to communicate better along the value chain

-       making administration cheaper and more efficient.[ii]

As argued by the authors of the report, ICTs thus offer extensive opportunities for women entrepreneurs, helping them in ‘reaching out to customers, becoming more efficient and building their businesses in ways they could not do before.’[iii]

In this context, the report provides a very optimistic case study of Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme in Lesotho. Their pilot project consisted of handing out mobile phones to groups of women farmers belonging to local cooperatives, and resulted in many improvements, such as improved marketing and increase in productivity thanks to access to pricing information and outlets for produce, as well as access to networks and expertise. 

Moreover, those phones released a true enterpreunarial spirit in participating women, who even used them as income-generating tools - through buying discounted airtime and selling it to others. The earnings were then either invested in livestock or more phones, or loaned to friends and relatives (2009 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development).

It remains to be seen whether national governments and development agencies make use of the U.N. findings and conclusions. It is however undoubtedly a sign of an increased interest in the topic, which has not been until now in the centre of international attention. It also sends a strong political message, particularly taking into account recent events, such as group kidnapping of female students in Nigerian village of Chibok.

[i] UNCTAD (2014) Empowering Women Entrepreuners through Information and Communications Technologies - a Practical Guide, retrieved on 11/05/2014 from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlstict2013d2_en.pdf

[ii] idem

[iii] idem

Other interesting sources:

http://girlsinict.org Girls in ICT - expanding horizons and changing attitudes

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/women-ict Europe 2020 Digital Agenda - Women in ICT

http://womenict.blogspot.fr Women in ICT blog, concerning mainly Nigerian women

Monika Prończuk

[geopolitech2014]

Drones and the redefinition of war

Last December, a drone pilot of the U.S. army stroke nearly a hundred of civilians during a wedding procession, a strike immediately denounced by Human Rights NGOs as Human Rights Watch.[1] Issues like that are rising in a world where the war takes now place without a territory – the battlefield- and a time scale, as it is mostly a war against an broad concept – terrorism- that is endless. Drones, while allowing the soldiers to act almost “from home”, profoundly modify the 21st century geopolitics, as space, geography does not play the same role as before. After September 11th attacks, the then President of the United States, George W. Bush, introduced the idea of the whole world as a battlefield to illustrate the intensity of the defense necessary for the country: “our war on terror will be much broader than the battlefields and beachheads of the past. This war will be fought wherever terrorists hide, or run, or plan.”[2] This lead to the practice of drone strikes directly targeted at specific member of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, which is still going on and increasing under Barack Obama’s presidency. If this major shift in the practice of war was never theorized, it represents the contemporary issues and probably the future of the conflict practices. However, the Law of Armed Conflicts, or International Humanitarian Law (IHL) still operates under the categories of another century.

Therefore, there is a major issue brought by the introduction of such advanced technology in the practices of war today: the practice of targeted killing. Reminding that according to Geneva conventions, a combatant should be directly taking part in the conflict as to be targeted, the practice of targeted killing as it is done by the CIA in counterterrorism fight give raise to debates. A targeted killing can be defined as “the intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force, by States or their agents acting under color of law, or by an organized armed group in armed conflict, against a specific individual who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator.”[3] The same report also reminds that the concept of “targeted killing” is not defined under international law. As Schmitt writes, “the ability of armed drones to observe the target area for long periods before attacking means the operators are better able to verify the nature of a proposed target and strike only when the opportunity to minimize collateral damage is at its height.”[4] This could eventually apply within IHL, implying that the space of the battlefield and the actors of the conflict are defined and operating under this body of law. Therefore, it could be considered as “killing enemies in self-defence”. On the other side, targeted killing, especially when operating under International Human Rights Law, can also genuinely be considered as “extrajudicial assassination.”[5] Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also reminded that where IHL is not effective, IHRL is operating and must be respected. “I see the indiscriminate killings and injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations.[6]” To sum up, there is an ambivalence between a vision of drones raising “the bar of expectations,”[7] with a much more precise targeting, and a lecture of targeted killings as way of killing outside any rule of law. But one thing is sure, drones and technologies are clearly redefining the practices, the scope and the definitions of war, which calls for legal redefinitions among the international community.

 Sara Lickel

[1] Human Rights Watch, « US : Yemen Drone Strike may violate Obama policy », February 20, 2014. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/19/us-yemen-drone-strike-may-violate-obama-policy

[2] President George W. Bush, Radio Address of the President to the Nation, Sep.29, 2001.

