Democracy, liberalism, free markets: all concepts that we regard highly in the West. They are products of our historical and political tradition and they are surely seen as fundamental instruments in the toolkit for future problems and uncertainties. But sometimes we tend to forget exactly this, that they are instruments, not ends in themselves. And this leads me to question whether other parts of the world agree on their uniqueness.
In this article, I would like to explore whether or not the upper mentioned concepts hold some ground in non-Western regions of the world or they are simply seen as empty buzzwords. Before beginning, I would say that I expect to find out how these ‘other’ societies respect our political and economic systems but most probably would choose their own paths toward the same level of human development achieved here in the liberal-democratic hemisphere.
First, it is wise to make an essential distinction between values/principles and instruments used to pursue the former. Democracy, liberalism and free market are ways of organizing societies for the purpose to bring about desired outcomes. These outcomes offer to us the satisfaction of certain needs in terms of values and principles: equality, a multitude of freedoms and liberties, toleration, justice and fairness, well-being in general. We do not seek fair and free elections for the sake of electing but because we want to choose those leaders that would support us in getting what we need.The same with constitutionalism, which is in a sense a sum of ideas and patterns of behaviour that have the aim of guaranteeing the rights of the individual which are sometimes under threat from democratically elected power centres.
These paths to ‘a good life’ are our own and are the result of a turbulent, violent, and tyrannical past. There has of course always existed a lot of debate between more conservative and more progressive views on the efficiency and legitimacy of these ways forward in terms of stability and peaceful development. But even the most skeptical ones would agree that following a different radical route for preserving and going forward with our Western achievements would be too risky, having learned some lessons from the deadly ideological experiments of the 20th century.
With regard to ‘the others’, it would be critical to understand the effects of the imposition of ‘our model’ on non-Western communities. There is a lot of literature on the failures of doing precisely this, therefore I will leave this discussion for another time. What I want to see is if people from other places are curious or not about ‘our way’ of doing things.
One first revealing case is the Russian Revolution of 1917 which ended not in the installment of liberal capitalism and a pluralistic democracy but in Marxist-Leninism and in the ultimate rule of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This state of affairs did indeed come to replace the old Czarist autocracy and truly embodied the hopes and aspirations of the Russian people for a fair, equal and progressive society. Nevertheless, the means to achieve these goals were not embodied by European-style political and economic institutions. Furthermore, this system lasted for almost 70 years and even today there are quite a few ‘nostalgics’ out there both in Russia and in the post-soviet space. This to say that the consensus on the legitimacy of the ‘soviet path’ was close to our consensus on the liberal-democratic path.
Another curious example is Cuba. If during the Cold War it was understandable why the Castro regime prevailed over the US liberalisation agenda, now that the Soviet Union is gone, what could explain the continuation of a socialist and illiberal type of economic, social and political environment? More than this, Fidel Castro has been replaced as top figure , therefore the leader’s charisma can no longer be the answer. The relevancy of the Cuban exiles in American elections still cannot bring about the integration of Cuba into the US sphere of influence. The power of globalization, EU aid and trade and its political conditionality, the spread of Western ideals all over the globe- they do still not produce a Cuban Spring. Why is this? The mainstream response places the blame on the oppressive political regime. But what about the idea that maybe despite the shortcomings of their situation, Cuban citizens would actually prefer to gradually find their own way to a better life? I think it is a thought worthy of consideration.
Since we touched on the concept of Spring, the Arab revolutions of the recent years are also exemplifying cases of the principles vs instruments misunderstanding. What all protests had in common was a deep desire for ethical and moral principles such as justice, freedom, dignity and respect. Western leaders embarked on a liberal-democratic wave of support and mistook the genuine demands of the Arab people for the success of the Western model. Unfortunately, this turned (in an extreme case) into a regime change in Libya whose truly ‘democratic’ future is still far from reality . Also, it lead to the spread of instability in the region due to the free movement of weapons that fueled the Tuareg rebellion and the increasing role of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Northern Mali.
To conclude, I will restate that so far the model of liberal-democracy is the best one for countries in the West. This is because it provides the organizational means to promote those values that we long for. In other situations though, these very same values and principles can be pursued through different actions and institutional frameworks. If our system proves itself to the rest of the world as being efficient and beneficial, then I think nothing can stop other communities from incorporating it. What we must not be tempted to do is to lecture people on how to organize themselves and to patronize their leaders. Nobody likes to have another’s agenda pushed on them. Advice is always better then sterile criticism.
