1

Liza Veysikh Globalization and International Security: the Big Question In an era of globalization, when the world has become more interdependent and interconnected, regional conflicts, religious forms of extremism, and local environmental disasters have transformed to global in scope. No longer are security issues solely the problems of specific states, but they have the ability to spread intercontinentally, not knowing borders and strict structures. Although currently the security environment has been viewed internationally, in the next twenty years, with the further rise of globalization, it will be inevitable for the security environment to transform to an all encompassing global one. Additionally, old security problems that will have global threats will need to be solved globally. I will analyze how terrorism, space security, and cyber crime have not been addressed as large-scale dangers to the world today, in order to conclude that these issues need to be viewed as global threats with collaborative solutions. Furthermore, I will discuss the importance of global norms, multilateral cooperation, and improved communications technology as key elements in providing security in the global environment. The inability to reach a mutual consensus on what is the meaning of terrorism has been the first obstacle to view terrorism as a global threat. The UN Security Council defines terrorism as criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons. Audrey Cronin in Behind the Curve Globalization and International Terrorism argues that targets of terrorists are not the individuals and civilians, but are governments who the terrorists are trying to threaten and inflict fear. So, the international community does not recognize this. Cronin says Terrorism is intended to be a

matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers. (Cronin 3). Furthermore, the UN definition does not include cyber terrorism, which does not involve physical attacks, but instead contains elements of hacking, viruses, and software attacks. So, cyber terrorism is a new phenomenon, and is not incorporated in the descriptions of terrorism. In the new globalized era, terrorism exists in serial, decentralized networks where there are numerous flexible nodes and links. Even if one node is destroyed, others still are functional. For example, many states argue that by decapitating the leaders of terrorist groups, the whole terrorist organization would disband. This is because the operational capability would be reduced and the structure would become disorganized. The Shining Path, a terrorist organization in Peru in the 1980s and 1990s, has substantially decreased its activities with the fall of their leader Abimael Guzman. However, these targeted initiatives are not effective counter-terrorist methods. States do not realize that terrorist organizations exist in disorganized, complex networks, and therefore can thrive without their leaders. In fact, Bin Laden was killed last year, but al Qaeda network has still not lost its power. Today, by utilizing the Internet as an important tool, terrorists increase their capabilities, hold much more popular support through communication, and have much better skill to adapt to methods of counter-terrorism. Cronin says Many of them employ elaborate list serves, collect money from witting or unwitting donors, and distribute savvy political messages to a broad audience online. (7) Even more, today, terrorists are able to draw support to their organization with blogs or with violent videos and graphic images and to instill fear in the public. Their cause can spread easily, quickly, and efficiently, because they use violence that shocks the whole world. This continued expression of violence makes them extremely credible. Likewise, new terrorism is able to cross international boundaries and can gather large amounts of

resources to fund their operations by employing interconnected financial networks into their schemes. Currently, the United States and other Western states have confronted terrorism with military action, despite its increasing complexity. These policies are short term, like, for example, an invasion of Afghanistan that led to its fall a couple of months later, or fighting in Yemen and Kashmir. However, there have been minimal non-military ways to fight terrorism, such as international cooperation, economic regional assistance to states, and diplomacy, since the issue of interfering with state sovereignty is still very important today. Space security has also not been viewed as a global threat, while it actually is a threat that exists on a macro level. Space activities have been instruments for using both hard and soft power for nations, especially during the Cold War. Only recently, space became classified as a global common in which self-interested consumers try to maximize their own interests and gains by using a public good without any considerations of its consequences to other people and the environment. Moreover, because space exists outside of national jurisdiction, it has been available for all to use, without any thought on international rules. Space, then, has been managed without any concern for the future consequences on Earth. One issue that is particularly problematic today is space pollution. At present, there are over 800 commercially used satellites in orbit, ( Tyson 2) while rocket debris, deserted spacecrafts, and the overcrowding of orbital paths are able to damage other spacecraft and contaminate space. According to NASA, the number of objects in Earths orbit has doubled from nearly zero in 1956 to nearly 16,000 today. This contamination might be able to inhibit other forms of space activities, including experimentation, and exploration. Today, the Inter-Agency

Debris Co-ordination Committee Guidelines have been adopted by UN COPUOS. The UN General Assembly outline space mitigation measures to reduce the debris, but these rules and guidelines are not binding and are voluntary. They do not address all states, emphasizing the cultural, geographical, and economic differences between countries. Overall, space security has not been effective in the last sixty years. Even though international agreements have been attempted, they have not increased cooperation among different sectors of the international community. For example, the Moon Treaty of 1979 was constructed under the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its goals were to encourage equitable sharing of the lunar resources because the moon was said to be the common heritage of mankind. The treaty failed because the US and the Soviet Union did not sign the treaty, the main countries that were involved in moon exploration and research. The Outer Space Treaty, created in 1967, whose purpose is to ban weapons of mass destruction in space and prohibit other military activities of celestial bodies, as well has not developed properly. It does not specifically define what weapons are for destruction so many conventional weapons are still in space and are not banned. Moreover, by establishing the fact that resources such as planets and the Moon are common heritages of mankind, the international community allows all states to use these resources as much as they want to do for their own benefit, which creates un-sustainability. UNCOPUOS, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, a primary international forum for developing laws concerning space security, has failed to address the militarization issue of outer space, which is a very important part of space security. Even if membership to the organization expands, it is very difficult to reach consensus when interests of many different states (including the BRIC countries) are involved. Likewise, international

organizations relating to space and multilateral space treaties have hard times enforcing measures because they dont raise the question of incentives to make sure states abide strictly by the rules. Cyber Security has seen less progress than both terrorism and space. As Internet access became available to a widespread public in 1992, turning into a new global phenomenon, new problems have emerged. Now, online fraud, identity theft, hacking, cyber espionage, and other threats inflict damage on individuals, governments, and private companies. Just in 2011, cyber attacks have striked 100 Pakistani government websites, while there have been major interruptions in the websites of the IMF, NATO, and websites in the UK. (The Nation.) The highest density of cyber attacks have been observed in the US, Russia, China, and Brazil, where there have been the largest online users. The exceptionality and the novelty of cyber threats and crime have been the difficulty to identify who is doing these threats, and what is their purpose. Even if a criminal is identified, it is challenging to punish this person across national boundaries. Cyber attacks never end, unlike a war, while the consequences are unknown. Morever, cyber attacks might stop temporarily, or they might turn to pandemics with cascade effects. Because it is extremely difficult to identify the actor of the threat, and its particular purpose, cyber security needs to be addressed globally rather than internationally. Currently, in the US, the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative has not been fully implemented. The Cyberspace Policy Review, created in 2010, has not completely engaged in protecting cyberspace globally. While recognizing the need for multilateral institutions to employ cyber security, US have not implemented these initiatives yet. The cost and the question of how specifically to realize these goals inhibit any effort. Bayles in The Ethics of Computer Network Attack says Unlike kinetic weapons, however, a computer network attack can reach across the world at the speed of light, invisibly transiting many international borders en route to

its target. So, there needs to be a global solution to a global security issue. Only recently, in December of 2011, the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Threats (IMPACT) has engaged in solutions to address cyber threats on a global scale. This initiative has been the first global organization, but we will see in the future, whether governments would collaborate with the civil society and with private companies to fight cyber threats. Another problem presently that restrains a global solution to a global cyber threat has been differing national interests on the cyber question. For the US, cyber terrorism and crime has been much more prevalent than in other countries, so it is difficult to construct a team with countries that dont want to put money into cyber security. By examining three security threats that have been addressed on the international level, one can see that in the future, the security environment has to be addressed at a global level. Global governance, extreme forms of cooperation among different actors in the international community, and established global norms are imperative. Therefore, a collective security scheme will need to be instituted where there would be a global regulation of networks in space, cyber, and terrorism. Cyber is such a challenging threat partly because its new and governments still have no idea how to address this problem. In the future, when cyber networks will expand even further, there would need to be global cooperation with all states, civil society groups, law enforcement organizations, and private companies, on providing safe and secure information online. Each group and organization would reinforce the other, instead of overlapping each other. Their goals would be to create a healthy and moral global cyber environment for business, home, and other activities. This cooperation would also consist of expert groups that would work with analyzing

the different types of cyber threats, while the private companies and the governments would establish a more effective partnership (the governments would have the legal force for implementation, resources, and authority; and the private sector would have most of the expertise in the cyber world.) In states that dont currently have the public-private partnership, global and international private organizations and groups should be established. The private organizations are critical because people would be able to maintain their privacy while the economy would not be hurt in the state. By endorsing multilateral agreements on a global scale, global norms would provide a guide and a forum for rule-making to meet global responsibilities in information and communication technology. These norms would include a multinational code of conduct between all states where hacking would be illegal, subject to fines and even imprisonment. Piracy of digital content would be carefully monitored by the global community and important government sectors (health and education) of the state would also be globally defended. The major states that would be most affected by cyber crime (currently, US, China, Russia, and Brazil) along with major international organizations and the Cyber Police would set the global collective standards. Furthermore, global cooperation would necessitate a global education program that would provide incentives to engage all countries into a global cyber security program. All of the international community would understand and evaluate the risks of not engaging in cyber security and would wish to cooperate. If they still wouldnt agree on participating, their isolation in a very interconnected, globalized world would mean no international trade. Cooperation would lead to global networks working with regional networks on security in order to make sure that no region in the world would be immune of cyber crime and terrorism. Intelligence and police organizations would collaborate with other entities, eliminating conflicting world views and establishing a macro-forum for cooperation and safety in

the cyber environment. Overall, Internet would still be very important in the lives of all, but it would be used more securely and more effectively in society. For outer space security, a global code of conduct would be crucial in a globalized world. The Code of Conduct would establish norms on safety areas around satellites, the elimination of weapons in space, create a safer traffic management in space and encourage a more vigorous regulation of space debris. Cooperation among all actors in the global environment would ensure that cultural, economic, and geographical differences would not be in the way of ensuring a safer space. Space security would be enforced by a specific Enforcement Agency that would exist outside of states national interest (since national interest has been crucial in inhibiting space security). Every country would rely on binding pledges on sustainable disarmament in space that would be enforced globally. For China, despite denial of many of the space treaties, it would be impossible not to get involved in space security because either it would be isolated completely or there would no other solution for China but to work cooperatively. With increasing global governance, space would be transformed from the common heritage of mankind to exclusive and controlled heritage of mankind where each state and each organization would have the responsibility to ensure a safer future in satellites, GPS, and in space pollution. Nancy Gallagher reinforces this idea in Space Governance and International Cooperation when she says This logic emphasizes that the more different countries, companies, and individuals depend on space for a growing array of purposes, the more they need equitable rules, shared decision-making procedures, and effective compliance mechanisms.(Gallagher, 2) With cooperation, risks of space wars and other attacks would be minimized to nearly zero and incentives (by analyzing and understanding the risks and educating the public on space) would force states to cooperate. Better communication technology would allow space satellites

to be constructed in a way that would contaminate the space less and allow better, more efficient technology in space. Funding for this global program would be provided by all participating actors so that the responsibility in protecting space would be shared. States that would not want to be part of this Global Security Program would not be able to use space for any purposes and would be subject to economic sanctions if they would not comply. In sum, because space is a global common, there would be no choice, but for global organizations and civil society groups to become an essential part of the forum on security. For terrorism, the most urgent threat currently for states, it would be essential to have global surveillance programs, including communications technology, to create links and establish connections with local and regional counter-terrorist groups. This cooperation between the global and regional (which has not been implemented before) would make sure that the complex terrorist networks would be exposed quickly. Also, cooperation would be needed between the militaries of different states and counter-terrorist international organizations. No longer would state sovereignty matter as all states would belong to the global community for the greater benefit of all. Global norms, such as terrorism, would be unjustifiable in any conditions and under any circumstances, and would have to cross all societies and spread globally, while becoming binding and mandatory. If terrorism consists of complex networks, than the global community would establish their own networks to counter these threats. Moreover, all states would have no choice but to fund this global effort (providing half of the support) and international organizations (IGOs and NGOs) would fund the other half. In this new Global Counter-Terror regime, there would be a close partnership between all states, all terrorist international organizations, and other groups. By regulating and policing communication technology, especially the Internet, terrorists would not be able to use the Internet as propaganda

10

and as a tool for support. For incentives on counter-terrorism efforts, the globalized world would have to reward the good players who have not engaged in terrorism, and would severely punish the rest. A collective effort would educate the world, especially the Middle East, which would reduce violence and religious extremism. On the whole, cooperation on terrorism would need to be more urgent, because it is a major violent threat now. Global cooperation, better regulation of the communication technology, and global norms would be the most important in providing security in a new globalized environment. Global norms are necessary because they would establish global rules that everybody would abide by. Controlling communication technology would ensure that remote regions still enjoy the benefits of globalization, but this technology would be safe and secure. Without cooperation of all actors in the international cooperation, no major agreements on any security issues would be achieved. Furthermore, the realization that the protection of the global community would be worth to join global efforts on terrorism, cyber crime, and space security would be key incentives for engaging all countries and all actors in a new security environment. Education with collaboration would force states to realize that if they dont contribute, everybody, from young to old, and from rich to poor, would be affected. This understanding would create a new global governance mechanism, where cooperation, better communications technology, and multilateral institutions would become center stage in solving new security problems. Bibliography
Gallagher, Nancy. "Space Governance and International Cooperation." Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, 2010. Web. 27 May 2012.
Cronin, Audrey Kurth. "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." International Security 27, no. 3 (Winter 2002/03): 30-58.

11 Tyson, Rhianna. "Advancing a Cooperative Security Regime in Outer Space." Global Security Institute, May 2007. Web. 29 May 2012. "IMF Becomes Latest Target of Major Cyber Attack." The Nation. 13 June 2011. Web. 30 May 2012. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/politics/13-Jun2011/IMF-becomes-latest-target--of-major-cyber-attack Bayles, William J. "The Ethics of Computer Network Attack." CBS Interactive. CBS Interactive Business Network, 01 Aug. 2002. Web. 30 May 2012. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_1_31/ai_73000541/>.