[3] Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Study on Targeted killings, Human Rights Council. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, (May 28, 2010), by Philip Alston. p 3.

[4] Michael N. Schmitt, Drone Attacks Under the Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello : Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’, 13 Y. B. International Humanitarian Law, 2010, p. 314.

[5] Afsheen John Radsan, Richard Murphy, “Measure Twice, Shoot Once : Higher Care For CIA-Targeted Killing”, 2011

[6] Speech delivered in Islamabad, June 7th, 2012.

[7] Christopher Drew, Human Rights Groups Says 29 Civilians Were Killed by Israel Air Attacks in Gaza, N.Y. Times, June 30, 2009 quoting P. W. Singer, author of Wired for War. 

[geopolitech2014]

NETmundial 2014 - Back to a more egalitarian approach to Internet governance?

In 2014, the World Wide Web celebrates its 25th anniversary, an important occasion to reflect on past developments and the future of Internet governance.  On April 23 and 24, Brazil hosted the NETmundial conference in Sao Paulo where leaders from politics, the economy and civil society debated the future of internet governance in light of the ongoing debate on the legitimacy and boundaries of surveillance following the revelations of the former NSA employee Edward Snowden. Although the summit produced a 12 pages final document, the debates between the different stakeholders revealed persisting challenges to find common ground on the future governance of the cyberspace.  

The evolution of the Internet promised the creation of an extraterritorial, egalitarian space outside of governmental controls where information could flow freely. However, with the expansion of the World Wide Web in its capacity and the number of participants, the Internet has posed increasing challenges to the power of states. Malicious activities such as espionage, cyber attacks or even cyber war connect the virtual realm as a new battle space to the physical realm. The cyber attacks in Estonia in 2007 or the 2009 Stuxnet attack on an Iranian nuclear facility have exposed the possible negative impact of the Internet on the power of states. The Arab spring has moreover shown that the internet can serve as a platform to organize protests against political regimes, which are then transferred to the physical sphere.

As a response to possible power limitations, states sought different means to contain the threat from the cyberspace. While some governments built offensive cyber weapons and have pre-emptive doctrines to use them, other states such as China or Turkey also shut down websites or even entire servers to limit the area of operation and collaboration for Internet users.  However, from these governmental actions, a significant power dilemma arises, which is succinctly described in a recent Op-ed by Joseph Nye for "Project Syndicate". While governments try to censor and limit the Internet to maintain control and preserve power, they also want to reap the economic fruits of increased connectivity.[1]

Faced with this dilemma and shaken by the recent NSA scandal, governments came together at NETmundial to re-negotiate the governance of the Internet. At the focus of the debate was the need for an expanded protection of the data of Internet users. Although governments like that of the host-country Brazil, which recently passed a new bill on data protection, pushed other government to follow a similar path, no major achievements were made. However, another major topic of debate at the conference signifies an important step back to a more egalitarian approach to internet governance; the transition away from a US-centric Internet governance model through the exclusive oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). [2]

From its inception in 1998, ICANN performed the technical coordination of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the Internet numbering system in a contractual relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). With the delegation of these responsibilities to a not-for-profit organization, which would govern by means of private contracts, the U.S. government officially proposed to globalize governance of Internet identifiers in a multi-stakeholder process. However, as the contracting authority to ICANN the U.S. government has maintained a unilateral oversight role over ICANN and the IANA functions until today. As the majority of Internet users now reside outside the U.S., the U.S. government’s unique position vis-à-vis the technical management of the global Internet is increasingly unjustified and has provoked international resistance by governments and stakeholders.

A transition away from the US centric model, which expires in September 2015, provides the international community with the chance to create a participatory, multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance. However, while this development will allow governments to renegotiate their stake in Internet governance, the strengthening of user rights shall not be forgotten. In this vein, the unsatisfactory outcomes of NETmundial have highlighted the necessity to balance the protection of state power with the necessity to give more power to the user in the cyberspace of the future.

By Sophie-Charlotte Fischer 

  [1] Nye, J. S. (2014). Safeguarding the Cyberspace. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1uKHZFo

[2] Zeit Online (2014). Netmundial conference: The future oft he internet shall emerge in Sao Paulo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1sm6UuQ

[geopolitech2014]

Towards a legal framework for online surveillance?

In late April, members of civil society, governmental officials, and techies gathered at the NETmundial conference in São Paulo, Brazil, to discuss the future of Internet governance. Its international scope created space for a cross-cultural analysis over different challenges and principles underpinning online governance today, and aimed to produce a series of proposals that, ultimately, will shape policy. Over 1,000 participated in the conference, and nearly 100 countries were represented, laying the groundwork for a participatory approach to the online sphere. As surveillance and technological capacity become increasingly relevant in global power politics, this democratic initiative reveals popular concern over the Internet’s fate.

