There will be an exciting debate on the threat of cyberwar! A panel of four distinguished guests (including Harvard professor John Zittrain, founder the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society) will square off against each other in favor of and against the motion: “The Threat of Cyberwar Has Been Grossly Exaggerated.” The debate is hosted by Intelligence Squared U.S., which organizes monthly thought-provoking and very informative debates on a range of issues (the next debate on May 11 at NYU’s Skirball Center will focus on Obama’s foreign policy). I can’t be in DC on June 8, but if you are, I highly recommend this.

IQ2’s blurb:

It could be the greatest strategic irony of the last twenty years: the American lead in digital technologies – upon which our financial, communications and defense systems are built, and on which they depend – may also represent a serious American Achilles heel. The sophistication of our mobile phone networks, of the GPS system that guides air traffic, even of the networked command-and-control that drives our power grids, may be without rival. But it also provides one great big and sprawling target to enemies determined to discover the choke points that can cripple us in a time of war.

At least that’s the scenario as described in various, and increasingly alarmed media accounts, especially in the wake of incidents like the hacking of Google last year, by digital assailants often described (without clear confirmation) as being based in China. It’s indeed alarming, to contemplate fighting the next war with both hands tied behind our backs because a canny enemy figured out how to shut us down electronically.

Alarming – but possibly, also, alarmist? Can we really be that vulnerable? Is our digital undergirding really that exposed, especially given that the Internet itself – the foundation of all this critical connectedness – was itself initially developed as a military undertaking? Even if our enemies – state enemies or terrorists – manage to cause damage in one corner of American cyberspace, don’t we have enough redundancy built in to protect us? As one technology writer has put it, this is one of those topics where the internet press likes to get worked up into a lot of “heavy breathing.”

So which is it? Are we at existential risk in the event of a well coordinated cyber attack, and if so, are we taking measures to protect ourselves? Or will the first cyber war be a war we are already positioned not only to survive, but to win?

For the motion:
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer of BT

Against the motion:
VADM (Ret) John M. (Mike) McConnell – executive vice president of the National Security Business for Booz Allen Hamilton

Jonathan Zittrain – professor of law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society

A review of the book Slave Hunter by Rada Ghemigian

Wasn’t slavery abolished? Actually, no. In fact, there are more slaves in the world today than at any point in our history. Slave Hunter by Aaron Cohen and Christine Buckley (New York, NY: Simon Schuster, Inc., 2009) looks at the eye-opening truth behind human trafficking from Cohen’s perspective as a “slave hunter,” documenting and rescuing victims of sexual exploitation and forced labor.

Cohen, inspired by Jubilee, a movement to forgive debt and free slaves, began his human-rights activism first by building a grass-roots campaign with his friend Perry Farrell called Drop the Debt. Believing awareness is the first step to eradication, Cohen dedicated himself to bringing public awareness to the existence of modern-day slavery. Cohen characterizes human trafficking as the new face of slavery, dedicating his book its victims.

Cohen is a “slave hunter,” identifying human beings who are trafficked and exploited for labor and/or sexual purposes. Cohen’s memoir recounts his first-hand experiences in brothels, massage parlors, restaurants, bars, and war zones. A one-time former partner with Jane’s Addiction front-man Perry Farrell, Cohen used his musical connections and social skills to promote his activism alongside Bono, Ricky Martin and the Dalai Lama.

Slave Hunter documents Cohen’s journey in distinct sections, each describing a different area of the world where he has traveled: Cambodia, Sudan, Latin America, Myanmar, and the Middle East. Cohen’s fieldwork begins with a process he calls “night frighting,” where he poses as a sex tourist collecting evidence against traffickers in brothels. He easily finds brothels through taxi drivers who earn vouchers for gas when they bring in customers. Cohen keeps a video journal, where he photographs and records interviews with trafficked women and children on his cell phone. After buying some time with them, he then engages them to talk about their lives and experiences. “Yum-yum thirty dollar. Boom-boom fifty dollar,” says one of the children he meets in a brothel. He notes for twenty dollars more a man can have unprotected sex with this child. Cohen is aware he might not be able to save the girl he is talking to at the moment, but he believes his efforts will help prevent future potential victims. Through Cohen’s words, we hear the victim’s stories: their pain, their fear, and their misery. In many cases, he helps keep hope alive for the numerous women and children he encounters.

While Cohen’s work has documented slavery, he has also seen genocide in Sudan and terrorist operations in Asia. Through his field work around the world, Cohen has identified links between the trafficked women and connections to organized crime, gangs, drug cartels, and natural resources such as oil, gold, and uranium.