The History Question: Is It Better to Remember or to Forget?
Years ago, a philosopher by the name of George Santayana said a phrase that fuels many debates to this day. His original saying is “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, although, many sources now present it as variations of “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. The latter definitely has more substance to it in the light of the ongoing debate about how much history we should be learning and how.
Is It Better to Remember or Forget About the Past?
On one hand, Santayana was right. Learning about the past is essential in order for people to progress. One also shouldn’t overlook the importance of remembrance and paying respects to the dead, both those who pushed the progress forward and those who have fallen victims to major tragedies that could and should have been averted.
The main argument in favor of learning about the past is that its knowledge is necessary for preventing the same thing happening in the future. Having it one can see the signs and stop the tragedy before it gains momentum.
That’s sound in theory, but the reality is always different. For example, today people are surely forgetting, and the much-critiqued education system is only partially at fault here. Even the greatest of tragedies weren’t spared this fate. It’s a proven fact that about two-thirds of millennials today don’t know about the Holocaust, and this number is surely greater for generations that follow them. In the school history course, the subject of one of the greatest disasters in history is barely touched, if touched at all. And outside of a history classroom, one can only see small, but terrifying, glimpses of it at the Holocaust Museum and other museums that rarely attract many visitors. And now we are witnessing a rise of antisemitic crime.
Are these two facts related? Does the lack of awareness about the horrors done in the name of Aryan supremacy contribute to the fact that right-winged extremists seem to be gaining popularity again?
It does, but by how much? That is the question that no one can truly answer.
And what about other genocides? The Holocaust had the highest death toll, but it was far from the only genocide in history. And quite a few of those happened after World War 2 and before the memory of the atrocities against the Jews began to fade. This means that while forgetting history is a factor, it’s not the deciding factor in its repeats.
But what is that thing responsible for the reenactment of past mistakes and tragedies?
Learning. This is the important thing that is most often overlooked when citing Santayana’s famous saying. It’s not enough to learn about the past and know the facts of things that happened. It’s important to learn from those facts and put in place protections that will prevent them from happening again. And this is something that humanity, as a whole, has yet to succeed in doing.
Dwelling in the Past Can Be Just As Bad
One also shouldn’t forget that there is such a thing as “too much history”. The Bosnian War and genocide that happened there in the 1990s is a vivid example of how the past can be exploited by political powers. Used as a part of propaganda, which fueled the war, history can become a weapon in the hands of those who want to use it for their own goals.
And this is what humans have been doing since the dawn of time. There is always someone who will use any means necessary to achieve whatever it is they wish. This results in wars and genocides, and hundreds of smaller but no less devastating tragedies.
Therefore, the problem isn’t whether people should be learning history but human nature itself. Perhaps, teaching this can help fix this fundamental flaw and truly stop the worst of the past from repeating.
Is there such thing as cyberwar?
Two decades have passed after Arquilla and Ronfeldt in 1993 warned the public about an upcoming. They were also the first to introduce a concept of cyberwar and give an elaborated opinion. They referred to a conduct and preparation of military operations using information-related principles and also invoked a link between intelligence (the collection of information for political or military purpose) and cyber operations. Now, the scale of intelligence has significantly expanded.
Interestingly, before cyber appeared, there was a radio which was used for intelligence purposes and was weaponized later in the World War II. From that time on, electronic warfare became standard characteristics of a modern conflict. Despite this, there is a key difference between electronic warfare and a cyber one. Traditional electronic warfare aimed to guide, target, or protect weapons systems (Ibid., p. 24). In contrast, cyber makes today’s weapons and military systems smarter but also more vulnerable for an attack.
At the moment everyone still wonders what the whole idea of cyberwar means. There is no accepted interpretation or definition. Furthermore, many experts even say that such war does not even exist (or cannot be referred to the notion of “war”). Perhaps, it is due to the fact that a war in cyberspace has not yet happened. To make it clear, cyber capability has not actually killed anyone and a code has not been used as the use of force.
Similarly, the dangers of a nuclear bomb were recognized only after its use, the same goes to the notion of “nuclear war”. Although there have been many cyberattacks, none of them have been raised to the level of war because none of them, in fact, caused the level of damage which could be adhered to the level of a large-scale conflict.
