US to Export Cyber Arms to China?
This is otherwise unsubstantiated, but worth bringing to people’s attention anyway.
Giving China help with cyber warfare
Plan may make it easier to hand over militarily critical exports
The Obama administration is considering easing US export controls to China even though the director for national intelligence is warning about Chinese cyber warfare threats to US military information systems. In addition, there are increasing reports of Chinese military buildup to match US capabilities, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin [subscription only].
The one group jubilant over the White House decision to undertake yet another comprehensive review of US export control laws toward China is the US business community.
‘The US has one of the most robust export control systems in the world,’ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said last week. ‘But it is rooted in the Cold War era of over 50 years ago and must be updated to address the threats we face today and the changing economic and technological landscape.’
Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and a former US Commerce under secretary who was in charge of export controls, applauded the White House initiative. Through the NFTC, the Coalition for Security and Competitiveness, or CSC, similarly supported the initiative.
‘The coalition strongly supports practical measures aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the export control regime. The need for new policies and processes to advance our national security, foreign policy and economic interests has never been more compelling than it is right now.’
CSC members include the Aerospace Industries Association, the Association of American Exporters and Importers, the AMT – Association for Manufacturing Technology, Business Roundtable, the Coalition for Employment Through Exports, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Industrial Fastener Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Defense Industrial Association, the National Foreign Trade Council, the Satellite Industry Association, The Space Foundation, TechAmerica and the US Chamber of Commerce.
The question of loosening controls, however, centers on whether rewarding Chinese behavior is appropriate or whether it is oriented more toward aiding business at a time of global economic recession.
Contrary to Gibbs’ comments that export controls are ‘rooted in the Cold War era of over 50 years ago,’ they have undergone continuous review and liberalization despite increasing targeting of US technology by such countries as China, Russia, Iran and even some western nations for their military.
Throughout the 1990s during President Bill Clinton’s two administrations and President George Bush’s two terms, export controls especially toward China have been loosened considerably.
The views of those concerned about protecting the militarily critical technology belonging to the US through this period have taken a back seat to economic interests, especially in the face of mounting trade deficits toward China.
Indeed, Beijing in recent months has been pressing Washington to lift some export controls, suggesting that they would help ease the US trade deficit with China, which reached $268 billion last year.
While China plays the economic card, the national security risk to certain technology exports is going virtually unmentioned.
And now, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said China also is aggressively waging information warfare and computer attacks on US military information systems, and that action represents a ‘growing threat.’
Low on details, but not entirely surprising. Contrary to the correspondent’s assertion, controls on technology transfer are ‘rooted in the Cold War era’, and what this potentially shows is that, at the end of the day, industrial concerns often win out over security. This is exactly the sort of thing beloved of the defence industry. Despite controls on chemical and biological weapons, dating back to the 1925 Geneva Protocols, relevant technologies continue to be maintained and developed by signatories to that protocol, even if their offensive use is prohibited.
The problem with cyber capabilities is that they are largely unregulated by international law and conventions. It is also likely that any multilateral attempts to control their proliferation are doomed to fail. Not because states won’t sign up to such agreements, but because,
1. it is very difficult to monitor the transfer of code
2. most hardware could be considered ‘dual-use’
3. ‘plausible deniability’ as a factor
4. potential of states to outsource cyber capabilities to non-state actors
5. the role of non-state actors as sources of cyber threats
But, there is also a role for what we might call economic diplomacy. Closer trade agreements on cyber may serve national interests if well-managed. A long shot, but who knows? What this story – if verified – does show is that there is a dearth of strategic oversight in the US administration. They’re not alone, of course, and here in the UK agencies are working hard to assess their strategic options in the light of both June’s Cyber Security Strategy and the National Security Strategy. Trade and technology transfer are part of these calculations.