A nonbinding agreement produced at the end of the conference, which White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel described as “a critical step forward in the global discussions around the Internet,” integrated democratic values into an attempted legal framework for Internet governance. The agreement’s text stresses free speech and highlights the Internet’s ability to empower diverse social cleavages to express their voice and challenge national policy. But while the agreement vaguely touches on surveillance, Mr. Daniel considered that it did not go beyond dispositions already expressed in international law, and that it contained “nothing groundbreaking.” Others expressed disappointment that online surveillance occupied less discussion during the conference.  

Domestic spying engendered debate and proved divisive among representatives from different countries. Not surprisingly, Russia, India, and Cuba pushed to include dispositions that would justify governmental supervision and censorship over certain content, while other countries represented at the conference generally converged on the importance of securing the Internet’s role as a tool for free expression. But these three countries’ divergence reveal that online freedoms are an excellent lens through which to understand ideological schisms in the international arena. 

 Although some countries will remain steadfast in their desire to crush popular dissent, the NETmundial conference is a positive development towards an eventual and much-needed legal framework governing invasive technologies worldwide. Wikileaks revealed the dangerous absence of limits on a state’s capacity to monitor and control and has subsequently prompted some to speak out. Earlier in April, a number of human rights organizations united to form the Coalition Against Unlawful Surveillance Exports (CAUSE), which seeks to hold public and private entities accountable for an increasingly prominent international trade in surveillance technologies, which are used to silence public dissent.

 Coalition members have documented a series of recent abuses during which governments and private companies have used surveillance technology to tighten their grasp on free speech domestically or facilitate foreign governments’ ability to do the same. In many cases, surveillance technologies manufactured in Western countries, typically not under the spotlight for human rights abuses, have been traced to repressive regimes notorious for censorship and even torture. As these technologies become globalized and harder to trace, an international framework for controlling their circulation becomes even more necessary. Wenzel Michalski, Germany director at Human Rights Watch, stressed the importance of mitigating the “devastating impact these technologies have on the lives of individuals and the functioning of independent groups,” adding that “inaction will further embolden blatantly irresponsible surveillance traders and security agencies, thus normalizing arbitrary state surveillance.”

 The good news is that initiatives are underway to challenge surveillance’s global proliferation. But while non-governmental advocacy is important, states must take action to encourage accountability and prevent more advances in abusive technologies.

[geopolitech2014]

An opinion on Internet, Freedom and Geopolitics

BBC conducted a global poll between December 2013 and February 2014 on the idea of freedom and what it means. The idea of freedom has been always a politically and socially contested topic but in the age of digital information and communication technologies has become even more complex than before.

Freedom has been an idea discussed since the earliest years of human civilization. The French and the American Revolutions revolved around this ideal. And in more recent times it has been associated with the struggles against decolonization in the developing world and the civil liberties’ movements in the West. In our days we see that the ideal of freedom can be applied in actions that involve mediated communication, such as the communication facilitated by the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).

I suggest that in a world where states compete, among others, on the basis of the wellbeing of their citizens and post-materialism has become a major narrative of social evolution, freedom has a central role to play. I argue that the use of ICTs could be a tool that would increase the power of states by stimulating processes that lead to more social trust. According to this understanding, social trust facilitates the interactions between individuals and groups of individuals and enhances societal inclusiveness. Societal inclusiveness can lead to less social strife and can facilitate innovation. If this reasoning is correct then I assert that societies with these characteristics are societies that have the advantage over societies and countries that lack these characteristics.  Then it could be plausible to argue that the use of the ICTs as a tool to achieve these goals could be a major factor in promoting state power. Thus, the Internet, as one of the most important representatives of ICTs could be a specific tool of promoting state power in international relations/geopolitics.

The BBC poll shows that the majority (52%) of respondents of the 17 countries surveyed think that, while the Internet has brought greater freedom, it is not a safe place for them to express their opinions.   

Figure 1, Source: Higham Nick, 2014

This negative perception of the internet has been, to large extend, been instigated after the summer 2013 Edward Snowden revelations about the degree to which the US government was snooping on its citizens and the citizens of allied countries through its National Security Agency (NSA). We could safely argue that these perceptions have an impact on the way people use the internet and on whether they use it at all. We could also argue that since the majority of the respondents believe that the internet is not safe place for them to express their views, they consequently do not use it in the socially optimal way.  According to my above reasoning, this socially optimal way would lead to more social innovation and inclusiveness and would affect state power and alter the global balance of power and thus geopolitics.