Cyber warfare has derived from different aspects of conventional warfare and traditional definitions of war. It usually involves organized units within nation-state in offensive or defensive operations which are part of a war or a conflict.
In general, since cyber study is relatively new, there are many competing terms and definitions to explain cyber phenomenon. The following concepts – the revolution in military affairs, electronic warfare, information warfare, and cyber war – have been all offered to describe the new emerging area of conflict. Experts do not agree on any particular term, more often using different notions when talking about cyber issues. Nonetheless, it is vital to understand the facts of the 21st century similarly to the need that rose along with the invention of atomic reaction. A major concern now is no longer weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. (2009, p. 47).
One of the central elements to define a cyberwar, is that it has to meet the same criteria, applied to any other type of war. Vandalism or spying is an act of crime, but they do not start wars. So, assumingly, there has to be physical destruction and casualties in order to declare a war.
Therefore, a cyberwar should have real world damage similar to a conventional war. For this matter, it should probably take place in a digital world. What is not clear, however, is whether it should be fought exclusively in cyberspace or it can accompany a conventional attack too. This aspect is quite interesting, because cyberattacks can easily be used in combination with a kinetic attack and can multiply the force and power of the attacker.
In this case, it does not make sense to create a new term “cyberwar” as it falls down under the same definition of war. It is the same example when aerial bombings supported the attacks on the ground during the World War I, but in the end we called it a war, not a particular type of war. Consequently, cyber introduction resembles more a revolution in military affairs, rather that a new emerging type of warfare.
What is clear, though, is that the difference in definitions complicates the matters of regulating cyberspace and prevents achieving a common ground on cyber issues and/or developing new treaties and agreements between the states. So far there is no international agreement on the cyber principles, despite some attempts of the states to engage into negotiations (Budapest Conference on Cyberspace, the World Conference on International Telecommunications). There is, however, the Convention on Cybercrime, the first international agreement that addresses compute crime, adopted by the Council of Europe. Interestingly enough, Russia (as a part of the Council) neither signed nor ratified the agreement, whereas US (not part of the Council) recognized it and ratified it.
Apart from these difficulties in defining cyberwar, there has been a hyperbolic use of the word itself, mostly by media and tabloids (e.g. The Washington Post, “We are at cyberwar and we are our own enemy”; The New York Times, “How to prevent Cyberwar”; Zdnet, “Cyberwar: a guide to the frightening future of online conflict”; Komsomolskaya Pravda, “Are we expecting the First World Cyberwar?” etc.). They do not usually give any concrete information but are eager to use this term and apply it randomly to different cases just because it sounds good. All in all, uninformed public use of the word has enormously contributed into the heat surrounding cyber implications.
Futher, cyberattacks are too often discussed equivalently, regardless of its impact. In this sense, minor cases like ransomware or phishing might be raised to the level of an armed attack (especially if they affect multiple computers worldwide). Yet, these cases are good examples of cybercrime, and crime is not a war. When individuals engage into this type of activity, they do not engage in a war. The same goes for espionage in cyberspace. Catching a spy on one’s territory will certainly put pressure on bilateral relations, but it would not start a war.
This exaggeration of cyberattacks can be explained through securitization theory. The notion offered by the Copenhagen Security School describes how a certain concept can be politicized and securitized to the extent that it becomes a threat to national security (See Buzan, 2006).
To conclude, it should be mentioned that there is no guidance for the conduct of “cyberwar”. There are no internationally agreed definitions and, to that extent, the whole idea of cyberwar so far seems unrealistic. At this moment technology is not sophisticated enough to ensure a military conduct entirely in cyberspace. Besides, any cyberattack of such scale would presumably result in a physical destruction, which consequently might provoke a conventional retaliation attack. This, in result, would cause a war we know for years, so there is no need to introduce a particular type of war. On another note, using cyber operations to support a conventional war and/or conflict is the way to go, but in this case it is just a revolution and modernization in military affairs.
I would be interested to hear your opinion about that in the comments below.
For further information see:
1) A movie “War Games” (1983)
2) Arquilla, J. and Ronfeldt, D. (1993). The Cyberwar is Coming! RAND Corporation, [online] Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP223.html
3) Cetron, M. J. and Davies, O. (2009). Ten critical trends for cyber security. The Futurist, 43(5), pp. 40–49.
4) Stiennon, R. (2015). There Will Be Cyberwar: How The Move To Network-Centric War Fighting Has Set The Stage For Cyberwar. Michigan: IT-Harvest Press.
On the issue of cyber security of critical infrastructures
There is a lot of talk in regards to cyberattacks nowadays. A regular user worries about its data and tries to secure by all means necessary. Yet, no one really thinks whether the power plants or nuclear facilities are well secured. Everyone assumes that they should be secured.
The reality, however, differs. According to many reports of cyber security companies, there is an increased risk of cyberattacks, targeting SCADA and ICS. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) is used for the systems that control physical equipment – power plants, oil and gas pipelines, they can also control or monitor processes such as heating or energy consumption. Along with Industrial Control Systems (ICS) they control critical elements of industrial automation processes. Exploiting vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures can lead to the consequences of unimaginable scale. (These types of attacks are actually used in a cyberwar scenarios and hypothetical military settings).
There are many reasons why these systems are vulnerable for attacks. First of all, the main problem is that these systems have an old design; they were built before they were connected to any networks. They were later configured to connect via Ethernet, and that’s when they became a part of a larger infrastructure. The more advanced SCADA system is becoming, the more vulnerabilities are these to exploit. The updates should be regular and on time. Secondly, there is a lack of monitoring. New devices that are connected allow remote monitoring, but not all devices have the same reporting capabilities. There are also authentication issues (weak passwords, authentication process), however, this is supposed to restrict unauthorized access (See Common SCADA Threats and Vulnerabilities at Patriot Technologies, Inc. Online).
In these scenarios, there is no certainty to know what is going to backfire because of the complexity of communications and power networks. This is also called a cascading effect of attacks. Not knowing who is connected to who may cause major disruptions. The example of the US East Coast power blackout in 2003 proves this point (a failure in one element of the grid spreads across other electrical networks). However, given this, it is also complicated for an attacker to predict consequences, if an attack executed. This kind of attack can easily escalate into more serious conflict, so it might not be the best option for states to employ such methods.
Moreover, there is a risk to damage a critical infrastructure unintentionally. That is if a virus or worm did not intend to target SCADA but happen to spread there as well. The uncontrollability of the code may seriously impair the desire to use it, especially when it comes to nation-states. For instance, in 2003 a worm penetrated a private network of the US Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and disabled a safety monitoring system for 5 hours. In 2009, French fighter jets could not take off because they were infected with a virus.
Indeed, a scenario where an attacker gains access to a SCADA system and manipulates with the system, causing disruptions on a large-scale, might be hypothetical but it does not make it less possible in the future. However, the only known case so far, which affected an industrial control centre, is Stuxnet. It did not result in many deaths, yet it drew attention of the experts on the plausibility of future more sophisticated attacks. These potential upcoming attacks might cause the level of destruction, comparable to that of a conventional attack, therefore resulting in war.
Bradbury, D. (2012). SCADA: a Critical Vulnerability. Computer Fraud & Security, 4, p. 11-14.
Feeling the Pressure of Prescriptions? Read this Now!
3 Tips For An Easy House Move
3 Issues Repair Workers Are Facing During The Corona Pandemic
Business Essentials to Cross off Your Checklist This Year
Here’s Why Everyone Can Get Stacked At Home During Lockdown
Matica’s CEO Sandro Camilleri speaks about security in digital payments
Why A Great Website Is Always A Business’ Top Priority
Business Essentials to Cross off Your Checklist This Year
Here’s Why Everyone Can Get Stacked At Home During Lockdown
3 Issues Repair Workers Are Facing During The Corona Pandemic
Business11 months ago
Gutemberg Dos Santos and Robert Kiyosaki share their vision of leadership
Business10 months ago
Axel Andorff and Carsten Isensee, new SEAT Vice presidents for R&D and Finance
Blog11 months ago
For Enea Angelo Trevisan and Ealixir, better than solving the problem of cyberbullying is preventing it
Travel6 months ago
Dolphin Discovery is the only park with the AZA accreditation in Punta Cana
Environment12 months ago
Nuclear Power and Other Power Sources: How Do They Stack Up?
Travel7 months ago
What You Don’t Know About Broadway
Health12 months ago
Treatment of Bunions and Claw Toes
Sports12 months ago
Find the best academy to improve your performance as a football player