Brothels usually have the backing of at least one mafia family. In situations where Cohen is able to buy the freedom of the women and children he encounters, the madams (or slave masters) and the girls sign statements that will keep Cohen and his fellow rescuers from being charged with kidnapping. While Cohen’s critics express outrage that he gives money to the traffickers, the money keeps the girls’ families safe from mafia threats. The trafficked women and children are then provided safety for the time being. Instead of sitting in meetings talking about human rights, Cohen wants to make sure trafficked victims have a safe place to sleep. After they are taken to safety, the women and children are given a chance at an education and reintegration into society.

At one point in the memoir, Cohen describes how he has hit men coming after him after he has raided several brothels. “Our actions have probably roused more than one gang boss tonight with some very bad news. By taking back nearly thirty girls, we have cut off the bad guys’ cash flow to the tune of about $3 million,” Cohen writes. He points out that ‘Canadian journalist Victor Malarek’s research would later put the average profit a trafficker could make from one woman at about $160,000.’

Many governments do not recognize trafficked women as victims, which is why Cohen’s work is so important. Cohen teamed together with Michele Clark to promote public education and awareness seminars. Clark works on the policy side of things, as a coordinator at a think-tank based at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Cohen and Clark both share a victim-centered approach towards human trafficking, which they believe is essential to anti-trafficking work. Cohen has presented his research to help develop prevention programs, and discussed the importance of the Internet in the exploitation of women and children.

We live in a global community, one in which slave labor effects everyone. Cohen exposes this world-wide problem in all the countries he has visited. In Ecuador, where there are no victim shelters, trafficked women are not considered refugees, and therefore are not admitted to refugee camps. Cohen served as a field operative and consultant in Ecuador, intending to shed more light on trafficking patterns there by documenting and photographing trafficked victims.

Cohen’s missions involved analyzing the scope of trafficking and helping locals develop a national anti-trafficking strategy. Cohen’s journeys also led him to Sudan, where he documented slave redemptions, buying the freedom of slaves for anywhere from twenty to eighty dollars each. Under Sudan’s penal code, slave redemption is a violation of sharia law, punishable by limb amputation, death or crucifixion. Cohen’s travels also led him to Myanmar, where ethnic Shans are employed by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The SPDC uses slave labor to build infrastructure in the country’s new capital, as well as at facilities producing uranium, that is used to process fuel for nuclear reactors (which is in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions). In Thailand on another visit, Cohen documented the indigenous people from the Hmong ethnic group, who are denied political refugee status elsewhere, and wait in camps where they easily fall prey to traffickers that take advantage of their situation.

Cohen’s memoir gives us access to experiences and thoughts we may otherwise never have had. Arguably, the single most important thing to take away from reading Cohen’s memoir is that it illustrates the fact that governments and organizations, as well as individuals, are capable of making a difference in taking a human being out of enslavement. We live in a world that is growing smaller by the minute, and we must all develop a greater sense of universal responsibility for each other.

Perspectives on Global Issues’s Spring 2010 issue on Human Security will feature an interview with Slave Hunter author Aaron Cohen. The issue will be available in late April 2010.

Recently I stumbled upon an interesting article that was originally published in the Yale Environment 360 online magazine — the title of the piece was “Are America’s Fears of a Greentech Race with China Unfounded?” At the bottom of the article there was a voting function where readers could opine on whether they believed the U.S. should fear a greening China. Thus far, 58% of voters believe that there is nothing to worry about, especially because “China has not been able to duplicate innovation in technology.” For the most part, I agree that the fear is unfounded as well.

As my finance professor used to tell me — simply follow the money. A recent report from The Deutsch Bank Climate Change Advisors assessed that from 2000 to 2008 China had capital flows into clean energy in the amount of $41,196 M whereas the U.S. had 52,120M, India had 7,446M and Germany had 36,611M. From the numbers it is clear that the U.S. is still, so far, the most attractive environment for cleantech investment. But what is particularly notable for China is the large size of clean energy investment as a proportion of GDP in 2008. There is a political impetus for the development of green technology in China that is lacking in the U.S.

China already manufactures the cheapest solar panels in the world, and ranks in the top five for wind. According to this report, solar module prices are set to continue falling and the list of distressed solar companies needing to raise funds in the public market will only get longer. Indeed, competition has characterized the global solar PV market for some time now, and when supply catching up with demand the result is cheaper, more efficient solar panels. That can only be positive step towards the promotion of globally sustainable energy growth.

Perhaps there wasn’t much of a race to begin with. There are enough opportunities in the renewable energy value chain that it is possible for China to excel in manufacturing and the U.S. to excel in innovation (Apple?). To accelerate the uptake of renewable energy globally, we need both manufacturing expertise and cutting edge innovation. The U.S. should view China has a partner and not a threat in the development of greentech, given that each country features a different set of competitive advantages. It is time that the U.S., hopefully with appropriate incentives from the government, finds its niche in the industrialization of renewable energy; if not in manufacturing, then in the incubation of innovation and development of human capital.

Saudi Arabia is surrounded by some of the most unstable and dangerous countries in the Middle East, as the Kingdom shares a 814-kilometer boundary with Iraq, 1,458-kilometer boundary with Yemen, 2,510-kilometer coastline on the Gulf and the Red Sea with Iran — which is only a five-minute jet fighter flight away. So, Saudi Arabia is confronted with numerous challenges.

First, Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities are of great concern for Saudi Arabia as the Saudis’ armed forces are far from being able to challenge Iran.

Second, the situation in Iraq is a threat to Saudi Arabia stability as unstable, not unified and still under U.S. occupation.

Third, the current fighting on the Yemeni border with the Shia Houthis separatists is a challenge to Saudi Arabia national security. Furthermore, the President of Yemen warned that if calls for separation continue a new civil war could take place, which would result, according to him, not just be a simple division between the north and the south but would be a division between villages and states. Moreover, early 2009, Al Qaeda announced the merger of its Saudi and Yemeni branches in Yemen, raising the alarm of counterterrorist agencies, fearing that Yemen may become a terrorist safe haven, adding even more pressure on Saudi Arabia.

Four, Saudi Arabia is facing continuing instability in the Red Sea Area, such as the radical Sudan and the failed state of Somalia.

Finally, Saudi Arabia depends on the United States for its security and is an important source of trade and technology. However, some Muslims countries have strong views on this close cooperation, given the United States policies in the Middle East, from Israel to Iraq, which impede the kingdom wide range of action in the region.

Therefore, Saudi Arabia needs to play a crucial role in the region to achieve its number one priority: national security, which would ensure the legitimacy of the regime — its number two priority — while preserving its position as world leading exporter of petroleum — the Kingdom’s third priority.

By Guest Blogger Johanna Teeri

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the NATO forces in the town of Marja no longer seek to eradicate the poppy fields, as they are trying to build support among the villagers rather than destroy more livelihoods. While the new burst of conflict-sensitivity is welcome, the real conundrum remains. Eradicating the poppy plantations has hurt the poorest in Afghanistan, worsened corruption, and encouraged the peasants to join the Taliban, but not eradicating poppy strengthens the insurgents, who benefit from the narco-trafficking by taxing peasants and collecting protection fees. Experts fear that the insurgents are getting involved in the production and trafficking of opium as well, which provides them even a stronger incentive to continue fighting compared to mere ideology. As the conflict is fueled by the several billion-dollar opium trade, it is clear that lasting peace cannot be built before the narcotics industry is curbed.

While the NATO-ISAF approach to combat poppy growing is now more gradual, there are other links in the smuggling chain that should be cut. The easiest target is the bottom link, the peasants; much more difficult is to punish the people with power and wealth. The poor legal institutions and a lack of political will ensure that many influential people involved in the trade never get prosecuted or even removed from their office. A lack of state security makes borders so porous that only two percent of opium is seized when leaving the country. In contrast, 20 percent of Colombia’s cocaine is seized at its border.

The Western military does not want to harm its reputation any more by angering the villagers, but the flourishing narco-trade should not be ignored. Instead of focusing on the voiceless peasants, the counter-narcotic forces can boost their efforts to destroy heroin laboratories, improve border security, and target traffickers and drug lords. While it remains a true challenge in one of the world’s most corrupt countries, it is also one of the most important ones, as the conflict in Afghanistan is quickly turning into another narco war with the insurgents and drug traffickers uniting.

One of the reasons to invade Afghanistan was to liberate the population from the medieval rule of the Taliban. In most senses that has happened, as the Taliban is only strong in pockets and has recently been facing a military surge.

All of that being said, there has been rising discomfort that the new government doesn’t appear to be much better in the treatment of women. Women have complained about being consistently being left out of the decision-making process and feel their voices are being shouted over. Even though women are no longer subject to many of the harsh (some say Draconian) Taliban laws, they are still not being given the same opportunities to help shape the country.

Television, which the Taliban banned, has now been restored. Now the Afghani public is facing a problem in which women are being sexualized, in a true reversal. The Kabul government is having problems limiting the rising female flesh being seen in programming.

It is quite interesting that women have gone from being invisible to much more sexualized in less than a decade. What makes it more difficult is that the government is still very weak and unable to stop this trend. Limited access in public discourse is very much a problem while a new civil society is being created.

Hopefully, Afghani women will be able to find voices in their society and finally become full member and participants. As an old saying goes, “Women hold up half the sky.”