If the argument that I am embarking on is based on a sound reasoning then the results of the global BBC poll should be alarming for the governments. These results showcase that the safeguards that secure user’s rights and privacy are weak and as a result the use of the internet does not lead to the socially most optimal outcomes. If such an understanding prevails over the currently dominating understanding of free Internet as a threat to governments and state power, then we could hope for a different approach of the governments towards the Internet.

Of course, many caveats have to be introduced here. An unconditional backing of the ideal of free Internet would be naïve. Free Internet to me means an Internet that is proportionally regulated. The fears of how ICTs and Internet can be used to promote terrorism for example should not be underestimated. Therefore, I do not argue for a totally deregulated WWW space but for a different understanding of Internet by governments of not as a threat to but as an opportunity for state power. This will be a kind of state power that will be based in a bottom-up approach. If Internet is perceived in such a way, then we could possible expect that online communications’ surveillance and crackdown on Internet freedom will not be the automatic governmental policy when considering issues of promoting internet security and state security in general.

Spyros E. Monastiriotis

Source: Higham, N. (2014, April 1). BBC poll: Web brings more freedom and more surveillance. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26824802

[geopolitech2014]

Cyber-attacks and The Fall of Security Paradigm

Franck Boldewin is specialized in tracking hackers, worms, Trojan horses and other cyber-attacks, which are not found by Firefox or web browsers. The journalist intervewed him on his role in the discovery of Stuxnet. He emphasized the importance to understand the new definition of interaction between virtual and real worlds. To him, “Hacking is a weapon; and the difference between this virtual weapon and a conventional one is that there is a choice depending on what you want to do: hurt or protect.”

The Stuxnet program was, according to Franck Boldewin, a choice for the US to avoid a conventional war in Middle East that they could not afford due to their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This program helped slowing down the nuclear program in Iran in order to prevent Israeli government from bombing Iran. This could have led to a conventional war. The cyber-attack appears to be different from a conventional organised attack led by a government against another organisation.  It could be not organised which makes it identification and the fighting harder.

Cyber-attacks destroy the “security paradigm” that is usually in people mind. This paradigm is based on the idea that building a wall to secure the “inside” is an efficient way. The wall has to define a security perimeter. However, with cyber-attacks, there is no more conventional security neither perimeter. The Israeli government invested since years in what is called the “Iron Dome”. It is a program to protect from missiles but it take into account the net components. It is a protection numeric shield. Erez Kreiner, ex director of National Cyber-security Authority, explains that high walls have been used with check-points for years. They proved to be efficient to protect the “inside” but also proved their insufficiency: on the net, the virtual “check point” or “security gate” can be enforced easily. The protect measures needs to be think again. That is why; the Israeli government changed his program.

In terms of cyber-security, the EU is poorly venture. In Brussels, the OTAN Center for Cyber Defense is operating a numeric monitoring for the 28 countries and even at the borders of the EU to identify threats. Every day, 147 million of threats and confirmed attacks are blocked. These attacks are partly targeting civilian infrastructures. This targeting challenges International Law. The ethic of war could change since by targeting a national infrastructure which will have consequences for civilians, hackers move the International Law borders. How to legitimate a cyber-war or a conventional war resulting from cyber-attacks? Some people suggested that a “Cyber Pearl Harbor” is needed to make hackers sit and propose conventions.

But regulatory conventions are hardly compatible with ICTs. Gabi Siboni, Head of the Military and Strategic Affairs Program at the INSS, underlines the fact that “Internet have been built for sharing and not for security.” There is an apparent contradiction between needs of inter-connexion and needs of security. Programmers do not have in mind security as a priority. The documentary about Net War concluded by the propositions made by some hackers. ICTs could be made using smaller components, which might help defining and limiting the use of ICTs. ICTs will be used only for a precise function, limiting security risks.

Julie Astoul

Arte Net war - Marcel Kolvenbach (Allemagne, 2013, 52 min.)

http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/048364-000/netwars-la-guerre-sur-le-net

[geopolitech2014]

Change of geopolitics: China and cyber security

China knows that it will take many years to reach a level of performance similar to the US one. With the Huawei case, China has proved to be powerful in using ICTs for industrial spying, though cyber-attack. This industry looks like the US Sisco company. The huge investment in R&D made bug the Chinese company made Huawei more performant and competing that the US company. This strategy shows how cyber-attacks could affect geopolitics. It changes the dynamic of a region. That is why; cyber spying and attacks became a matter of national security.

