• Ukraine and Russia: It’s Not Getting Better

    In response to the growing war clouds to its East, Lithuania this week approved a law to reinstate compulsory military service.  In Poland, young men and women are joining paramilitary units, with government support, and pledging to defend the Polish republic “at all costs.”  The American military is deploying armored units to the Baltic members of NATO for exercises, and planning to leave the equipment in place.  The Russian military has increased the pace and frequency of its military probing of NATO air defenses.  On Monday, Vladimir Putin called for snap drills of Russia’s Northern Fleet.

    Meanwhile, a generation of arms control is slowly falling apart.  While the New START treaty between the United States and Russia remain in place, as does the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, Russian voices are calling all into question, even while their country walks away from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty.

    It is increasingly clear that Russia’s intention is revision of the post-Cold War international settlement.  It is using force in Ukraine now, according to Yuval Weber writing in the Washington Post, because Russian leaders understand their relative position is declining.  This is a dangerous moment, all the more so because the United States has made clear, both in word and deed, that it will not fight for Ukraine.  That may be the wise course, but it is also a risky course should Putin succeed there and then turn his eyes to NATO allies in the Baltics.

    Why the U.S. does nothing in Ukraine | Washington Post

    Poles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia will March on them Next | The New York Times

    An Unnoticed Crisis: The End of History for Nuclear Arms Control | Carnegie Moscow Center

  • War and Peace: Iran and Eastern Europe

    Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 on the promise that he would end America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and change the tone of American foreign policy.  He was motivated by a belief that Iraq was misguided and that the country was weary of war.  In addition, many Americans believed that the perception of American belligerence in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, contributed to insecurity around the world.  Unfortunately, six years later, the world is far more fractured and the president’s approach to foreign policy is open to criticism.

    The most obvious example of this criticism in the past week was “The Letter” signed by 47 Senate Republicans to the leaders of Iran, warning them that negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program would be merely an executive agreement and may be revoked by the next president or modified by future Congresses.  The Constitutional complexities of the argument aside, the Senate Republicans missed badly on this one—and not just because so many Americans rightfully see The Letter as undermining the President in the midst of complex and serious negotiations with a historic adversary.

    The issue in the Iran negotiations is how best to keep Iran from building a nuclear bomb.  Critics of the negotiations argue that Iran cannot be trusted to keep its word.  The Obama administration maintains any agreement will not be based on trust—it will depend upon verification.  It’s the right approach: a negotiated settlement with Iran would contain their nuclear ambitions, impose an intrusive verification regime, all the while retaining for the United States and its allies the ability to impose the violent sanction of force should Iran fail to meet its obligations.  An agreement would buy time for other forces to reshape Iranian politics—and that’s a wise long-term strategy.

    Events in Eastern Europe, however, have to shape American policymakers views of potential conflicts in other regions.  Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia—former Soviet republics who are now NATO’s eastern-most members—are nervous.  They know they can’t trust Putin’s Russia, but they are uncertain, too, of the strength of the western alliance’s commitment to their defense.  So in Vilnius—where memories of Lithuania’s fate in the 20th century remain strong—parents make plans for their children in the event of war, even as the government issues advice to citizens about what to do should war come to their neighborhoods.

    The candidate who ran to end wars, governs as president in a period of incredible insecurity from Eastern Europe to the Middle East—and we haven’t even touched on the South China Sea.  That level of insecurity requires a prudence in the application of military power not familiar to a lot of Americans in the post-9/11 era.  Airstrikes—war—to keep Iran from going nuclear are still an option regardless of what the president’s critics claim.  But another war in the Middle East will gravely limit America’s and NATO’s options in Eastern Europe.

    Preparing for War in Lithuania | Foreign Affairs

    Russia stand-off: 3,000 US troops on exercise in Baltic | Yahoo

    Obama pressed on many fronts to arm Ukraine | POLITICO

  • Identity, War and Peace

    Two articles have recently caught my attention—one about the rise of Christian militias, financed by American evangelical Christians, who are fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  The other about the first signs of hope in Iraq in a long, long time.  They reflect different dimensions of the same conflict, and those differences give me pause.

    In Baghdad, the curfew imposed after the American occupation began has been lifted.  People are beginning to return to the sidewalk cafes and parks of that city, even as ISIS continues its marauding and terror only dozens of miles away.  In Baghdad, with a new Prime Minister, there is a sense, we are told, of hope returning—enabled in part by a recognition that Sunni and Shia have to rely on each other for there to be peace.

    The rise of Christian militias shouldn’t surprise us.  People who have been abandoned by recognized authorities are sure to do what they can to defend themselves—and to rely on friends and co-religionists with the means to support them.  The danger, though, is that in introducing another armed religious force into a region awash with armed religious forces only underscores the ISIS narrative: that the West is fighting a religious war against Islam.

    All of this underscores my reluctance to accept the Obama administration’s national security strategy of strategic patience.  The longer groups like ISIS are left to sow terror and murder unchecked, the more risk there is for other ugly developments.

    The Islamic State is Losing Iraq | New Republic

    US Christians back emerging private war on Iraq jihadists | France 24

  • People Power

    It has been easy, in recent months, to focus on what’s going wrong in the world.  Wars, terrorism, and disease compete for our attention each week.  None of them are hopeful.  But this week, events on two sides of the Atlantic give us hope.

    This past week, more than 1000 Muslims formed a ring of peace around a synagogue in Oslo.  They stood hand in hand with Jews to protect those praying inside.  One of the event’s organizers, Zeeshan Abdullah, was quoted saying:

    Humanity is one and we are here to demonstrate that. There are many more peace mongers than warmongers. There’s still hope for humanity, for peace and love, across religious differences and backgrounds.

    There is hope for us, yet.

    In Washington, DC, at the end of the week, people power took a different meaning when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), despite withering opposition from America’s biggest Internet service providers, voted to regulate the Internet as a public utility: embracing the broadest and most ambitious calls of advocates of “net neutrality.”  It means that providers cannot throttle content nor can they offer pay-to-play fast lanes that would provide unreasonable barriers to entry for Internet start-ups.

    The public played a huge role in the FCC’s decision.  During a public comment round, the New York Times reports that four million Americans made their desire for net neutrality heard—and the FCC listened.

    I find myself processing these enormous events in the context of my own experience in Rhode Island.  Tuesday night, I was privileged to appear before the RI State Senate Judiciary Committee to offer testimony on a bill that would give Rhode Islanders information to protect themselves when the data they entrust to corporations or governments is breached by hackers.  More than a half-dozen lobbyists for big companies and industry associations took their turns testifying about the “onerous” and “overly-broad” provisions of the proposed legislation.  The choice became crystal clear: protect Rhode Island’s consumers or accept the status-quo that lets businesses decide when the public has a right to know about the breach of their personal information.

    There were no big crowds around the RI statehouse Tuesday night.  There were not four million comments from the public to sway the Senators.  There were just lobbyists paid to make a point for their clients; lobbyists who I’m sure are also sought after for campaign contributions during election season.

    I’m not naïve or Pollyannaish about the value of lobbying or even the needs of corporations and their preference for minimal regulation.  But the dearth of citizens’ voices in Providence on Tuesday night left me unsettled.  A lot of money and lot of talent was arrayed against a good bill.  The public should care about that.

    F.C.C. Votes to Regulate the Internet as a Utility | The New York Times

    Inspiring Images of Over 1,000 Muslims forming ‘Ring of Peace’ Around Oslo Synagogue | The Huffington Post

  • White Pell Center logo with blue background.

    Testimony from Pell Center Executive Director on RI Data Breach Notification Legislation

    On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Pell Center Executive Director Jim Ludes offered testimony on Rhode Island Senate Bill 134–a legislative proposal that drew from work done at the Pell Center to improve RI data breach notification.  His testimony, as prepared, follows below:

    *                *                *

    Testimony of James M. Ludes, Ph.D.

    Executive Director, Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve Regina University

    Before the RI State Senate Judiciary Committee

    February 23, 2015

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to offer some brief remarks on Senate Bill 134 offered by Senator Lou DiPalma. I have submitted my full testimony in writing and respectfully request that it be included in the record.

    Mr. Chairman, I am the Executive Director of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy—a think tank on the campus of Salve Regina University in Newport. Named for a giant in Rhode Island’s political history, the late Senator Claiborne Pell, the Pell Center exists to help our community think through complex issues and make good policy decisions.

