國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.2 How is Globalization Impacting Security?
Of core concern to this thesis is analysing what the security implications of globalization are on the cross-Strait relationship. In this context it is important to note that globalization has fundamentally changed the international environment so much that domestic and foreign policy are no longer entirely exclusive of one another.
Therefore, domestic policy of a state such as the PRC is bound to have an impact on its approach to its foreign policy. As already stated, globalization has seen national governments competing with a more open flow of political, economic and social forces which have direct implications for its security. From analysing the relevant literature, the security implications of globalization can thus be summarized as follows.
Domestic and foreign affairs are becoming increasing overlapped, blurring the traditional divisions between internal and external security.
Globalization has resulted in an increase in identity issues which have potential consequences to state security.
Globalization has pathed the way to a diversification of threats, including that from newly created security actors (Kay, 2004; Smith, 2010).
Globalization also radically alters the traditional view of international security affairs across several dimensions. One such dimension is the creation of non-state or private actors, and the potential threat they provide to the external or internal security of a nation state. Globalization has made it increasingly difficult to police non state actors, and indeed criminal non state actors provide the most difficult security threat for states to cope with (Smith, 2010: 40). The difficulty states face in policing such groups was
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
demonstrated by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and The Pentagon in the United States on September 11th, 2001. The event and the crisis which followed highlighted the inability of a state even as powerful and technologically advanced as the United States to independently tackle a collective problem such as international terrorism (Wunderlich, 2003). Despite its power however, it is clear that states like the United States, France, Belgium and the United Kingdom (as recent terror attacks have proved) cannot fully protect themselves against acts of terrorism. Thus, terrorism as a global phenomenon brings a number of security implications for states.
Economic globalization also brings with it a number of security consequences. As defined earlier, the basic measures of globalization are defined primarily by way of cross-border economic transactions and financial operations which can ultimately have a destabilizing effect on state security. As the modern international economy is becoming increasingly globalized, there is a shared belief amongst political analysts that a major disruption to the system such as the 2008 Global Financial Crisis can have a catastrophic effect on the well-being of millions of people around the world (Smith, 2010). As social and political unrest is most likely to come from those who suffer the most from such economic crises, this creates another security threat for governments to deal with.
On a national level, the opening up of a country’s economy to the forces of globalization affects the welfare of various groups of people within the state. The gains of economic development are not often spread evenly meaning that whilst a select few prosper, inevitably, others miss out on the gains it brings. Internally this can cause social and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
political unrest if not outright conflict, whilst externally it can shape state's foreign policy behaviour (Smith, 2010: 208). More than ever, people are looking beyond their own country and comparing their situations with others around the globe. As a consequence, the gap between rising expectations and perceived reality is breeding discontent. According to Seaver (2015), "Political leaders of countries with wide income disparities and large lower classes—such as North Korea, Cuba and China—
understand well the political dangers of relative deprivation, which is one reason why they restrict media access".
Another area of national security that is moving away from more standard examples of what classifies as a ‘security threat’ is cyber security. As modern technology has developed at breakneck speed in recent years, so have the attempts by nation states, or other actors to utilise such technology to encroach on the security of other actors. This poses a new and unique risk to state security and has seen sovereign states scrambling to implement new laws and measures to counter such threats. President Trump's recent stance on Huawei's operations in the United States – a Chinese tech firm – is a good example of how cybersecurity concerns are increasingly shaping the behaviour of nation states toward one another. In an increasingly globalized world, where access to the internet has spread exponentially in recent years, the fact that hostile actors can challenge state security from any corner of the globe from behind a computer present a unique and distinctly modern threat to a state’s security.
Whilst the internet has undoubtedly changed the world for the better, the growing popularity and convenience of digital networks comes at a significant cost. As
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
businesses and societies in general increasingly rely more and more computers systems and the internet, cybercrime and digital intrusions have increased around the world.
These attacks classified as any crime that involves the use of a computer network — include financial scamming, computer hacking, and corporate espionage from hackers – sometimes state sanctioned. The first major instance of cybercrime was reported in 2000, when a mass-mailed computer virus affected nearly 45 million computer users worldwide (Katyal, 2001). A wide range of hostile actors engage in cybercrime to target nation states. They include foreign states themselves, ‘cyber-criminals’, ‘hacktivist’
groups, and terrorist organizations. The resources and capabilities of such groups and actors may also vary.
Put simply, cyber security involves protecting the integrity and security of computer systems connected to the Internet. Different entities like Government and organisations depend on these connections to the internet on a daily basis. For example, in 2017, over 2 billion data records were stolen according to CB Insights (2017). As the sophistication and deviousness of hackers continues to grow, individuals and firms have an increasing need to protect themselves. The response to cybersecurity threats however is not down to individuals or companies but rather governments' and nation states themselves. When computer systems are compromised, such impairment could endanger a state's national security in a number of different ways, for example:
• Malicious actors could seize unauthorised access to commercial information by exploiting computer systems, undermining confidence in a country’s economy and digital environment.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
• Technologically advanced computer tools could be used to target a state's national defence systems.
• Cyber-attacks on telecommunications systems that affect lines of communication across international boundaries could inhibit a states' ability to trade internationally.
One of the first scholars to recognise the growing importance of cybersecurity in the context of national security was Neal Kumar Katyal (2001). He suggested that “...the new millennium [would] brings new crimes”, and that “a new breed of crime has emerged over the last decade”. He described cybercrime as an “...umbrella term [that]
covers all sorts of crimes committed with computers from viruses to Trojan horses;
from hacking into private e-mail to undermining defence and intelligence systems; from electronic thefts of bank accounts to disrupting web sites." Despite publishing his piece nearly 20 years ago, the kinds of cybercrime he described still exist today. The only difference now being the skill and complexity in which cybercrime has developed alongside technological advancement. As the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure of the British Government points out, “...E-crime, or cybercrime, whether relating to theft, hacking or denial of service to vital systems, has become a fact of life.
The risk of industrial cyber espionage, in which one company makes active attacks on another, through cyberspace, to acquire high value information is also very real” (CPNI, 2019).
‧
individuals, cybercrime also poses a threat to other areas of the nation state, including to its form of governance. In 2017, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologize to the United States Congress for making behavioural data for 87 million Facebook users accessible to a British consultancy company called Cambridge Analytica, which then used this sensitive information to manipulate United States voters into supporting Donald Trump’s election campaign on his path to becoming president. Western democracies have also continued to claim that cybercrime and the theft of behavioural data of online users is being used by nations like Russia to destabilize western countries and meddle in elections as well as other democratic exercises like referendums. Some scholars have even gone so far to accuse Russia of trying to “destroy democracy”(Weisburd, Watts, Berger, 2016) Thus, we can see that the security implications of cybercrime present a number of challenges to nation states far beyond the tradition concept of 'security'.
Now that the literature on the links between globalization and the security of states has been reviewed, this thesis will go on to analyse the implications of the globalization process on the two sides across the Taiwan Straits: China (People’s Republic of China) and Taiwan (Republic of China). From the 1950s through to the 1980s the situation across the Taiwan Strait was very much a relic of the Cold War, a conflict constrained by actors Beijing and Washington. However, during the 1980s the conflict again flared up to a level not seen since the offshore islands crisis of the 1950s. It is also from around the same time that the forces of globalization had become more significant in the international arena, suggesting a direct link between the two.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3. The U.S. vs China: The U.S.’s Case Against Huawei
As stated on the official government website for the Department of Homeland Security
“...our daily life, economic vitality, and national security depend on a stable, safe, and resilient cyberspace.” It goes to add further that; “...cyberspace and its underlying infrastructure are vulnerable to a wide range of risk stemming from both physical and cyber threats and hazards. Sophisticated cyber actors and nation-states exploit vulnerabilities to steal information and money and are developing capabilities to disrupt, destroy, or threaten the delivery of essential services.” (Department of Homeland Security, 2019). Successive United States presidents have presided over new laws to protect national cyber security interests. In 2014, the Obama administration implemented the Cybersecurity Framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It proved to be the go-to guide for companies to review their cybersecurity risks. In November 2018, President Trump also signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act. This landmark legislation elevated the mission of the former National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) within DHS and established the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
At the front of the United States government’s concerns over cybersecurity is the Chinese tech company Huawei. In 2018 Huawei was prohibited from purchasing key telecommunications contracts in a range of western nations due to alleged “national security” threats. Huawei, the privately owned company established in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei, is considered too close to the Chinese government and thus could be
‧
connection with US sanctions on Iran. Over the last decade the tension and suspicion over the penetration of Huawei and other telecommunication providers in the provision of sophisticated digital and telecommunications equipment has continued, and moreover raised eyebrows in Washington. Such suspicion reached a pivotal moment in … 2019 when President Trump issued an executive order instructing the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, to ban transactions “posing an unacceptable risk” (Kang;Sagner, 2019).
Although many scholars suggest that Trump is merely using Huawei as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with the Chinese, genuine security concerns do exist about the company. The United States and its allies cooperate substantially on cybersecurity issues, with this alliance being called the 'Five Eyes'. These intelligence sharing partners, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada have all voiced their concerns about Huawei’s operations (in-particular their 5G networks) in their respective countries and have either outright banned their technology – as is the case with New Zealand – or come under significant pressure to follow suit – the United Kingdom. In April 2019, it was confirmed that none of the 'Five Eyes' would use technology from Huawei in the “sensitive” parts of their telecoms networks (Reuters, 2019). The main reason for this ban was driven by the United States and their own concerns that Huawei could be a vehicle for Chinese spy operations, thus posing a security threat to the national infrastructure of the ‘Five Eyes’ allies.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Huawei’s role in building new 5G networks has become one of the most controversial topics in current international relations over the last year or so. That the United States is exercising direct diplomatic pressure to stop states from using the Chinese telecoms giant is a sign that the cybersecurity concerns of the United States are seen as a genuine existential threat to its national security. The United States government clearly regards Huawei as a clear and present danger to national security and argues that any ally that opts to use Huawei will compromise important intelligence sharing amongst these countries in the future. When assessing this risk, it’s important to consider the security risk not just from Huawei, but also cybersecurity in the wider context of Chinese cyber-power. The Chinese have been running cyber operations for over a decade now and have been accused on a number of occasions of hacks on United States government departments. It is estimated that these cyber hacks cost the United States economy 300 billion USD a year in the theft of intellectual property (B Mascitelli; M Chung, 2019).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學