            China, not only use cyber-attacks for financial an industrial stakes, it also uses it to counterbalance its lack of military capacity. Chinese military forces cannot compete with the US one. However, since the 2000s the government focused on asymmetric war. Cybernetic technics became part of its strategy.

In 2001, after the collision of an American Air Forces plane with a Chinese one, a step has been taken by China (government and private companies). As an example, some hackers created a club called the “Eagles Club” which is fighting online for Chine Government. They have been mainly focusing on the protection of Formosa Straight.  

In 2013, the Chinese army has been accused of Cyber-attacks against the US. The Unit 61398 has been accused of spying from Shanghai. The Unit has been involved in many hacking operations against the US (press and governmental agencies as well as companies). The investment of China in Cyber technics might and has already changed is power. Obama has mainly based his Foreign Policy on the Asian pivot.

The new digitalized battlefield between China and the US could affect the use of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). China is slowly recognizing the shift in using the LOAC principles to found rules on cyber warfare. The development of its cyber-attacks capacities of China could lead to a cyber-collision with the US. This threat makes China an unavoidable power.

Julie Astoul

[geopolitech2014]

Knowledge isn’t power, Sharing is power

http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal_the_military_case_for_sharing_knowledge

In a recent TEDTalk (link above), retired four-star-general Stanley McChrystal explores the evolving relationship the military organization has had with knowledge, information and knowledge sharing.

After the leaks that the National Security Agency in the United States experienced, more light has been shed on the manner in which various governmental, intelligence, and military units handle knowledge.

In a world and a time where technology and intelligence is playing a greater role in building alliances, power structures, and determining perceived power both traditional and smart power, information and knowledge are crucial. McChrystal uses his military background and experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan to highlight instances where he believes that holding on to knowledge and limiting other people’s access to it is proving more and more detrimental than sharing that information with a wider-than-usual circle.

The paradigm of information seems to be shifting from the ‘need to know basis’ to ‘who can benefit from this information’. Information needs prediction becomes at the heart of collaboration in knowledge management and sharing. Stanley repeatedly highlights that information is only of value when in the hands of people who can do something better with it.

With these new ideas in mind, it is interesting to observe how new technologies, weapons, and undreamed communication advances are pushing the world toward more information sharing between allies, leaving allies exposed, yet further strengthening those alliances

“Moving from secrecy to breaking down walls” is the shift that McChrystal signals. But one has to ask the question: does that apply to proprietary military technology and tactical advances between allies?

Throughout the research my group has been doing in regards to drones, it was very interesting to note that many countries acquired their drone stockpiles from unconventional countries (USA and China) such as Israel and Egypt. This could signal the emerging connections and cooperation on the military technology fronts between various countries.

Furthermore, with the surveillance scandals that have been emerging with the WikiLeaks and Snowden, it is crucial to consider the perspective shift societies and governments alike are experiencing. Whereas surveillance and wiretapping were considered a normality of the Cold War era, cooperation has become the norms in the last decade. Stanley further highlights that fear resides where people hold on to information and not where people share in appropriately.

All in all, as we reconsider how we view information and power in a changing world, I think it is important to reflect on the shift Stanley McChrystal discusses in this TEDTalk, a shift of where power resides!

Instead of knowledge is power, sharing is power. It was the fundamental shift, not new tactics, not new weapons, not new anything else. It was the idea that we were now part of a team in which information became the essential link between us, not a block between us.

Sarrah El Moumouhi 

[geopolitech2014]

Cyber militias may pose more risks than reward to governments who support them

(source: wikicommons)

Contrary to what you might think, most cyber attacks to date have not been carried out by States, but loosely organized civilian groups known as cyber militias. In addition to incorporating cyber warfare activities into their traditional military structures, many governments  are also pondering how to informally or even clandestinely enlist the expertise available in cyber militias while also pushing for more robust cyber security laws at the international level. However, governments are cognizant of the dangers the development of these uncontrolled militias pose, both among their own citizens and abroad.

The first recorded instance of a cyber militia attack dates back to 1998, when, aided by European hackers, cyber warriors identifying themselves with the Zapatista National Liberation Army’s guerilla war against Mexico launched a series of attacks against government websites. Since the Zapatista’s first cyber operations in 1998, almost all regional conflicts have had some sort of a cyber component. The break up of the former Yugoslavia, for example, saw the birth of cyber militias in both Russia and China responding to Western intervention in the region.