    For several years, one of the Pell Center’s principal focus areas has been cybersecurity. We’ve published several studies by Ms. Francesca Spidalieri, who is our Senior Fellow for Cybersecurity Leadership, on emerging trends in cybersecurity, especially the preparation of leaders for an era of persistent cyber threat.

    As an outgrowth of that research, we have organized the Rhode Island Corporate Cybersecurity Initiative (RICCI)—an effort to bring together Rhode Island’s corporate leaders to share information about the most critical cybersecurity challenges facing the private sector. RICCI meets monthly at the Pell Center in Newport for briefings and occasional exercises designed to encourage Rhode Island’s senior executives to take ownership of their organization’s cybersecurity and help them develop approaches to make their companies more secure and resilient to cyber incidents.

    Last September, we hosted a roundtable discussion on Rhode Island’s current data security breach notification law—its gaps, how it compares to similar laws in other states, and how the RI law might be improved.

    Senator DiPalma and Representative Stephen Ucci attended that session of RICCI, and drew from it important insights that shaped the legislation you are considering today.

    Mr. Chairman, we need only to read the newspaper occasionally to know that we are in an era of massive data breaches. The list of affected companies is long, but the list of affected Americans is even longer. In 2013, the information security firm Symantec reported that 552 million personal records were breached by hackers. The November 2013 breach of Target Corp. alone exposed 110 million customers to possible fraud or identity theft.

    In a summary of the September RICCI meeting prepared by Ms. Spidalieri, she wrote:

    Target’s response and notification drew heavy criticism based on the method of notification as well as its timeliness. Like many other retailers, major banks, and countless other companies, Target chose to keep evidence of its data breach private until cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs brought the issue to light on his blog “Krebs on Security.” Unfortunately, the reticence to disclose data breaches is widespread and deeply rooted within corporate America. Days, weeks or even longer periods can pass between the moment a company learns of a cyber-crime and when its customers do. That gap can amount to crucial lost time for people and other organizations that would need to take immediate measures to protect themselves by monitoring transactions, changing passwords, or alerting other relevant parties such as a credit card company.

    A wave of state laws passed over the last dozen years requiring companies to notify customers in a timely manner about data breaches that affect them.  Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have laws governing such disclosures (as of August 1, 2014, only Alabama, New Mexico, and South Dakota had no laws related to security breach notification).  Rhode Island has had its breach notification law on the books since 2005. RI’s current “Notification of breach law,” however, is both outdated and lacks clear information/direction for a business to follow in the event of a data breach. The participants in the Pell Center workshop noted that this law requires disclosure “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay,” but does not prescribe an actual timeframe and allows for delays to accommodate “the legitimate needs of law enforcement” during an ongoing investigation. Moreover, it requires the notification of a breach “if the personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person,” but does not provide additional measures to prevent future breaches or to effectively mitigate the risks associated with data breaches. Finally, there is no mention of the role that state agencies or law enforcement should play in the case of a data breach or of whom within those departments should be notified.

    As I mentioned, Senator DiPalma and Representative Ucci participated in our September RICCI workshop. Their proposed legislation, we believe, reflects well the consensus of the participants in that session. In particular:

    • The proposed legislation would extend the definition of “personal information” to medical information, health insurance information, and email addresses when acquired with passwords.
    • It would define clearly the course of action a business must take in the event of a data security breach and the specific timing of notification to those individuals potentially affected by the breach (no later than 15 days after the discovery).
    • It would also define the roles that the Attorney General, law enforcement, and major credit reporting agencies play in case of a data breach and the notification requirements of these agencies.
    • It would include data security requirements for third-parties.
    • Finally, the proposed legislation would require all entities in Rhode Island not to retain personal information for a period longer than necessary for the specific services provided, and to destroy all records (including paper records) when personal records are discarded.

    As you know, President Obama has rightly identified cybersecurity as an urgent national security challenge, and he has talked about a federal data breach notification law that would address many of these issues, too. But just because the president is talking about it does not mean Congress will do anything about it. The burden then falls to the individual states to address this issue where they can while we wait for Congress to act. The reality is that, if passed, this legislation could serve as a model for the country to follow, both in other state houses and at the federal level.

    Thank you.

  • Authorizing the Use of Force

    This was a big week for national security wonks.  In less than a week, the Obama White House issued a new national security strategy—it’s first since 2010, speculation swirled over whether the United States should provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, and then the administration released the language it sent to Congress for a new authorization to use military force against ISIL.

