THREAT ABOVE THREAT
The idea of threat continues to shift, simply adjusting to the changes in the world. Thus, how are we, as human being, tries to elude it and comes up with a ground-breaking solutions?
The author made this article in collaboration with the Research and Development Team of FPCI Chapter UPH 2019/2020.
“Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal…” — Aristotle
One aspect of human nature that can be agreed upon by all actors of the entire political spectrum, is that humans have an impeccable ability to evaluate its external environment and derive certain implications which may affect its survival. The cracking sound of a rustling bush may be an indicator of an unsuspecting predator, or it may be the omen of doom, however as a long held security dilemma always concludes, it is always better safe than sorry. So it is the same with mysterious emissaries hailing from far distant lands bearing strange, often incomprehensible motives, or perhaps just a “funny feeling” about the tone of a diplomatic correspondence.
Threats arise as a result of a possibility of damage or danger to something or someone. States are at the epicenter of interconnected phenomena which inadvertently albeit blindly seek to either impede, interrupt, restrain, or frustrated relationships and mechanisms associated with the state. We can identify threats to the state by projecting our analysis of state threat vectors as a conflict between the state and its dependent variables. On an individual and personal level lies the inner conflict of a human being whose role usually amounts to being the head of state or government. For most of human history, states were ruled by monarchs and individual-centered bases of power, thus the threat to the state originated from the bloodthirsty sadomasochistic perversions of despots who viewed the mass persecution of minority groups to be mere entertainment, which generated the anger of its sympathetic neighbor next door. Leaders with massive geopolitical appetites who lacked these traits also pose threats to states. The reign of Idi Amin, known as the “butcher of Uganda”, oversaw a regime which butchered the state in its literal sense, sparing no judges, teachers, intellectuals, civil servants, and political dissidents, proves how a single individual can exsanguinate a country from within.
This kind of “ruler” threat is further compounded by the fact since no man is an island, humans must often rule with other humans. The interpersonal dynamics of political leaders with respect to the local or international environment plays an important role in the future well-being of a state, decisions which affect the state are made by groups of people who do not get along. Historically, the various European wars of dynastic succession demonstrates to us what can happen when people fail to agree who gets to become king, the War of the Polish Succession (1733–35) and the War of the Austrian Succession (1749–1748) being prime examples. Indecision among state leaders may render a state unable to sufficiently carry out basic functions, which is either positive or negative depending on which side of the coin you are asking. Threats to the state originate from certain elements or factions of a given state who seek to assert political control and wrestle it from the other. Conflicts such as the American Civil War, Chinese Civil War, and more recent intrastate wars in Yemen in South Sudan come to mind.
The chief propagator of threats to the state, is conflict with other states. World War One and World War Two, interstate conflicts which arguably shaped our world to such an extent that its effects are still felt today, represents the pinnacle of state strength and the absolute bleak prospect of the annihilation of states. It is the age-old military maneuver to simply order armed humans into the territory of other humans, essentially politics which is merely continued through alternative means. Though the world has since moved on from this period of morbid carnage, however human rationality remains prone to corruption and therefore the threat of another hemoclysm stands as a serious threat to the existence of states.
The 21st-century technological upheaval has brought the world into an expanding battlefield, where potential warfare does not occur in only three conventional domains such as land, air, and water. The new domain, cyberspace, added up making it a more intense and sophisticated conflict. Facing multiple dilemmas requires complex joint integration as what is called to be ‘multi-domain operations’ where information availability plays a crucial role and having tough soldiers is less of a game-changer today.
We are starting to grip with the implications of the abuse of open information system, that is how we use, or possibly, manipulate the information, which turn the strategy table around. Two prominent outcomes are psychological war such as massive propaganda, or a cross-domain maneuver with cyberspace as the core key-player resulting the destruction of vital infrastructures. If the traditional war used to be based on decisive modes of operation, the prominent question in building up a defense system in this new domain is: how to cover what we do not expect, and “what to do with the information”, without letting the consequences strike in advance.
Take the Stuxnet worm that was first uncovered in 2010. In fact, it has been in development since 2005. It eventually succeeded to destruct one-fifth of the Iran nuclear centrifuges, infected 200,000 computers, and caused the physical degradation of thousand of machines. No bombs, no bullets, but just as destructive as one whole conventional strategy, being summed in just one click away. Russia’s 2007 cyber attack on Estonia brought Estonia to be the world-leading cyber defense now as the sense of “recognizing” potential attacks is the main asset in this war domain.
It is getting clearer that the world is heading to a higher risk of cyberwarfare. The international community has been showing a joint effort on this awakening threat. One of them was the 2008 Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace signed by more than 60 nations, though not involving the United States, which agreed on some broad statement of principles, among them are ‘cyber hygiene’, ‘security of digital products and services’, and ‘integrity of the internet’. It is not legally binding its participants but does provide a basic ground of the agreement that is expected to be codified into enforceable standards in time.
Not only war domains are expanding, but more actors are also intertwined as the entire world tightly relies on connectivity resulted from the intertwining cyberspace. It is widely argued that there have been some footsteps of the act of disinformation campaigns as a weapon in deepening the divides among political parties and the general public. For instance, an act of political interference in the form of rising a propaganda by spreading fake informations that potentially harm people’s trust on a state’s political agenda. The chief general staff of Britain army once addressed this model of action “is a form of system warfare that seeks to de-legitimize the political and societal system on which our military strength is based”, making it a warning sign of war.
Not even a malicious code or worms, this type of war’s target is weakening national unity and therefore, information is undeniably a major weapon today involving you and me. This type of war has bubbled beneath our foreseeable future, or, has the ‘future’ come without us recognizing?
Those questions triggered the phrase “With modern problem requires modern solution”. through a neo liberalist perspective these threats within the cyberspace are seen as a universal threat that concerns all states as all states are intertwined through it so no states are perfectly safe and they could at any time be subject to it. As so with a global interest to tackle these threats it would lead states to be willing to cooperate together and it is done through the creation of an international institution. This can be seen by the creation of institutions such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and in partnership the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Threats (IMPACT) that handles matters of Information communication technology and also serving a politically neutral global platform in order to enhance the global community’s capabilities in dealing with cyber threats.
With modern problem requires modern solution. through a neo-liberalist perspective these threats within the cyberspace are seen as a universal threat that concerns all states as all states are intertwined through it and no states are perfectly safe and could at any time be subject to these threats. As so with a global interest to tackle these threats it would lead states to be willing to cooperate together and it is done through the creation of an international
On the other hand, from traditional problems, to a more complex ones, threats above threats, actions after actions, neo-realist still see this as the grip of power that is being contested in the international system. Neo realist paradigm of how states should react from the shift in the international configuration system made it crystal clear that all threats should be perceived as something that could degrade a state’s security.
However that is not to say that the solution lies only in the international institutions alone. On a recent incident regarding the infamous video sharing social media platform tiktok, countries such as India and then followed by the United States and Australia had made a decision to ban the download and access to the application due to concerns of the app potentially stealing personal data. These bans serves as an ultimatum towards tiktok in order to address their data security issues as the both the US and India are the major users of said app. In response to these bans they agreed on cooperating with Oracle an American tech MNC moving the parent company of the app to Tiktok global in the US and divesting Chinese firms from the app
The idea of physical threats that could endanger the well being of a state became the parameter on how states should react? Naturally, the solution lies in boosting up military capabilities. States are always in a conscious stage, in an endless road of fear, hence any threats that slightly nudge state’s security should be seen as a justified condition to use military power. On the case of cybersecurity, it is harder for neo-realist to indicate the threat. However, as long as it is still considered as threat, state should rely on itself, the eternal bargain of ‘self-help’ continues. State as the primary and unitary actor should be the one entity to indicate and eradicate threats, to always prioritize security, at all stake.
We live in a world of constant terrification, whether or not it is still relevant, threats always manage to crawl back, and it is only rational for humans to simply eradicate the risks. Deriving from the battle of power among leaders, to parties, then among nations. Now, in the 21st century, the epoch of more complex threats are coming, mere security has been questioned. Should we cooperate, or should we trust no one?
