2018 International Cyber Security Strategy

The White House released its 2018 National Cyber Strategy this week in support of a more open, secure, interoperable and reliable cyberspace. The US adheres to a multi-stakeholder model of governance, including its foreign partners, allies and members of civil society, and the private sector. This position stands in opposition to a state-centric model used in nations such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran and one which fails to enhance a vibrant digital economy.

“This includes engagement through the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of 30 governments committed to advancing Internet freedom via multilateral diplomacy and multi-stakeholder collaboration with civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders. The Department’s efforts also focus on raising concerns bilaterally about actions that governments may take to restrict access to the Internet or suppress free speech online, and urging U.S.-based Internet companies to respect human rights and implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as they design and carry out their commercial activities, according to the State Department announcement. For the past decade, the Department has provided over $165 million in foreign assistance to support Internet freedom programs.

Section 231 Sanctions

On September 2o an unnamed senior US State Department official addressed new developments in implementing the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanction Act (CAATA). Last year it was passed by Congress in response to attempts by the Russian defense and intelligence sectors to harm the United States. The senior official said: “The array of sanctions the United States has imposed against Russia and those who material support – materially support its malign activities are undertaken in direct response to Russia’s aggressive actions against our country, our allies, and our partners.”

This week the Secretary of State added 33 additional Russian entities, including Rosoboronexport, which is Russia’s main arms export entity, to the list of those prohibited from making major transactions in the US. In consultation with the Treasury Secretary, the US also imposed sanctions on the Equipment Development Department (EDD), a Chinese entity along with its Director Li Shangfu. The State Department official said: “We took these actions because China took delivery of 10 Sukhoi fighter aircraft, specifically Su-25s, in December of 2017 – of course, after the CAATSA statute came into force. And it also took delivery of a batch of S-400 – sometimes known as SA-21 – surface-to-air missile systems or related equipment in January of this year.”
It is a kind of drug that does not cialis for sale india http://davidfraymusic.com/2019/03/ take place then the man faces erectile dysfunction. Whether you sildenafil canadian pharmacy need such services for a small task or a large one, you can get all you desired and expected for your organization. However, ED can actually signify why such problems brand viagra uk are not ordinary, but indicator to nascent cardiovascular disorder. It is bioequivalent to viagra on line sales which has been clinically approved.
Iran Nuclear Deal

Secretary of State Pompeo this week declined to officially define former Secretary of State Kerry’s behind-the-scenes attempt to conduct diplomacy with Iran’s foreign minister without consent from the US Government as “illegal meetings,” saying that he will the “legal determination” to others. In what is viewed by Pompeo as an attempt to undermine the Trump Administration’s policy on Iran, Pompeo reported he saw with his own eyes that Kerry was meeting with Iranian and his “troika counterparts.”

In a strongly worded statement, Pompeo said: “…what Secretary Kerry has done is unseemly and unprecedented. This is a former secretary of state engaged with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, and according to him – right? You don’t have to take my word for it. He – these are his answers. He was talking to them. He was telling them to wait out this administration.

You can’t find precedent for this in U.S. history, and the secretary ought not – Secretary Kerry ought not to engage in that kind of behavior. It’s inconsistent with what foreign policy of the United States is, as directed by this President, and it is beyond inappropriate for him to be engaged in this.”

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media, which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

What Would War with Taiwan be Like

There is a coming conflict with Taiwan. What remains uncertain is the nature of that conflict. A newly released report this week by the Global Taiwan Institute’s (GTI) John Dotson argues that political warfare is a key component of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to undermine and achieve annexation of Taiwan. The CCP’s goal, he says, is to force the subjugation of the island’s citizens and democratic society and place it under “full CCP political Control.” Chinese directed propaganda and disinformation, elite cooption, political subversion, and coercive military and economic actions all are connected by a prominent link – they are actions intended for psychological effect. They are also methods of political warfare in an ongoing, persistent, and multi-faceted campaign against Taiwan. Information warfare used by Beijing against Taipei manipulates the news to change the attitudes of the population. Is it working? Dotson says that China is successfully exercising influence of “content and editorial coverage in traditional media outlets such as newspapers and television news channels, largely by leveraging influence through local proxy figures—in particular, wealthy businesspersons who have extensive financial equities in China.” He suggests that Beijing employs a “pink model” to push pro-CCP content into social media news feeds, not unlike what China does inside the United States. Using algorithmic targeting, Beijing is able to attack selected demographic targets who are more vulnerable to disinformation. Its goal is to further sow confusion and reduce cognitive resistance to pro-CCP’s narratives. Encouraging a population to believe false information by reducing a group’s opposition to it is a common practice among intelligence agencies and politicians alike. First, a population is provided with several scenarios that are easily accepted as true. In a simple example, one might read that at noon the sun is high in the sky, the clock says 12:00 pm, and many people are eating lunch. These points are easily accepted as true. The human brain at this point becomes more susceptible to accepting new information that may be false as it is programmed to let its guard done. The CCP follows by planting real information among false facts to make it easier to accept and digest. It doesn’t stop at disinformation, Beijing is also leveraging its toolkit in a related field, “legal warfare (法律戰), to promote its interpretation of international law and diplomatic practice. Yet another major category of concern in the CCP’s political warfare against Taiwan is known as “gray zone operations.” These are more closely related to military actions and include activities such as the aerial and maritime encroachment of Taiwan’s territory. The goal is to erode the concept of sovereignty and security. The United States is experiencing “gray zone” operations on our own southern border. In Taiwan, these include China’s overflight of Taiwan’s airspace by military aircraft. These events are increasing in both number and intensity as they grow close to the island itself. Simultaneously, China’s PLAN (People’s Liberation Army Navy), through its coast guard “law enforcement” operations are challenging Taipei’s outer islands. Dotson points out that the “paramount objective in such operations is the intended psychological effect on Taiwan’s population.” Another related area according to the GTI report is increasing economic coercion. China is attempting to deny Taiwan market access, ban its imports, and limit politically-oriented trade and investment opportunities. The intent is to “punish groups within Taiwan for developments to which Beijing objects, to isolate Taiwan internationally, and to pressure other countries and international companies to conform to Beijing’s preferred policies on Taiwan,” says Dotson. To date, Taiwan has suffered from attempts to ban Taiwan’s export of agricultural products. Beijing has also punished countries who willingly import from Taiwan and have close relations with Taipei. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood areas of China’s political warfare campaign against Taiwan revolves around its “united front work.” This embraces a range of measures that Dotson says include both financial and psychological cooption and include the use of front organizations and political subversion. In Taiwan, China is coopting business and political elites, funding and manipulating local organizations (temple societies) and offering support to fringe political parties that can be used to destabilize Taiwan and spread the CCP’s propaganda. Western militaries analyze the likelihood of kinetic warfare but spend less time on the impacts of political warfare. The free world cannot overlook what is happening in Taiwan and needs to recognize that Chinese political warfare extends across the globe. Beijing may not need to physically capture the island by force if it wins using a clandestine political warfare model of conflict. Then the question becomes, “Who is next?” Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay