Munich Security Conference

8/3/2019 Munich Security Conference

1/32

Munich Security Conference 1

Munich Security ConferenceMcMUN 2012


2/32


Table of Contents:

Chair letter...............................................................................................................................3

Topic 1: Global Security in the wake of the Financial Crisis...................................................5

Topic 2: The Use of Private Military Companies....................................................................14

Topic 3: Cyber security..........................................................................................................23


3/32


Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the 2012 McGill Model United Nations Assembly! On behalf of the entiredais, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the Munich Security Conference simulation. We

cant wait to see you in Montreal, and look forward to seeing how you address securityissues facing the world today.

But Im getting ahead of myself. Hi, Im Keagan Tafler, and I will be your chair. I amcurrently in my fourth year at McGill, studying Political Science, Economics, and History, andoriginally hail from the small town of Scriba, NY. I first became involved in Model UN througha scheduling fluke during my freshman year of high school, but quickly fell in love and have

not stopped since. Some of my Model UN career highs include serving Director of PublicRelations on last years SSUNS Secretariat, travelling with the McGill delegations team as

Head Delegate, and recently staffing a conference held at the UN. In whatever spare time Ihave left, I love obsessing over Alabama football and the Pittsburgh Steelers, going for longruns up Mount Royal, and exploring the greater Montreal area. One aspect of my area ofstudy focuses on the evolution of international collective security, so I hope that you share

my interest in the Munich Security Conferences topics by the conclusion of the conference.

And now, to introduce your vice-chairs, Kegan Chang was born a Canadian, but was

raised in Southeast Asia. He is in his second year at McGill working towards his Bachelorsin Political Science and Psychology. He aspires to be a Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot Lord withone eye and own a pet monkey by the time he graduates. His previous experiences with

MUN include various high school conferences and Crisis Staffing the Ad Hoc Committee atMcMUN 2011, an experience akin to running a psychology experiment while directing a play

and writing a political treatise in a pressure cooker. He hopes the committee will be arefreshing change from standard MUN fare, and that it will prompt delegates to reconsider

the role of Europe and North America on the world stage.Aparna Narayanan is a U3 student with a major in Political Science and a minor in

English Literature. Aparna is originally from Bombay, India, and has lived in Dubai since shewas seven. She pretty much admits her addiction to television and movies, and enjoysreading and cooking. She speaks English, Hindi, Tamil, and a tiny bit of French, and dreams

of traveling and living in several places.Casey Minnes is currently in her third and final year, completing a Political Science

degree focusing on American and Middle Eastern politics. Prior to McGill, Casey attended

Marquette High School in St. Louis, Missouri! Next year, Casey hopes start law school orbegin working on her Masters degree in International Relations. While this is Caseys third

year at McGill, this will be her first McMUN experience. She is very excited and cannot waitto meet all of you this January!

Shadi Afana is a second year chemical engineering student. He was born in theMiddle East and raised in over 5 countries. Shadi speaks 3 different languages fluently

(Franch, English, Arabic) and is laboring his way to fluency in Spanish. Shadi has beendoing Model United Nations for longer than he can remember (mainly because he has a badmemory). He can't wait to meet everyone during McMUN 2011 or 2012, he simply is not

sure.Unlike many General Assembly simulations, the Munich Security Conference is a

large body composed entirely of senior figures from around the world who share the aim ofworking to address issues of global security. The members represented in committeerepresent a diverse array of fields, including political leaders, media icons, financialinvestors, and military experts. Reflecting on the complexity and interdependency of theworld, we hope to see delegates utilize their respective resources to develop new and

innovative solutions to the problems which pose a risk to international peace and security.

Due to the wide spectrum of topics that the Munich Security Conference addresses, Istrongly encourage you to be well prepared for this conference. While the background guide


4/32


can be useful as a starting point for research, additional independent research is highlyrecommended. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate tocontact McMUN 2012 Team Committees.

I sincerely hope that the dais of the Munich Security Conference can help makeMcMUN 2012 an outstanding conference for every delegate!

Sincerely,

Keagan Tafler

Chair, Munich Security Conference


5/32


Topic 1: Global Security in the wake of the Financial Crisis

True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security andindependence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which

dictatorships are made.- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Introduction:

On February 12th 2009, the director of Nationalntelligence Admiral Dennis Blair warned the SenateIntelligence Committee that the economic crisis isAmericas primary near-term security concern;moreover, the longer and deeper the crisis, the moreserious damage Americas strategic interests will

face.1 The threat is attributed to the risk of social unrestand political instability in allies of the US. The impactof such crisis on global security is an issue of concernto individuals, corporations, institutions and statesalike. Admiral Dennis Blair

The Financial Crisis did not necessarily cause the global security threats, but ratherexacerbated existing tensions that pose a potential threat to international peace and security.First, the West is facing an ever more influential China which started taking advantage of USsystemic weaknesses to extend energy supply channels and broader influence to traditional

American zones of influence.2 Second, domestic economic crises contribute to a rise in theappeal of nationalism and other extreme ideologies which can threaten liberal democraticvalues, spur protectionist pressures, and further limit international trade and its beneficialimplications for international cooperation.3 Third, the domestic economic instability and theassociated rise in unemployment provide the right environmental settings for organized crimeto grow.4 The more recent debt ceiling crisis in the US and ongoing uncertainty regardingsovereign-debts in Europe indicate that, despite the appeasement caused by a recoveringworld economy, global security remains far from being than guaranteed.

Keeping these claims in mind, delegates to the Munich Security Conference areinvited to address the suggested relationship between the recent financial crisis and globalsecurity concerns and if needed, design an international framework to bolster international

peace and security. This is a unique opportunity to exploit the opportunity for a multilateralapproach with the collaboration of both state and non-state actors. Given the broad scope ofthis specific topic, delegates are encouraged to come up with multilateral proposals andagreements which will be framed as agreements of principle or documents setting the stagefor near or distant future discussions and adoptions at other international bodies ororganizations, such as the IMF, the WB, UN bodies, or any other relevant internationalinstitution. There is NO modification in the rules of procedure, expect that resolutions for thistopic will be referred to as proposals.


6/32


The World Economic Order

The US financial crisis and theuncertainties facing the sovereign-debtcrisis in Europe have undoubtedly

affected the global economy andcontributed to a shift in the internationaleconomic order. First, the troubles in theadvanced economies are eroding thedominance of advanced economies infavor of burgeoning emerging countries.Between 2000 and 2010, the US and theEUs shares of the world GDP in PPPterms decreased from 23.7% to 20.2% andfrom 25.1% to 20.6%.5 This trend is likely

to continue as IMF estimates suggest that,after a contraction of 3.4% in 2009, advanced economies grew at an average of 3% in 2010and 2.5% in 2011; whereas, emerging economies grew at an average of 7.1% in 2010 and6.5% in 2011.6 Brazils 7.5% and 4.5%, Russias 3.7% and 4.5% Chinas 10.3% and 9.6%,Indias 9.7% and 8.4%, and Asean-5s 6.7% and 5.5% growth rather in 2010 and 2011respectively help pinpoint the real powerhouses of the worlds economic recovery.7Similarly, IMF projects clearly indicate that emerging and developing economies will leadthe worlds GDP growth while advanced economies will provide GDP growth rates belowthe worlds average.

The world economy is set for a recovery, but the origins of that recovery are going toconfirm expectations regarding economic power redistribution specifically to the emergingChinese and Indian waves that are raising all Asian boats. Unsurprisingly, the 2020 world

economic order is projected to be based onthe following decreasing order of nationalGDP contributions to the worlds totalGDP.8

Source: Euromonitor International from IMF,International Financial Statistics and World Economic

Outlook/UN/national statistics.


7/32


The shift in world economic order carries major economicand political implications for the dynamics of the internationalcommunity as well as risks of potential destabilization ofinternational peace and security. First, the global influence of thedrivers of global growth will replace advanced economies

influence in developing and resource rich regions of the world.Since the early 2000s, China established itselves as the mainforeign investors in Africa.9 This has increased competitive

pressures in a world on the course towards resource depletion.Second, economic dominance will increase pressures for theredistribution of political influence within internationalorganizations. The World Bank, traditionally seen as aninstitution dominated by Western economies, has had China

become its 3rd largest shareholder in 2010.10 Increasing contributions have been welcomed,yet opposition to loss of traditional influence to another power can only increase tensions.Finally, economic overheating has been recognized as a risk in emerging economies which

are experiencing record high inflations and are anxiously awaiting the discovery of asset bubbles, which can throw the emerging economies into domestically and internationallydestabilizing revaluation crises.11 Social unrest is already a threat in emerging economies dueto extreme income inequality, urban-rural divides, and fears that overheating economies willimplode, causing massive unemployment in highly populated countries with little to no socialsecurity nets.

Economic Pains and Domestic Stability

One of the main threats to global security associated with a prolonged financial crisis

is domestic instability. Unemployment and devaluation of assets during an economicrecession create a lot of political and social frustration among individuals. This leads to theerosion of popular support for the government and creates civil unrest that may boil over and

become a serious threat to the security of the nation and its neighbours.

Rising prices for the most basic necessities makes life of the common man fraughtwith hardships. A skilled but unemployed, disgruntled young man is most likely to fall preyto fundamentalist ideologies that promise liberation from the clutches of a system wheremoney is hard to come by, yet so necessary for survival. In today's world, young men andwomen under the spell of extremist dogma are a serious danger to their society and to theinternational community.

In Egypt, economic pains brought the accumulated social frustrations to the tippingpoint. It was observed that a large popular revolt against Mubaraks regime was partially setinto motion by the sudden increase in food prices.12 The unrest and violence in the Africannation shook up the entire region and its aftershock was felt throughout the Middle East. Withgovernments at risk of collapsing in the face of a severe economic meltdown, the threat tonational security becomes more pressing. The power vacuum, which would result from afallen government, may allow radicals to infiltrate the voids and sow seeds of extremismdomestically and terrorism internationally.13

One of the critical factors that resulted in the revolution in the Arab world was the rise

of food prices. Citizens were unable to afford to buy many of the essential food products suchas rice, flour, corn, etc. Statistics have shown that the prices of food in the international


8/32


market have witnessed that major increase in prices from 2006 to 2008. The prices for theaforementioned food products went from approximately $600 per ton in 2003 to over $1800

per ton in 2008.14 Based on the general food products index for the U.S. food andagricultural organization (FAO), the prices of major grains/cereals increased by 23%.15

Governments, which are unable to cope with economic crises, create environmentspropitious for the development of terrorist networks and organized crime. Weakened societiesthreaten to become terrorist safe havens as frustrated citizens become more receptive tofundamentalist ideologies. Similarly, with governments unable to cope with the economiccrisis, the black market gains prominence and power as people look to them for a source ofcredit and basic supplies. This directly fuels underground activity which, in turn, bolsterscriminal coffers and societys dependence on criminal organizations. In the end, thelegitimacy of ineffective government gets eroded by more effective and socially integratedcriminal organizations. To illustrate, the Mexican government is using its military to fightorganized crime in its northern provinces near the American border. The scale of theoperations has gone beyond traditional

tracking down of drug lords. With the helpof the American Merida Initiative (PlanMexico in Washingtons War on Drugs),the Mexican government is fighting to

preserve its effective authority over regionsthat have been taken other byinstitutionalized criminal networks whosedistinction with local authorities has been

blurred.16 With crime on the rise and aweakened economy, the pressures on thegovernments only increase, with more fundsrequired to fight crime and exacerbating thespiral of financial difficulties.17

In more developed countries, the ripple effects of the financial crisis destabilizedsocieties and brought down governments too. In October 2008, Iceland was the first countryto go bankrupt during the recession and be partially bailed out by a foreign sovereign state,Russia. Some have viewed this benevolent gesture as Russias attempt to gain some groundin its attempts to secure the prospects of its own policy in the Arctic.18 Although Russiasloans did not lead to a degradation of global security, the story of Icelands bailout is anexample of the vulnerability of defaulting states to the will of foreign powers. In February

2009, Latvias government was the second government to collapse as a result of theeconomic pains induced by the global recession.19 The coalition government wasdisintegrated following the most violent riot in the countrys history since 1991. The ongoingviolent social unrest in Greece is yet another instance of how economic matters can haverepercussion on matters of domestic security and in the context of a broader Euro-zone andEuropean Union, global stability.

Economies, Debts, and Militaries

The adverse pressures of the US national debt carry severe implications to USAsprovision of national security and its position as a broker of international peace and security

worldwide. Realizing that it pursues an unsustainable level of government spending, the UShas come to realize that it will have to slash some of its expenditures. The Department of


9/32


Defence was one of the first to be target as a almost a decade of increased military spendingfor the costly War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq, which as of Dec. 1st, 2011, havealready cost the US government over $480 billion and $800 billion respectively.20 Therefore,facing a prolonged recession and a debt ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011, the US decidedto cut the Defence Department budget by approximately $1 trillion after passing the Budget

PICTURE: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/permanent-us-military-presence-in.html

Control Act in August 2011.21 Reacting to this, Leon Panetta declared that at the end of theten years, the United States would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the fewestships since 1915 and the smallest air force in its history.22 In conflict with a number ofcountries, troops present in over 156 countries, military bases in 63 countries, trying to

balance off a rising China and defending its citizens for all expected terrorists attacks, theDepartment of Defence will have trouble running businesses as usual under the budgetcuts.The future of Americas national security hangs in the balance, say the AmericanEnterprise Institution (AEI).23 It appears as if relative power redistributions have finallymaterialized.

The US is not the only nation that is looking into cutting their defence budget.Germany wishes to cut 8.3 billion from its defence budget by the year 2014.24 Germanys.

Defence minister, Karl-Theodor Zu Guttenberg, said he favoured suspending conscription,with the option of resuming it later, in order to create a smaller but better and moreoperational army.25 While deploying the largest European forces in Afghanistan, Britainhopes to reduce its military spending by 10-20% over the following five years, Spain iscutting 9% for the current year. Italy is cutting 10%. France is freezing defence expenditure.26Austerity measures have permeated the European views on defence budgets as well.

Meanwhile, although the US and West spend more than the sum of all other nationscombined, the recent trends are more of a concern over long term relative international

positions. Emerging countries such as India and China have been increasing military


10/32


spending for a number of decades now. In March 2011, it was reported that China wouldspend $91.5 billion, or a 17.46% increase on the military spending in 2010 which totalled$77.9 billion.27 Although Chinese military spending is still only a seventh of the US, Chinahas a record of on average 12.9% defence spending growth since 1989 when it implemented a

plan to completely modernize its military.28 Similarly, Indias military spending is far behind

China but is similarly on the rise, since it announced in early 2011 that it is planning to spend$50 billion for the complete modernization of its military over the next five years. 29 In short,a large number of traditional brokers of international peace and security will be losingrelative military capabilities while emerging nations will keep on raising and modernizingtheir own capabilities. In the meantime, there current trend will leave an uncompensated gapleft over from the decrease in spending in some countries and an insufficient increase inmilitary spending in emerging countries

Economic lulls and International Instability: Case Study: Falkland War 1982

The early 1980s was a period of a mild international recession caused by US Federal

Reserve raised interest rates in order to cut off the monetary supply and in so doing, pander tofears over rising inflation. Given US economic dominance, the actions of the FederalReserve had international repercussions. In United Kingdom, for example, the unemploymentrose from 6% to 11%. Along with the perception that PM Margaret Thatcher was not

pursuing policies that would help salvage the nation, her popularity was waning.30Around the same time, Argentina was

facing an economic crisis. The military tookover in 1976 and instituted free market policies;however, it ignored the fact that its domesticindustries were far too uncompetitive to survivean inflow of imports. Numerous factories shutdown and external debt went through the roof31.The military dictatorship was increasingly

blamed for the economic pains the country wasgoing through and domestically the situationwas at risk of destabilizing.

The situation in both United Kingdom and Argentina fit the bill of the rally-around-the-flag phenomenon. In order to distract civilians from a critical economic situation andlower the chances of any internal security threat or unpopularity in the case of a politiciansseeking democratic re-election, the government tends to point the peoples attention towards

an external threat that can potentially affect the country as a whole. As a result, the peopleunite their focus and energy on this threat. Domestic problems disappear as external conflictreplaces the dominant atmosphere, and the recently ill regarded leader is cloaked in patrioticsupport The 1982 Falklands War is an example of rally-around-the-flag.

Facing labour unrest and scheduleddemonstrations, Argentinas ruling generalsdecided to invade the Islas Malvinas (Argentineanname for Falklands Islands which Argentina stillclaims as sovereign territory), very small islandscovered in barren rock and a few sheep in theSouth Atlantic Ocean. These islands were still

under British sovereignty, so Thatcher jumped onthe occasion to retaliate against Argentinean


11/32


aggression to reclaim the islands.

The war lasted about 75 days, when finally Argentina has surrendered after the deathof 649 Argentine soldiers and 258 English soldiers.32 Besides these causalities, the war

brought other consequences. In Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher gained the publics support

needed for her economic measures. In Argentina, on the other hand, the military regime wasdiscredited and in 1983, free elections were organized.

The point of this case of the case study is that an adverse economic climate on theinternational level as well as domestically can lead to the destabilization of international

peace and security. Rally-around-the-flag phenomenon is only one among many incentiveswhich can bring economically unpopular governments to attempt to build domestic support

by shifting the focus to an external threat to an emotion-enthused issue, such as contestedterritory under the control of a distant power.

Questions to Consider:

1) What are you characters interests and preferences relative to global security in thewake of the financial Crisis? Who else do you think might agree with you?

2) To what extent is the reordering of the world economic order a threat to international

peace and security? What existing international institutions can be used to alleviate

economic crisis induced tensions that threaten international peace and security?

3) What is the role of multinational corporations in assisting governments struggling

with economic and financial burdens? What are their responsibilities? What is the

appropriate limit of their assistance and compensation?

4) What international organizations need to be reformed in order to reflect the current

systemic distributions of economic power and influence? How should they be

reformed? For example, who will provide loans of last resort to governments in need?

Who will broker international peace and security? How will it do it?

5) Does the financial crisis represent a threat to Capitalism? What political ideologiesmay benefit from a global financial crisis?

6) How can the international community protect its members from being hijacked by

fundamental ideologies?

________________________________1 "Is the Economic Crisis a Security Threat Too? - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics,

Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 14 July 2011.

.2Ibid, Time.3Ibid, Time.

4 Ibid, Time.5 World Economic Outlook Update: Global Recovery Advances but Remains Uneven.

img.org. International Monetary Fund. 25 Jan. 2011. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/update/01/index.htm 6 Ibid, IMF.


12/32


7Ibid, IMF.8 Top Ten Largest Economies in 2020. blog.euromonitor.com. Euromonitor International.July 7th, 2010. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.

9 Ibid, Euromonitor International.



12 Why the financial Crisis matters for Security: a three minute guide. nato.int. NATO.Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2009/FinancialCrisis/Financial-Crisis-Security-Guide/EN/inrdex.htm.

13 Ibid, NATO.

14 Chossudovsky, Michel. Tunisia and the IMFs Diktats: How Macroeconomic PolicyTriggers Worldwide Poverty and Unemployment. globalresearch.ca. Global

Research, Jan. 20, 2011. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22867 .

15 Ibid, Chossudovsky.

16 Merida Initiative. state.gov. US Department of State. http://www.state.gov/p/inl/merida/.

17

"The National Security Implications of the Global Financial Crisis."National SecurityNetwork. 31 July 2011. Web. Aug. 1st 2011. http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1326.

18 Yuri Zarachovich. Why Russia Is Bailing Out Iceland. time.com. Time World. Oct. 13th2008. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1849705,00.html.

19 Stern, L. David. Latvias Government Collapses. nytimes.com. The New York Times.Feb. 20th 2009. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/europe/20iht-latvia.4.20340824.html.

20

Belasco, Amy. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on TerrorOperations

Since 9/11.fas.org. Congressional Research Service. March 29th, 2011. Web.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf.

21 Terrible Swift Sword. economist.com, The Economist. Nov. 26 th 2011. Web. Dec. 6th2011. http://www.economist.com/node/21540257 .

22 Ibid, Terrible Swift Sword.

23 Ibid, Terrible Swift Sword.

24 Defence Spending in a Time of Austerity. economist.com. The Economist. Aug. 26th,2011.Web. Dec. 6th 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/16886851 .


13/32


24 Ibid, Defence Spending in a Time of Austerity.

25 Ibid, Defence Spending in a Time of Austerity.

26

Ibid,

Defence Spending in a Time of Austerity.

27 Chinas Defense Budget.globalsecurity.org. Global Security. Nov. 7th 2011. Web. Dec.6th 2011. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm .

28 Ibid, Global Security.

29 India to Commit $50 Billion to Military Modernization over Next Five Years, AviationWeek Reports from Aero India. reuters.com. Reuters. Feb. 14th 2011. Web. Dec. 6th2011.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/idUS240360+14-Feb

2011+PRN20110214.30 1982: UK Unemployment Tops 3 Million. bbc.co.uk. BBC On This Day. Jan. 26th 2005.

Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/26/newsid_2506000/2506335

.stm

31 Argentina." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica Online Academic

Edition. Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33657/Argentina.

32 Hickman, Kennedy. The Falklands War: An Overview. militaryhistory.about.com.

About.com Guide. 2011. Web. Dec. 6th, 2011.http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars1900s/p/falklands.htm

Works Cited

1982: UK Unemployment Tops 3 Million. bbc.co.uk. BBC On This Day. Jan. 26th 2005.Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/26/newsid_2506000/2506335.stm

Argentina." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica Online Academic

Edition. Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33657/Argentina.

Belasco, Amy. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror OperationsSince 9/11.fas.org. Congressional Research Service. March 29th, 2011. Web.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf.

Chinas Defense Budget.globalsecurity.org. Global Security. Nov. 7th 2011. Web. Dec. 6th2011. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm .

Chossudovsky, Michel. Tunisia and the IMFs Diktats: How Macroeconomic PolicyTriggers Worldwide Poverty and Unemployment. globalresearch.ca. Global


14/32


Research, Jan. 20, 2011. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22867 .

Defence Spending in a Time of Austerity. economist.com. The Economist. Aug. 26th,2011.Web. Dec. 6th 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/16886851.

Hickman, Kennedy. The Falklands War: An Overview. militaryhistory.about.com.About.com Guide. 2011. Web. Dec. 6th, 2011.http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars1900s/p/falklands.htm

India to Commit $50 Billion to Military Modernization over Next Five Years, AviationWeek Reports from Aero India. reuters.com. Reuters. Feb. 14th 2011. Web. Dec. 6th2011.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/idUS240360+14-Feb2011+PRN20110214.

"Is the Economic Crisis a Security Threat Too? - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics,Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 14 July2011. .

Merida Initiative.state.gov. US Department of State. http://www.state.gov/p/inl/merida/.

"The National Security Implications of the Global Financial Crisis."National SecurityNetwork. 31 July 2011. Web. Aug. 1st 2011. http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1326.

Stern, L. David. Latvias Government Collapses. nytimes.com. The New York Times.Feb. 20th 2009. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/europe/20iht-latvia.4.20340824.html .

Terrible Swift Sword. economist.com, The Economist. Nov. 26 th 2011. Web. Dec. 6th2011. http://www.economist.com/node/21540257.

Top Ten Largest Economies in 2020. blog.euromonitor.com. Euromonitor International.July 7th, 2010. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.

Why the financial Crisis matters for Security: a three minute guide. nato.int. NATO.Web. Dec. 6th 2011.

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2009/FinancialCrisis/Financial-Crisis-Security-Guide/EN/inrdex.htm.

World Economic Outlook Update: Global Recovery Advances but Remains Uneven.img.org. International Monetary Fund. 25 Jan. 2011. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/update/01/index.htm

Yuri Zarachovich. Why Russia Is Bailing Out Iceland. time.com. Time World. Oct. 13th2008. Web. Dec. 6th 2011.http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1849705,00.html .


15/32


Topic 2: The Use of Private Military Companies

Introduction

The expense of maintaining a powerful standing army has often taxed the resources ofthe mightiest state. The cost of equipping, training and indoctrinating an effective fightingforce is not only expensive, it is often counterproductive; especially in modern times, a statewould prefer that individuals in the armed forces be part of the labor force rather thanunproductively wait for a threat to materialize. Thus, in conflicts ranging from the WarringStates Period in China to the French Revolution, and the Congo Crisis, to the revolution inLibya, mercenaries have played decisive roles in determining the history of the world.

Current international norms that frown upon the use of mercenaries are, historicallyspeaking, a relatively new development. They arose in the West specifically in response tothe spread of democracy and the idealization of the citizen-soldier. Total wars throughout the19th and 20th century were waged en masse with troops conscripted exclusively from theirhome countries rather than abroad. Though groups such as the French Foreign Legion(fighting for French colonies such as Vietnam) and the Flying Tigers (employed to defendChinese supply lines by the United States during the Second World War) rose to extreme

prominence, they mainly existed on the periphery of major conflict. War was now theresponsibility of the citizen, rather than the hired soldier. It is to be noted, however, that thisattitude does not extend to countries outside of Europe and North America. Many nations,even in recent years, have had no problems employing true mercenaries of various stripes.

However, in a post-Cold War world that has avoided total wars for many years, thereare increasing economic pressures on governments to enact disarmament programs thatreduce the size and scope of their armies. Also, modern liberal democracies seem to possess alower casualty tolerance during warfare; a Western country wishing to wage war must do sowhile spilling the least amount of their countrymans blood as possible. In thesecircumstances, the hired soldier has returned to prominence as a means for countries toensure their security.

A History of the Mercenary in Europe and North America

Under the feudal system of Europe, kings realized that the armies they raised ofarmoured nobles and relatively unarmed peasants generally provided poor fighting quality onthe battlefield.1 In order to meet increasing demands for skilled and disciplined troops,mercenaries were hired to fill the gap.2 The

prevalence of mercenaries in European armieshad important implications on the character ofhostilities. For instance, monarchical treasurieshad to expend significant amounts of preciousmetal on their mercenaries, so hostilities couldnot last forever. In fact, part of the back-story tothe end of the Thirty Year War and the Peace ofWestphalia in 1648 was the exhaustion of


16/32


European treasuries which made monarchs fear the repercussions of having unremuneratedmercenaries roam through their kingdoms. Treaty of Westphalia

The first major army that fought without any use of mercenaries in combat was thenascent United States army in the American Revolution. The republican ideals of theAmerican government made it anathema for them to consider the use of mercenary forces.They believed that popular sovereignty, or democracy, rested on the normative duty of acitizen to fight for their country.3 Battles with the British often involved American volunteermilitia on one side, and British troops with hired soldiers on the other. This reliance on themercenary by British forces was used as ammunition by opponents of the war in England,who pointed out that if a war had to be fought with mercenaries, then perhaps it did not havejust cause in the first place.

This idea of just cause was extremely significant in the development of the norm

against the use of mercenaries on the battlefield. After the American Revolution, France,Prussia, and finally Britain opted out of the mercenary system. For the sake of brevity, onlyBritains case will be examined here.

In 1815, when Napoleon Bonaparte returned from Elbe and made his final attempt atseizing power in Europe, the Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blucher confronted himat the historic Battle of Waterloo. Under Wellingtons command was the Kings GermanLegion, a group of expatriates from Hanover who had fought uninterrupted against Frenchfrom the beginning of the Napoleonic wars.4 With their cavalry regarded as being the equal ofelite British forces, the Legion was one of the major lynchpins in the Hundred Days of

Napoleons brief return to power. Following the re-founding of the Electorate of Hanover,they were disbanded and allowed to return to Hanover, while some troops maintained theirloyalties in their adopted army

At the outset of the Crimean War, the British government, lacking a strong standingarmy, made attempts to hire more foreign mercenaries to engage the Russians. It wasimmediately confronted with arguments from Parliament that the hiring of mercenaries wasimmoral. The government offered the example of the Kings German Legion during theHundred Days; in response, Parliament made several normative claims against the use ofmercenaries that highlight the shift away from the use of hired soldiers.

First, the hiring of mercenaries was equated with slavery. Adhering to the principlesof the 1815Declaration Relative to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Britain would be goingback on its principles if it were to hire mercenaries. Secondly, it was felt that mercenaries, because of their lack of cause in fighting a war, would be immorally participating in thefighting, and Britain would be committing crimes tantamount to assassination if itemployed them. As Percy suggests in her book, hiring mercenaries would be a signal to theEuropean community that the British cause was unjust. IfEngland did not manage to persuade its own people to fight fortheir country, then they did not deserve to fight a war.

These reasons dovetail precisely with the works of two

great thinkers of the era: Niccolo Machiavelli and Jean-JacquesRousseau. Machiavelli dealt explicitly with the practical


17/32


application of mercenary troops. He stated that he who holds the state by means ofmercenary troops can be never solidly or securely seated.5 He explained that mercenarytroops, due to their lack of loyalty and motivation, would never be a useful substitute for atrue national army. While one can doubt the empirical nature of his 16th century observations,his general reasoning was starting to become accepted by the late 1800s.6 Rousseau never

specifically dealt with the issue of hired troops, but his exhortations on the nature ofnationalism and democracy convinced even autocratic regimes like Prussia that citizen

participation in the armed forces was necessary to guarantee the preservation of the nationalinterest.

Heading into the early 1900s, it was clear to much of Europe and North America thatthe mercenary was no longer a tool of the trade in international relations. Internationallegislation passed after the Second World War solidified this stance, and while mercenarieswould slowly creep back into use by western nations, they would never again be used in thenumbers they once had.

Modern Mercenaries and Their Evolution into Private Military Corporations

As the Second World War made the transition into the Cold War, and technicallycomplex weapons systems became the norm in militaries of the developed countries,technical companies began to play an increasing role in the execution of national securityoperations, particularly in the United States and in the United Kingdom. These companies,including DynCorp and Titan Corporation, continue to leverage their vast corporate structures(sometimes including thousands of employees in as many as 150 different cities worldwide)to provide various security services for security establishments of Western countries.7Products of the Cold War, PMCs are usually tasked with providing security, intelligence,technical assistance and even routine maintenance to various groups around the world,whether they are corporate or governmental.

A particular example is the US State Departments Plan Columbia, an USA initiativewithin the broader War on Drugs. Hiring more than 100 pilots and support personnel fromDynCorp, California Microwave Systems and other smaller firms, the American andColumbian governments intended on spraying herbicide on illicit crops while havinggunships escort these herbicidal craft into potentially dangerous environments.8 This use ofcivilians on military aircraft could potentially extend to having them pilot Unmanned AerialVehicles (UAVs) in order to counter interests in the United States Air Force who prefer theuse of traditional fighter aircraft.9

In the United Kingdom, Private Military Corporations have traditionally acceptedmore private contracts than government ones, a practice that isfraught with complications. Further, they tend to have a morespecific hiring process; maintaining contacts with many formersoldiers, they usually track down individuals with particular skillssets.10 PMCs in the U.K., such as Aegis Defence Services whichwas contracted to work by the United States government in Iraq,tend to provide less technical assistance and greater militarymuscle. The government, suspicious of their mercenary roots andintentions, has had a far smaller role in fostering their economic

and corporate growth than in the United States.11


18/32


Fundamentally, the modern PMC is a many-legged beast. They are no longer the primitive sell-swords their predecessors were. They are now multi-faceted companies withglobal reach, and their involvement in military operations has granted them a legitimacy thatthey once lacked. Indeed, they now are a key component of the worlds most powerful

militaries.

Legal Status of Private Military Corporations

It is important to note the modern distinction between a Private Military Company(PMC) and a mercenary. Article 47 of theProtocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of12 August 1949 (hereafter the GC 1949) defines a mercenary according to several specificcriteria. Among them is the definition that a mercenary is someone who is not a part of thearmed forces of a nation party to the conflict, and is also not sent by the official military of acountry not party to the conflict (say, on peacekeeping duties).12 This has allowed groupssuch as the foreign-staffed French Foreign Legion, the Gurkhas, and the multitude of United

States PMCs to continue to exist, provided they act as auxiliaries to official forces.

An update to these laws, the UN 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (A/RES/44/34) further specifiedthat a mercenary is someone who works for significant private gain, and is a direct or indirect

participant designed to overthrow a regime in a coup dtat.13 This prohibits Private MilitaryCompanies from taking a direct role in a political conflict, and relegates them to a supportingrole.

Unfortunately, there is little to no legislation specifying who is responsible for themen of a PMC. The 1949 Geneva Convention defines them as unlawful combatants (thusremoving them from being officially declared Prisoners of War) but encourages a free andfair trial for mercenaries who are accused of war crimes all the same.14 While there is somelegislation relating to the capture and trial of true mercenaries, there are no real laws in placeto hold a PMC responsible for their actions in a war zone.

More specifically, various legal experts have criticized the existing international lawon PMCs for being full of loopholes. Article 47s first clause states that mercenaries must bespecifically recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict.15 Arguably,

being employed in a long-term contract with a security company does not automatically meanthat one is specifically recruited for such a conflict, and could thus escape being

designated a mercenary.

16

Its second clause indicates that a mercenary must also take directpart in the hostilities thus allowing the ubiquitous advisor to escape being designated amercenary.17 Finally, existing law fails to actively condemn the hiring of mercenaries,

placing no moral onus on any society to disband or remove mercenary troops from withintheir borders.

The legal dimension of the PMC is further complicated by their potential effect onhuman rights and international security. There is currently a massive lack of regulation on theoperations and procedures of PMCs. Regional codes lack a sufficiently strong legal basisunder criminal law.3 Furthermore, the need for military secrecy has prevented thegovernments of various states from looking closely at the affairs of PMCs. Finally, there is no


19/32


real way to enforce such regulations on PMCs with any degree of effectiveness.4 While mostPMCs are subject to traditional corporate law, most traditional corporations do not possesslarge stocks of firearms.

The need to prosecute the guilty for war crimes is also a problem that has yet to beconfronted. The Abu Gharib prison was staffed by members of both Titan Corporation and

CACI, and members of the Blackwater Worldwide (Xe Services LLC) performed actions ofhighly dubious morality during their garrison work in the 2003 Iraq War.5 Readings of theInternational Criminal Court imply that such individuals could, in fact, be prosecuted as warcriminals for their unlawful conduct in these combat zones.6 The fact that many have notsuggests there needs to be new agreements regarding the commission of war crimes incombat zones with PMC involvement, with or without the explicit knowledge of thegovernment that hired these PMCs.

Case Study: Private Military Corporations in Operation Iraqi Freedom

Planning for Operation Iraqi Freedom had begun in November 2001.7 In the interim

period between the September 11th terrorist attacks, the United States had taken steps againstthe Taliban in Afghanistan. Unsatisfied with these operations, the United States militarydetermined that further steps were needed to continue the war on terror.

The original plan for the US invasion of Iraq called for the deployment of 500,000troops and their associated supplies and infrastructure. Rumsfeld was unimpressed andcounter-suggested a plan calling for no more than 125,000 troops.8 There was a belief that anoverwhelming victory over the forces of Saddam Hussein would allow the US to have aclean victory without the need to deal with insurgents and other problems. Thus, when thisexpected support from the populace of Iraq did not arise, the United States was forced todeploy large numbers of security contractors in order to make up for the shortfall. By 2005,this number of contractors had reached 25,000.9

In the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Husseins government, the functions oflaw and order usually fulfilled by civilian organs of government could not besatisfactorily completed. The only acceptable US response was to deploy groups to assist theIraqi government that were distinctly non-military, and private contractors were thus hired tofill the gap. There was little to no overarching process used to standardise the contracting

process many PMCs were hired on an ad hoc basis.10 These groups were hired to providelogistics, security and intelligence support for US military forces, as well as security guardsfor officials from the Department of State.11 However, there remained little to no oversight

over PMC personnel: there were two chains of command responsible for managing thedeployment of contractors, and some badly trained personnel committed reckless acts thatendangered those around them, such as four Blackwater Security personnel who in March2004, lost their way in Falluja and were ambushed and killed.12


20/32


Another case that illustrates the lack of oversight over PMCs is the Nisour Squareincident. In September 2007, Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilianswhile attempting to protect a United StatesDepartment of State convoy. Statements by

Blackwater guards that they were responding toarmed insurgence are highly doubtful due to thereports of multiple eyewitnesses on scene.13 Inthe aftermath, the US government attempted torapidly draft legislation to improve congressionaloversight and enhance the mechanism of criminal

process. However, this failed to producesignificant effects on the deployment ofcontractors to this theatre.

During this period, where intense scrutiny has been levelled at the processes of these

PMCs, the effects of their presence on the effectiveness of regular army personnel have beenexamined closely. Veterans of the Iraq war have pointed out that the difference in training thetwo groups receive is potentially quite large, and their ability to work with each other issometimes debatable.14 There are also questions of identity that threaten to disrupt the group

psyche of the military, seeing that they are quite clearly not the only purveyors of violence onan international level.15

Conclusion

The issue of Private Military Corporations, from the ancient days of Hessianmercenaries to their modern incarnation as proficient and well-armed support troops, is

certainly one that will continue to be important in the foreseeable future. It will be up to thedelegates invited to attend the Munich Security Conference at McMUN 2012 to decide thefuture of PMC use and deployment.

Questions to Consider

Regarding the recent deployment of PMCs in Iraq, many questions about theiroperations, dealings and security value have been raised. Firstly, there are some who claimthat PMCs are mercenaries by another name, and desire an update to UN laws to forbid theuse of hired soldiers altogether. Along this same line of thought lies an inquiry into the natureof a countrys defence: should security be trusted to professionals who work for money, or

should the responsibility for a nations military power lie solely in the hands of agovernment?

Even if PMCs are to be maintained in their current role as auxiliaries and securitydetachments, there needs to be further exploration of the question regarding their work: canthey only be hired by their home nations government? How should they be treated whencaptured in armed conflict? Who should be held responsible if they commit atrocities in thename of their employer? Are state governments equally responsible for safety of thecontractors? Are there limits to whom or what can hire a PMC?


21/32


Lastly, there is a need to consider whether PMCs provide a necessary service orwhether they are more trouble than they are worth. Certainly, one of the selling points of thePMCs is that they can provide high-level security to non-governmental entities such ascorporations. Should governments issue PMC-specific rules of engagement? How can the

international community and the specific states have transparent oversight of PMCs whichare essentially private corporations? How can the PMC be held responsible for atrocities thatthey commit? Should they be tried in the courts of the same jurisdiction where they aresuspected of committing a crime, of the jurisdiction of their nationality, or by someinternational or UN tribunal set up for specific cases?

_____________________________________________________________________

1Percy, Sarah. Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations (Oxford, United Kingdom:

Oxford University Press, 2007), 70.

2

Percy, 70.

3Percy, 124.

4Percy, 157.

5Machiavelli, Niccolo.Prince, The. Oxford World's Classics. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University

Press, 2005), 24 November 2011 , 43.

6Percy, Sarah. Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations (Oxford, United Kingdom:

Oxford University Press, 2007), 162.

7Kinsey, Christopher. Corporate Soldiers and International Security: The Rise of Private Military

Companies (Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2006), 100.

8Kinsey, 100.

9Kinsey, 100.

11Kinsey, 103.

12Kinsey, 105.

13Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of

Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). 8 June 1977. Retrieved from

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument .

14Resolution 43/44: International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of

Mercenaries. 4 December 1989. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm.15

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of

Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). 8 June 1977. Retrieved from

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument .


22/32


16 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the

Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).

17

Shearer, David. Private Armies and Military Interventions International Institute for Strategic Studies,

Adelphi Paper 316 (New York, United States: Oxford University Press, 1998), 17.

18Chesterman, Simon and Lehnardt, Chia.From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of

Private Military Companies (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2007), 244

19Chesterman and Chia, 245.

20Francioni, Francesco and Ronzitti, Natalino. War by Contract: Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and

Private Contractors (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2011), 430.

21Francioni and Ronzitti, 431.

22Kinsey, Christopher. Private Contractors and the Reconstruction of Iraq: Tansforming Military

Logistics (Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2009), 34.

23Kinsey, Christopher. Private Contractors and the Reconstruction of Iraq: Tansforming Military

Logistics (Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2009), 35.

24Kinsey, 35.

25 Kinsey, 55.

26Kinsey, 55.

27Kinsey, 63.

28Kinsey, 123.

29Dunigan, Molly. Victory for Hire: Private Security Companies Impact on Military Effectiveness

(California, United States: Stanford University Press, 2011), 78.

30Dunigan, 83.

Works Cited

Chesterman, Simon and Lehnardt, Chia. From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of Private Military Companies (Oxford, United Kingdom: OxfordUniversity Press, 2007).

Dunigan, Molly. Victory for Hire: Private Security Companies Impact on MilitaryEffectiveness (California, United States: Stanford University Press, 2011).

Francioni, Francesco and Ronzitti, Natalino. War by Contract: Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and Private Contractors (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press,


23/32


2011).

Kinsey, Christopher. Corporate Soldiers and International Security: The Rise of PrivateMilitary Companies (Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2006).

Kinsey, Christopher. Private Contractors and the Reconstruction of Iraq: TansformingMilitary Logistics (Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2009).

Machiavelli, Niccolo. Prince, The. Oxford World's Classics. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University

Press, 2005), 24 November 2011

Percy, Sarah. Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations (Oxford,United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to theProtection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). 8 June 1977.

Retrieved from

Resolution 43/44: International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing andTraining of Mercenaries. 4 December 1989. Retrieved from

Shearer, David. Private Armies and Military Interventions International Institute forStrategic Studies, Adelphi Paper 316 (New York, United States: Oxford UniversityPress, 1998).


24/32


Topic 3: Cyber Security

Introduction

The meteoric rise of the Internet has created a new type of security concerns. TheInternets ability to transmit information and connect the world through computers has madestates vulenerable to a new type of threat. While current concerns focus on the ability ofterrorists to gain access to governments intelligence information, cyber security represents athreat to all states, their citizens, and their domestic corporations. With the growing relianceof governments and corporations on the Internet, any disruptions to the flow of informationdo not threaten with temporary nuisances, but suggest the potential for vulnerability to a morecrippling attack. Cyber security does not hold the mere promise of protecting valuableinformation, but carries the potential to protect from devastating attacks that could crippleentire economies, grill energy grids, and exploit access to military information. In an everinterconnected and an integrated world via the Internet, the possibilities of cyber attacks are

endless.

Realizing the threat, the global community has yet to define cyberwar. This lack ofa definition is primarily due to the unprecedented complexity of the issue of cyber security.Given the depth and scope of internets international reach, cyber security cannot beconstrained or limited to one country or region; followoing this logic, this is a securityconcern that demands a multilaterally coordinated effort. No such treaty or internationalconsensus exists, not least because this security concern blurs the traditional conceptions ofsovereignty. Many countries could claim jurisdiction over a crime carried out by a hacker, yetthe international community has no agreed upon rules to determine even the jurisdiction inwhich a trial would take place.

Moreover, the history of cyber attacks has repeatedly shown that it is increasinlgydifficult to pinpoint the origins of an attacks or outsmart the perpetrators of cyber attacks inthe long run. The attacks could originate from virtually anywhere. Similarly, as states blostertheir national cyber security and come up new defensive software, the perpatrators arefollowing suit with ever more innovative methods of attack and cover up. It is a cyber-armsrace in which the parties are not clearly identified and the security dilemma risks spiraling outof control.

The internet leaves states vulnerable on all fronts. With this in mind, delegates are

invited to share their expertise and experience as they congragate at McMUN 2012 to findinnovative ways of protecting sovereign assets, economic prosperity, and international peaceand security against unidentifiable cyber attacks.

History and Current State of the Topic

Cyber security is all the more salient in a world that spends a significant amount of itslife online. Although perpatrators of cyber attacks have bothered governments in the past, therecent increase in the utility of and the accessibility to the Internet has made somegovernments rely almost exclusively on it This growing dependence, however, is not limitedto governments. Over the past few decades, the number of worldwide Internet users has

drastically increased at all levels of society. According to the Internet World Statistic Group,the number of Internet uses has augmented by 1.1 Billion people i one-sixth of the


25/32


population between 1995 and 2008.Expanding internationally at exponentialrates, the Internet has also becomeincreasingly vulnerable

The predecessor todays Internet

was ARPANET. Beginning in 1969, theUS Department of Defense created aresearch network between fouruniversities, the University of SouthernCalifornia, Stanford University, theUniversity of California at Santa Barbara,and the University of Utah.ii Over time,this network transformed into theInternet. Using interconnected networksof networks,iii users from variousnetworks became connected using the

newly established protocol suite,comprised of an Internet Protocol (IP)and a Transmission Control Protocol(TCP), to use as the foundation of themodern day Internet (IP/TCP)iv. This

basic framework, coupled with theexponential increase in users, has resulted

in a web of networks comprised of approximately 150 million hosts world widev as of2002. Following the explosion in both hosts and users, cyber attacks have become morecommon. By the end of 2002, the CERT Coordination Centre had documented 73,000incidents of cyber attacks since the Internets creation in 1988vi.

The first ever recorded cyber attack was the Morris worm in November 1988. Aworm is a malware (malicious software) program, which, upon penetration of a computer,duplicates its information, sends copies of itself to other computers on the network, where the

program then duplicates itself, and again sends itself to othercomputers. This pattern of self-replication eventually floodsthe network and computers slow down until becomingunusable. In 1988, Robert Morris, a twenty-three-year-oldcomputer programmer studying and Cornell University,created a worm targeted at ARPANET computers; network

security experts relied on these computers forcommunication amongst themselves.vii The end result of theworms infinite loop of replications was that 10% of theU.S. computers connected to the ARPANET effectivelystopped at about the same time.viii

Learning from this first incident, security experts determined that a team needed to becreated to respond to these types of attacks. Soon enough, the Carnegie Mellon University

A Copy of the 1988 Worm


26/32


created the Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) whose responsibilities includedcoordinating responses to network emergencies.ix More importantly, however, was thecreation of the first anti-virus software. In 1991, Symantec released their first edition of

Norton Anti-Virus software. As early as the creation of the Internet, connected users werealready concerned about the security of their personal computers.x

Beginning in 1994, email viruses became a popular cyber attack. Embedding viruseswithin attachments to emails, hackers had to wait for users to open these attachments for thevirus to initaite its program and erase the users hard drive. Not only did many inexperiencedemail users open the files, they also forwarded the emails to their friends and family.Subsequently, users realized that an email with the subject line of Good Times containedthe infected filexi. Using the same technology that had just eliminated all of the informationon their hard drives, email users began forwarding emails alerting people of the dangers ofopening the Good Times emailxii.

In 1998, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) was hacked throughout the

month of February in an attacked called Solar Sunrise. The DoD believed the attackerswere from the United Arab Emirates, since the majority of the Internet sites were being traced

back to UAE locations (other locations included France, Israel, Taiwan, and Germany)xiii;further investigation, however, indicated that two teenagers from Cloverdale, California andan Israeli teenager utilized the global integration of the Internet to hide their origins.xivAlthough this was not the first time the U.S. government had been attacked, nor was theinformation the teenagers hacked classified, it displayed the vulnerability of governmentdepartments to cyber attacks and the precarious nature of the existing cyber defenses.

Between 1998 and 2007, numerous viruses and worms attacked Internet userscomputers in similar fashion to their predecessors. While these viruses erased thousands ofhard drives and frustrated Internet users throughout the world, the overall disturbance toinformation distribution and communication was minimal.

A major turning point in thehistory of cyber attacks occurred inEstonia in 2007. No cyber attack has

been as coordinated or as detrimentalas the assault against Estonia in 2007.At the time, ethnically RussianEstonians were protesting the removal

of a statue erected during the Sovietoccupation of the country. Nashi Su, a pro-Kremlin youth movementsuspected to be funded by the Russiangovernment, surrounded and attackedthe Estonian embassy following theremoval of the statue from the heart ofTallinn, Estonias capital.xv Soon after, Estonian websites were attacked in a multi-facetedway; the attack defaced Estonian websites, replaced some with Russian propaganda, shutdown private and governmental websites, and disrupted mission-critical computersrequired for telephone communication across the country.xvi While the exact perpetrators

remain unknown, the damage inflicted on Estonia was unimaginable for other countriesthroughout the world. Estonia was effectively unable to communicate with the outside world


27/32


until Estonias Cyber Emergency Response Team (ECERT) was able to prevent thedisruptions from escalating.xvii With the international community even more reliant on theInternet for communication, a cyber attack like the one Estonia faced in 2007 is all the moredangerous for individuals and governments alike.

Since 2007, governments around the world have witnessed a greater number of

successful attacks on their computer networks. Americanxviii

, Canadianxix

, Chinesexx

,Salvadorianxxi, Iranianxxii, Indianxxiii, Mexicanxxiv, Norwegianxxv, and Pakistanixxvigovernments and corporations have all fallen victims to cyber attacks in recent years. Whilethe number of cyber attacks has increased, governments and corporations alike continue to

build up cyber defenses.

Lipson, Howard F. Tracking andTraining Cyber-Attacks:Technical Challenges andGlobal Policy IssuesCarnegie MellonUniversitys CERTCoordination Center.2002. 1 7.

The current focus of cyber defense initiatives is focused around the problem offinding ways of addressing the increasinlgy sophisticated cyber attacks. As demonstrated byDr Lipsons graph, while the perpetrators level of knowledge has decreased. This is not tosuggest that the attackers are becoming any less clever, but rather that the technology andknowledge required to carry out the attacks has become more readily accessible to the

broader public. Also, the hacker no longer needs to be familiar with the corporation or theagency which he or she decides to attack.

Case Study: WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks exposes the ease with which hackers can easily access and disseminategovernment information. Stationed in Iraq, Private Bradley Manning had access to twoclassified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level networkused by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint WorldwideIntelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCIlevel.xxvii Not only had the U.S. Army failed to utilize NetTop 2, a security program, onworkstations Manning accessed, but the workstations permitted remote files to be accessedand downloaded onto civilian CDs.xxviii This lax security allowed low-level military personnelto access classified and top-secret information without warning. In an interview following hisimprisonment, Manning told reporters that he listened and lip-syned to Lady Gags

Telephone while exfiltrating [sic] possibly the largest data spillage in American history. . .Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive


28/32


signal analysis. . . a perfect storm.xxix

Inconsistencies in cyber security practices within the U.S. Army and by the U.S.government provided Private Manning with free access to information that should have been

properly secured. More important, however, is that throughout this entire process of findingand downloading of information from the State Departments email and intelligence intranets,Private Manning never triggered any security warnings.xxx Private Mannings actionsdisplayed one of the leading military powers vulnerability to internal cyber security threats.While previous focus has been on external hacking and threats, the large volume ofinformation that WikiLeaks received from Private Manning shed light or domestic securitythreats that exist within organizations, corporations, and governments.

On February 18th, 2010, WikiLeaks began disseminating classified cables from theU.S. State Department and its various international agencies, utilizing most of theinformation retrieved by Private Manning. At that time, WikiLeaks possessed hundreds of

thousands of these cables, and planned to release them in stages over a period of severalmonths. WikiLeaks cables were the worlds largest publication of classified materials. Thecollection and subsequent publication of information from Iraq War logs, to profiles onGuantnamo Bay prisoners, to the infamous cables sent from the American Embassy inTunisia confirming widespread government corruptionxxxi had implications on the globalcommunity. First, the previously secret missives contributed to sparkin a revolution inTunisia, which then spread from Tunis across the Middle East.xxxii Secondly, the ease withwhich Private Manning accessed and downloaded State Department emails and informationreinforcd the reality of the ever-present threat of cyber attacks, from the inside and theoutside.

Possible Solutions

There will never be a policy capable of completely securing the Internet from cyberattacks.xxxiii The increasingly complex nature of the Internet coupled with the increasingmarginal sophistication of hackers suggests that any actions taken by a single governmentwill be counteracted by new hacking techniques. Nonetheless, the international Internetsecurity experts agree that the potential backlash from cyber attackers should not dissuade theglobal community from taking action to secure the Internet and appropriate networks against

potential assaults from hackers. Rather, Dave Clemente from the Chatham House suggeststhat cyber security is a wicked problem which can only be solved with incremental and

thoughtful progress.

xxxiv

Contending that due to the complexity of the Internet, every proposed solution for cyber security problems (e.g. cyber crime or espionage) revealsadditional layers of the problem that add complexity. . . The problem of cyber security cannever be solved (i.e. total security of any network is a myth).xxxv He suggests that theinability to completely secure the Internet will require incremental actions to avoid backlashfrom the public, which still prefers preserves an unregulated web, and negative side effectssuch slowin down or restricting Internet access.