Today, the militias are becoming less nationalistic and have even been known to form alliances amongst themselves. This makes governments worry that militias, which up to this point have been largely restrained by nationalistic goals, may decide to buck government control and pursue their own independent goals. Moreover, some worry that cyber militias may lead to the quick escalation of conflicts that might otherwise have been resolved through normal diplomatic channels. In China and Russia in particular, experts wonder about the long-term control that the government will be able to exercise on the militias they have helped to proliferate.

For the moment, the United States is actively but carefully considering how to exploit the incredible resources contained in these informal groups. A funding bill passed by the US Congress in December of 2013 included provisions calling for the Department of Defense to consider the creation of a part-time civilian militia to assist in times of cyber attacks. Other countries have already begun assembling their own national militias to be called upon to defend the country. Estonia, an international pioneer, has a civilian cyber reserve put together after attacks on the country's national Internet infrastructure from Russia. 

Stephen Hartka

[geopolitech2014]

Secondary and tertiary school education as an indicator of ICT power?

Currently, my master’s class “Geopolitics and Information Technology” is in the midst of finalizing its ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Power Index that ranks countries according to their ICT capabilities. While working on the variable that describes the ICT knowledge present in a given country I realized that we measured the number of people employed in the ICT sector and the number of Phd graduates as an indicator for ICT knowledge, but that we did not measure how strong secondary and tertiary education is with regards to ICT. One could have, for example, looked at the ICT infrastructure in schools, the e-learning offers and most importantly the classes offered that are connected to ICT such as computing or programming. Singapore has, for example, for a long time focused on integrating ICT in the classroom with the goal to make its students successful in a “knowledge economy.”1 Granted, it would have been probably very hard to find ICT related data for secondary and high school education for all the 27 countries that we are ranking. Nevertheless, finding out which countries invest in what ways in secondary and high school ICT education could give us important insights. This is especially true with regards to the future ICT power of a country, since the knowledge of the younger generation will most likely give the country an advantage in the formation of an extremely qualified ICT workforce. Elif Beden 1 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, CS1105 Group Reports 2008 Singapore's education with ICT, 2008, available at https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/cs1105groupreports/Singapore%27s+education+with+ICT

[geopolitech2014]

An informant working for the F.B.I. coordinated a 2012 campaign of hundreds of cyberattacks on foreign websites, including some operated by the governments of Iran, Syria, Brazil and Pakistan, according to documents and interviews with people involved in the attacks. Exploiting a vulnerability in a popular web hosting software, the informant directed at least one hacker to extract vast amounts of data — from bank records to login information — from the government servers of a number of countries and upload it to a server monitored by the F.B.I., according to court statements. (via F.B.I. Informant Is Tied to Cyberattacks Abroad - NYTimes.com)

[geopolitech2014]

Measuring the power of networks: NGOs in the World City Network

During the last class, we were wondering about assessing the power of networks in our index. As we were looking for something relevant on the Internet, I came accross this very interesting paper, which may be useless for our index since it focuses on cities and NGO networks, but still sheds light on the advantages of addressing power in terms of strength of networks. Indeed, while most research usually comes up with the idea that global civil society is centered in north-west European countries, this paper shows that when assessing the geography of global civil society through a network model and data, cities from the South (especially sub-saharian cities) actually come on the top of the ranking in terms of connectivity. As the authors explain, the basic advantage of using an interlocking network model is that, « instead of simply counting up the number of NGOs located in a city, with this model we can measure the connectivity of a city within the network ». Here is the link of the paper : http://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/46.pdf Victoire Favreul

[geopolitech2014]

On Public Diplomacy

Traditionally, public diplomacy is seen as « state-to-state » diplomacy but more and more, what is central to public diplomacy is the transnational flow of information and ideas, that is today largely sustained by the new social media and ITCs. Starting after the Cold War, the role of the Internet kept growing until it became a proper actor on the international scene, marking a new era for international relations where everyone today has now become both a transmitter and a receiver of information. Indeed, « social media has become an important and limitless resource to connect and inform people, transcending borders and impacting all demographics ». The Internet, digital and mobile technologies as well as social media tools like blogs, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other user-generated content have rapidly changed the way information is shaped, shared and spread.

