While the U.S. focuses its diplomatic resources on combating extremism, a “footnote in history,” it risks ignoring more lasting threats: the growing specter of cyber warfare and a widening gulf in opinions on how the Internet should be used and governed, the editor of Foreign Policy magazine said in Atlanta.
For David Rothkopf, a Washington insider par excellence, it was an ironic way to end a wide-ranging conversation with World Affairs Council of Atlanta President Charles Shapiro, which focused mostly on issues related to extremism, especially U.S. failures in the Middle East and how to deal with ISIS, the militant group controlling parts of Iraq and Syria.
But a question on “technological terrorism” prompted a 15-minute response on hacking and cyber warfare, which Mr. Rothkopf said is just now entering its “early days.”
In contrast to the Cold War, when the idea of “mutually assured destruction” deterred attacks, a “cool war” has emerged in cyberspace where the costs of attacks are so low and the potential for destructive payoffs so high that enemies launch them almost continually. In this murky realm, it’s tough to define enemies, much less retaliate against them, and the international system has been much too slow in setting out the rules of engagement.
“It’s a much grayer world, and at first glance you might not think it’s as dangerous as the other world, but the possibility for a mistake, an escalation, permanent tension is terrible,” said Mr. Rothkopf, who was visiting Atlanta for a talk on his new book, “National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear”.
These threats will only grow with the rise of the “Internet of things,” a network of connected devices as mundane as refrigerators and thermostats or as vital as air-traffic control systems. Some 50 billion devices will be connected to the Internet by the end of the decade. Terrorists have yet to hit big targets like power plants or water reservoirs, but if they’re controlled by connected devices, they’re eminently “hackable,” Mr. Rothkopf said.
“There are vastly increasing capabilities in this regard, and the people who understand it and are good at protecting themselves are very few and far between,” he said.
While the Internet emerged in the 1990s with the promise of helping unify the world, it’s increasingly being used for theft, espionage and warfare. The U.S., a global champion of Internet freedom, has seen its moral authority undermined by the National Security Agency spying scandals, and other nations are now exerting alternate models of Web governance. China, for instance, sees the Internet not as an instrument to promote free expression and democracy, but as an asset to be controlled and manipulated for the good of its ruling Communist Party, Mr. Rothkopf said.
“All of a sudden we are facing a big philosophical divide on the planet, between cyber-internationalists and cyber-nationalists, and that can produce balkanization. That can produce divides. That can can change all your formulations about what growth is going to look like in the world. It can change the fundamental view of what a community is,” Mr. Rothkopf said.
While he was eloquent on that topic, his talk spanned a range of subjects far beyond cybersecurity, and he didn’t pull punches as he went around the world.
Cuba, he said, is “going to become irrelevant, and it couldn’t happen soon enough.” Venezuela is “circling the drain.” China and the U.S. are intertwined economimcally. ISIS will only be defeated with at least some American boots on the ground, but in a support role which emphasizes our allies in the region. President Barack Obama has backed himself into a corner on multiple occasions, boasting “a real flair for telling what he won’t do or what things aren’t,” but failing when it comes to putting forth a clear policies U.S. allies can follow.
The talk began with Mr. Rothkopf explaining the premise of “National Insecurity”, offering a sweeping assessment of American successes (few) and failures (many) in the past 15 years under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, both of whom let different types of fear influence how they engaged with the world.
His verdict? Both presidents missed the mark by swinging to opposite extremes in their own reactions to the threat of extremism.
Where Mr. Bush reacted to 9/11 impulsively and left a long, unnecessary war in his wake, Mr. Obama has taken the very opposite tack, shying away from a leadership role for fear of being seen as trampling on U.S. allies, he said. Neither was right, and the country is now having to work through the consequences.
The Dean Rusk International Law Center at the University of Georgia is the presenting sponsor of Global Atlanta's Diplomacy Channel. Subscribe here for monthly Diplomacy newsletters.