Any solution aimed at improving cyber security will have to include all members ofthe global community. Given that websites can be accessed throughout the world, regardlessof the geographic address of their creator, hackers can carry out attacks against foreign

governments and corporations without leaving their bed. Online activity easily transcendsinternational borders, providing hackers with the ability to attack from anywhere in the


29/32


world. Jurisdictional issue of investigating and prosecuting cyber attacks forces the globalcommunity to work together to formulate concrete strategies for securing national andcorporate information.

Countries should also consider instituting uniform IT practices and sharing knowhow

with others for an improved protection and enforcement of security on the Internet. As thecase of Private Manning illustrated, not all cyber attacks are from external sources. Theability for internal sources to gather private and secretive information indicates that cybersecurity has two fronts to attend to. Establishing specific guidelines for network access andfurther protecting top-secret information will help all Internet users from falling victim tointernal cyber attacks.

In essence, cyber security necessitates a transnational solution. Ones failure toimplement security measures provides hackers with enough room to continue exploitingweaknesses in all governmental, corporate, civil, or other private networks worldwide.

Conclusion

There is no central administrative control of the Internet and no globalvisibilityno single organization or entity has a complete picture of anyactivity that crosses its administrative boundaries and, in the absence ofcooperation, no single organization or entity can monitor, track, or trace

packets outside of its administrative domain Dr. Lipson, CERTCoordination Center.

The Internets lack of hierarchy and central authority makes up its strengths andweaknesses. This lack provides every Internet user with the ability to communicate andtransmit information to every other Internet user. Meanwhile, these characteristics equally

provide malicious users with the ability to infiltrate governments, corporations,organizations, and individuals networks for the sake of disrupting Internet access, accessingsensitive information, or any number of other reasons. No matter the actions taken, theremust be international consensus on any decisions related to cyber security. Given that theInternet transcends state borders, issues of sovereignty and feasibility arise when states fail tocollaborate on Internet security reforms and cyber defence measures.

Multilateral efforts must weigh the risks posed by the uncertainty regarding the possible self-interested exploitation of any cooperative efforts pertaining to cyber security.

Recognizing that some states have been accused of infiltrating other governmentsinformation databases and websites, any agreement reached by this body must come up witha way of balancing the necessity of include as many members of the international communitywith the risk of inadvertently allowing hostile actors to take advantage of collaboration oncyber security matters.

Questions to Consider

1. What is your characters primary concern in matters of cyber security?2. Are some characters present at the conference more vulnerable to cyber attacks than

others?

3. To what extent are the delegates present willing to compromise on a free and aminimally regulated internet in favor of instituting defenses against cyber attacks?


30/32


4. Is it worth it designing an international institution, be it normative or organizational,to facilitate the cooperation of members of the international community on matters ofcyber security? If yes, what form should it take? What should the nature, scope, size,and strength of this regime be?

5. How can the international community facilitate the persecution of cyber securtiy

violators?6. What IT practices that have been neglected allowed for cyber attacks in the past? Can

these errors be fixed?7. How can states install security measures and guard themselves against cyber security

breaches, such as the recent WikiLeaks releases?8. Are WikiLeaks a security concern worth addressing multilaterally or best done on a

case by case basis?

i Internet Growth Statistics. World Statistics Group.ii Lipson, Howard F. Tracking and Training Cyber-Attacks: Technical Challenges andGlobal Policy Issues Carnegie Mellon Universitys CERT Coordination Center. 2002. 5.iii Lipson 5.iv Lipson 5.v Lipson 5.vi Lipson 5.vii Security of the Internet. The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications, vol.15. Ed. Marcel Dekker. New York: CRC Press, 1997. 237.viii Security of the Internet 237.ix Security of the Internet 237.x Krebs, Brian. A Short History of Computer Viruses and Attacks. Washington Post. 14February 2003. 2.xi Krebs 2.xii Krebs 2.xiiiShackelford, Scott J. From Nuclear War to Net War: Anologizing Cyber Attacks inInternational Law.Berkeley Journal of International Law 27:1. 2009. 204.xiv Shackelford 203.xv Shackelford 205.xvi Shackelford 205.xvii Shackelford 205.xviii Knapp, Alex. Hackers Targeted U.S. Government Satellites.Forbes. 27 October 2011.xix

OToole, Megan and Natalie Alcoba. Toronto Taking Anonymous Hacking ThreatsSeriously. The Gazette. 15 November 2011.xx

Liebowitz, Matt. China Hit by Nearly 500,000 Trojans Horse Attacks in 2010.MSNBC

News. 10 August 2011.xxi Liebowitz, Matt. Hackers Hit El Salvador Government Sites. MSNBC News. 8

November 2011.xxii Ryall, Julian. A History of Major Cyber Attacks. The Telegraph. 20 September 2011.xxiii Ryall, A History of Major Cyber Attacks.xxiv Comlay, Elinor. Hackers Target Mexico Government Websites.Reuters. 15 September2011.xxv Albanesius, Chloe. Norway Cyber Attack Targets Countrys Oil, Gas Systems.PC

Magazine. 18 November 2011.xxvi Ryall, A History of Major Cyber Attacks.


31/32


xxvii Perlow, Jason. Wikileaks: How Our Government IT Failed Us. University of

Wisconsin-Whitewater. 1 December 2010. 6.xxviii Perlow 6.xxix Poulsen, Kevin and Kim Zetter. U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video

Probe. Wired. 6 June 2010.xxx Perlow 6.xxxi

Priest, Dana. Nothing Stays Secret. The Atlantic. July/August 2011. 62.xxxii Priest 62.xxxiii

Clemente, Dave. Cyber Security as a Wicked Problem. TheWorldToday.org. October2011. 15.xxxiv Clemente 16.xxxv Clemente 16.

Works Cited

Albanesius, Chloe. Norway Cyber Attack Targets Countrys Oil, Gas Systems.PCMagazine. 18 November 2011. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396611,00.asp.

Clemente, Dave. Cyber Security as a Wicked Problem. TheWorldToday.org. October 2011.15 17.

Comlay, Elinor. Hackers Target Mexico Government Websites.Reuters. 15 September2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-mexico-hackers-idUSTRE78E7AC20110915.

Dunn Cavelty, Myriam and Oliver Rolofs. MSC Booklet Paper: From Cyberwar toCybersecurity: Proportionality of Fear and Countermeasures. Munich SecurityConference. 5 February 2011. http://www.securityconference.de/Program.425+M5095c6c4b2a.0.html

Internet Growth Statistics. World Statistics Group. http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm.

Knapp, Alex. Hackers Targeted U.S. Government Satellites.Forbes. 27 October 2011.http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/27/hackers-targeted-u-s-government-

satellites.

Krebs, Brian. A Short History of Computer Viruses and Attacks. Washington Post. 14February 2003. 1 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50636-2002Jun26.html.

Liebowitz, Matt. China Hit by Nearly 500,000 Trojans Horse Attacks in 2010. MSNBCNews. 10 August 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44093850/ns/technology._and_science-security/t/china-hit-nearly-trojan-horse-attacks/#.TsspGnMeCYM

Liebowitz, Matt. Hackers Hit El Salvador Government Sites. MSNBC News. 8 November

2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45214010/ns/technology_and_ science-security/t/hackers-hit-el-salvador-government-sites/#.Tsn0M3MeC YM.


32/32

Munich Security Conference

Documents

Transcript of Munich Security Conference