US Should Begin Multilateral Talks for Cyber Security

After the U.S. Congress’s Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “supercommittee”) failed to create a plan that would reduce the deficit, the Pentagon began making preparations to avoid the $500 billion of spending cuts due in 2013. By calling for increased efforts in cyber security and defense, it sought to expand its power, its financial resources, and the organization as a whole. In the process, the Pentagon is no longer considering the welfare of the American people. American academics, who had more rational opinions in the past, have started to push for more power to fight against the cyber security threats from China and Russia. As a result, these academics have created a springboard for U.S. militarists to gain more resources and power. Now, the media is getting involved and even public sentiment has been affected. The state of Illinois blamed a water pump system failure on Russian hackers, saying they were targeting civil infrastructure networks. What an absurd and libelous accusation.

This situation will be familiar to observers around the world who understand some of the military and diplomatic policies in the U.S., many of which have been seriously misguided in the past. Considering the fact that American intelligence agencies frequently do more harm to themselves than others do to them, one is compelled to ask the following question: Why is the Obama administration still unwilling to promote universal rules and a multilateral cyber security agreement? A multilateral agreement would reduce the risks for everyone. Henry Kissinger has already talked about cyber security threats in an American political forum. He said that the only way for the U.S. to survive was if the U.S. and China wrote a binding agreement on cyber security. However, when China and Russia recently submitted a proposal to create a multilateral Internet security agreement at the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. government seemed disinterested.

The Pentagon has already supported using unilateral military force to retaliate against any threats that it considers dangerous to U.S. cyber security. At the same time, it demands the right to handle non-military cyber security threats. Senior officials at the Pentagon claim that they have the right to initiate offensive cyber security attacks against agencies and computer users in other countries. Yet they do not seem to be the least bit concerned with the fact that some of these agencies and users are using their servers normally and the actual attack is carried out by hackers based in a third-world country or even in the U.S. In effect, the servers are being used as virtual servers to create a virtual counterattack.

Next year many major countries and regions will hold national elections. At the same time, the United States will significantly reduce its deficit through spending cuts. Obama should not be too confident about his ability to manage the regulatory agencies of Washington. It is important to note that during the Clinton administration, the U.S. president was unable to stop old bureaucrats from fighting amongst themselves for power and profit. The bureaucrats tried their hardest to create new enemies for Washington to fight after the Cold War. When they argued that the dangerous forces in Yugoslavia required the U.S. to take action, they greatly disrupted world peace. During the decision to invade Iraq, all of the U.S. checks and balances and even America’s major media outlets were unable to check the authority of an independent review of the evidence, which suggested that Iraq had weapons and the U.S. needed to go to war. Professor Ben Bagdikian of the University of California-Berkeley wrote a book entitled “Media Monopoly,” in which he brilliantly argued that the media made a mistake in supporting claims that Iraq had illegal weapons of mass destruction and in which he also explained the political and economic background of that mistake. However, until now, the U.S. is still lacking conclusions on the war. Government officials who supported the invasion are still working in the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. Moreover, the U.S. government carried out an unprecedented level of suppression against the senior officials who were brave enough to oppose various intelligence gaffes and the groups that were involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.

In the 1950s and the 1970s, the United States orchestrated two regime changes in Iran and Chile. As a result, democratic governments and their elected leaders were taken out of office. Promoting democracy was an excuse for intrusive military and diplomatic measures. Signing multilateral security agreements to promote peace has never been related to the kinds of political systems of the signatory countries. American conservative think tanks argue that China and Russia strictly control information on the Internet in their respective countries, which makes it impossible for the U.S. to even begin negotiating international cyber security agreements. This may seem logical on the surface, but it is a fallacious argument. They are actually two separate issues that should be considered separately. It seems as if the conservative think tanks are merely looking for an excuse to protect the U.S. right to carry out offensive attacks because it is unwilling to limit its actions with multilateral agreements. If that is not the case, the Obama administration should have a meeting with China and Russia, which are both members of the Security Council, as soon as possible. The administration should initiate network security and international rules for multilateral negotiation and deliberation. This would not only protect international security, but would also benefit the American people.