  « To be truly effective in the modern world, public diplomacy needs social media » stated Tara Sonenshine, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the US Department of State. Diplomats, NGOs, and other actors increasingly see digital platforms as a crucialelement of how they shape and target the narratives they want to promote and the relations they want to cultivate. Indeed, digital technologies allow countries to play the card of the smart power, that is to say, projecting a positive image of themselves on the international scene, giving legitimacy and credit to their positions and goals. We could mention here Hilary Clinton’s surge for what she calls the « 21st century statecraft » referring to the use of social media and other digital platforms to achieve foreign policy goals, build support and promote positive perceptions of the country. The use of social media in public diplomacy has also been a key characteristic of the « engagement » doctrine of the Obama administration’s public diplomacy strategy, whose election was characterized by a growing use of social networking applications, and which strategy refers to 8 key features of social media: « transparency, interactivity, immediacy, facilitation, engagement, co-creation, collaboration and trust », all of which become possible in the social media era.

Publicity is sometimes risky because it can undermine official diplomatic goals and therefore serve a dysfunctional purpose. A major risk is the « viral », almost « infectious », character of the information in today’s digital context and the rapid spread of information can turn a minor local event into a global scale crisis. Furthermore, not all foreign policy goals and interests can be addressed and determined in such a way as social media use. Russia, China and Iran constitute three counter-examples of countries where the government bypass the democratization of these tools by blocking anti-governments trends and pushing their views with no room for interaction.

Anna Abenhaim 

  References

  ARCHETTI, Cristina, Media Impact on Diplomatic Practice: An Evolutionary Model of Change, American Political Science Association, 2010.

AYAD, Nabil, Rethinking Strategic Public Diplomacy: the Role of Social Media, 2010.

FREDERICK, Howard H., Global Communications and International Relations, Wadsworth Press, 1992.

HANDSON, Elizabeth C., The Information Revolution and World Politics, New Millennium Books in International Studies, 2008.

LODGE, Juliet, “Communicating (in)Security: A Failure of Public Diplomacy?”, Research Paper No. 3, Challenge Network, Liberty and Security, November 2006.

MARTIN, Clifton, JAGLA, Laura, Integrating Diplomacy and Social Media, The Aspen Institute 2013.

[geopolitech2014]

Some notes on Netwar

The discussion on netwar last time and the in-class game on how to shut down the metro system in Paris interested me in reading more about this type of conflicts in the information era. There is a basic difference between netwar and cyber war. Cyberwar is considered to be high intensity information-oriented conflict at the military level, which conducts military operations according to information collected. Netwar refers to low-intensity contingencies and operations other than war, and nonmilitary modes of conflict (and crime). While cyberwar belongs to the military end, netwar figures at the societal level[1].

  We also discussed that the ‘netwar’ uses network forms of organization and related doctrines and technologies, conducted by small groups without a central and command and hierarchical, which are principle measures of traditional wars. These groups vary from the military-related and crime adversaries (like transnational terrorist groups, WMD proliferation networks) to the non-state actors (like revolutionaries and activists), who both know how to take advantage of the structure of the networks. I’m a little more amazed at the latter actors, who actually created such a norm as ‘social netwar’. Social netwar is an organizational and technological phenomenon, and is more likely to occur more often as the presence of activist NGOs and the development of ICT keep growing as well. In fact, social netwar is the result of the evolution of network forms of organization, which results from the computerized information revolution. Since communications is one of the key assets of NGOs, they are thus hungry for the new information technologies, as well as the communication infrastructure (for example internet access). Although internet connectivity and bandwith are available all over the world, good access to the internet is partly limited in poor and developing countries. This is a noteworthy factor that could affect the consistent activities of NGOs with limited budgets.

  These aspects of netwar, especially social netwar might be an interesting variable to explore for the ICT Index (well, not ours, but may be next year), involving such factors as the non-state actors, ICT infrastructure or knowledge (ICT literacy for example). However, we should as well be aware that in a netwar, most of the ‘battles’ may take place in cyberspace, yet the overall outcome of the war still depends on real world, with the real people’s will.

  Anh Pham

[1] John Arquilla and  David Ronfeldt, Networks and Netwar, The future of terror, crime  and militancy, 2001

[geopolitech2014]

NETmundial forum - another try to tie the net ?

Starting from tomorrow, Sao Paulo will host NETmundial. This is a forum discussing the new rules of global governance over the Internet. The two-day meeting will discuss the 188 proposition for Internet Bill of Rights, sent by 46 countries.  Representatives of the private sector as well as from government institutions, civil society groups, academics and technicians have contributed with their ideas for new rules of governing the Internet. Two main topics will be discussed – the Principles of Internet Governance and "A Script for the Future Development of the Internet Governance Ecosystem."

The agenda of the discussion is not so surprising. The aim of the organizers is to identify “a set of common principles and important values that may contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework". In first place, it comes the issues of Internet and human rights, such as freedom of expression or privacy. Without directly mentioning the NSA activities neither addressing openly the internet surveillance, the text remains too large and imprecise and it is already criticized for proposing no concrete measures. There is no place for discussion on cyber weapons or neutrality of the net either.  Moreover, the forum is underlining that Internet should enable environment for innovation and creativity. A lot of those ideas have been discussed by the participants on the online platform – how to protect intellectual property and at the same time provide space for innovation on the internet, for instance.

The forum shows the need of discussion on principles and regulation of the Internet but the skepticism of its outcome is also understandable – a lot of similar initiatives have lead to dead end. Will the two-day meeting give any concrete results, it is up to see.

Tsvetelina Angelova

[geopolitech2014]

[Is this an interesting practice of soft power?] “That is the strategy we ought to be pursuing,” said Ivo H. Daalder, formerly Mr. Obama’s ambassador to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “If you just stand there, be confident and raise the cost gradually and increasingly to Russia, that doesn’t solve your Crimea problem and it probably doesn’t solve your eastern Ukraine problem. But it may solve your Russia problem.”

In Cold War Echo, Obama Strategy Writes Off Putin - NYTimes.com

[geopolitech2014]

What effects of ICT in Chile ?

Do you remember when we started to look at the list of countries to include in the index ? 

Do you recall that we spoke about Chile ? Most likely you don’t, but we did. And, since we did: why did we ? 

It is very interesting to note that Chile is Ranked number 33 in “The Global Information Technology Report 2013” of the World Economic forum. That makes it the highest ranked in south america and it is even above Italy, Spain, Russia or Mexico. 

Moreover the individual variable data support the attributed ranking: after Argentina, it has a very high number of cell phones per inhabitant (with 1006 per 1000 people) - to give you a comparison the US only has 833 per 1000 inhabitants (2009 data). Also, Chile is the regional leader in number of computers with 387 per 1000 inhabitants. And in servers, they have 6.3 per 1000 inhabitants. 

But what does this translate into ? 

The Index that I just quoted measures variables under the following categories : 

The ranking measures variables under the following categories: 

1. ICT Infrastructure: cost of access and presence of skills necessary to assure an optimum use

2. Incorporation and use of ICTs between government, corporations and individuals 

3. Commercial and Innovative environment; Political and Regulatory Frameworks. 

4. Entrepreneurship Environment

This index is built around and related directly to country competitiveness and citizen’s wellbeing.

In a practical sense, the advancements in ICTs have allowed for: 

1) More competition in the ICT market - thus making the prices fall. Internet keeps becoming cheaper. Nevertheless, the decrease in price in Computers and other technological devices is strictly correlated with the Free Trade Agreements with the US (0% tariffs and easiness for imports). 

2) The State has modernized itself. Nowadays most of the key services of the state are available on the net. Internal Revenue Service, Civil Register, etc. People can get their documents in a couple of clicks for free and the State spends less money. In fact, to create a limited liability company the process is completely digital and takes just a couple of steps. This means that education for the people not used to the technology is needed. Moreover, trust in the servers and the avoiding of scams is key to make this systems reliable. 

3) Chile’s political and regulatory frameworks in these issues are very neoliberal because of the dictatorship’s heritage. This means there are not to many taxes and regulation tends to be quite efficient. This is an advantage but doesn’t mean that innovation will come out of  “natural conditions” of the country. In fact, most of the criticisms come from the fact that Chile lacks innovation in these sectors - we barely produce anything ourselves. 

4) This relates to the frameworks we have already described. 

So, how to foster innovation ? The conditions are there but there is a mindset that is probably missing. Also, how do all of these issues relate to power ? We might have an open and diversified economy with an efficient and quite friendly regulation but does Chile gain anything more than some international investment ? On the other hand, the use of internet being intensive and related to all sectors of security, besides being cheaper and faster, does it make the country stronger ? How to measure the reliability of the infrastructures ? 

There are a lot of questions to be answered. In fact, the causal relations between ICT and anything that is not GDP and “social welfare” has still to be figured out. 

Manuel. 

-----------------------

http://www.everis.com/chile/es-CL/sala-de-prensa/noticias/Paginas/Chile-lider-tecnologias.aspx

http://www.emprendetic.cl/sitio/about-joomla/176-chile-es-nuevo-lider-regional-en-tecnologias-de-informacion-y-destaca-en-area-de-innovacion.html

http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-information-technology-report-2013/