    Through it all, I found an unsettling disconnect between the rhetoric of the administration and the reality of the world around us.

    In a speech to the Brookings Institution last week, National Security Advisor Susan Rice described the security challenges to the United States and asserted that none of them are existential.  As a result, Dr. Rice argued, the United States can afford to play a long-game, exercise strategic patience, and maintain the course we’re on.  Such an approach presumes that long-term indicators are all favorable for the United States and its interests.  A simple scan of the headlines undermines that view.

    Islamic extremism is ripping apart large swaths of the Middle East.  Despite months of U.S. and coalition airstrikes, ISIL continues to hold vast areas in both Iraq and Syria even while their barbarism reaches new lows with recent accounts of mass executions, children being forced into sex slavery, and wanton disregard for human values and life.

    Of course, ISIL emerged from the fragments of a fractured Syria after the United States called for the overthrow of Bashar al Assad.  In Libya, where the United States provided military support to topple a secular strongman in the form of Muammar Gaddafi, conflict rages with Islamists threatening another long civil war.  And in Ukraine, where the United States certainly called for regime change last year, a civil war between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists has editorial pages again talking about the Russian nuclear arsenal.

    It pains me to write this: I’m not sure what long-term indicators the Obama administration is looking at, but the record of the last six years appears to show a world more uncertain and in peril than before this president took office.  That’s not to say it’s all Barack Obama’s fault, but it is worth questioning the course were on when the president’s advisors assert we should stay on it.

  • Election 2016 and the Pell Center

    If the election calendar holds, it’s less than one-year until Iowa holds it caucuses on January 18, 2016, the first round in a fifty state marathon to select the Democratic and Republican nominees for president.

    Already, the press is focused on the horse race: who’s up, who’s down, who’s surging, who’s fading. Will Hillary Clinton face any meaningful opposition? Will Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush split centrist Republicans and clear the path for Marco Rubio or Rand Paul?

    We’re not even one month into 2015 and these story lines already seem tired. Worse, they are about personalities, not issues. They track the fortunes of elite politicians, not the welfare of the typical American family, and they do nothing to educate voters on the issues facing the country in the years ahead.

    153676294

    Fortunately, at the Pell Center, we are committed to issues that matter. So over the next 22 months, our focus will be to explore and elevate issues that should be part of the national dialogue. All of our research, events, social media, and engagements will be built with an eye on the election of 2016 and the ideas and issues the public must contend with to make informed choices at the ballot box.

    The Pell Center’s focus has long been at the intersection of politics, policies, and ideas. Join us there and contribute to a vital dialogue about the future of our country.

  • President Obama’s State of the Union Echoes Recommendations from the Pell Center

    The Pell Center’s work on cybersecurity has proven to be a step ahead when these topics reach the national stage.

    President Barack Obama has previewed some of the key issues he plans to discuss during his State of the Union address, especially new cybersecurity initiatives in areas from ID theft to consumer privacy. One of the more notable proposals is the creation of a national data breach notification law that would require all companies and financial institutions to notify customers that their personal information has been compromised within 30 days of a breach. The new cybersecurity proposals also call for updated laws to prosecute cyber criminals.

    “The spiraling increase in cyber-attacks and disruptions of service cannot go unanswered,” says Pell Center Adjunct Fellow Ellen Giblin. “The President must propose a new federal data breach law that brings together all stakeholders in this complex problem and allows for greater harmonization for companies in reporting data breaches and cyber-attacks.”

    Pell Center Adjunct Fellow Ken Bell stressed that “specific, accurate, and timely notification of a breach is fundamental to give consumers and companies the ability to respond.”

    Since January 2014, the Rhode Island Corporate Cybersecurity Initiative (RICCI), hosted by the Pell Center, has focused attention on data breaches. In September 2014, the Pell Center hosted a workshop for public and private leaders from across Rhode Island to review gaps in the current RI notification of breach law and to propose methods to strengthen the existing law.

    Informed by the results of the Pell Center’s September workshop, RI State Senator Louis DiPalma introduced a comprehensive data breach notification bill. As Cyber Leadership Fellow Francesca Spidalieri explains, “the new law would raise the cost of data breaches in Rhode Island; better protect state customers’ personal information; provide state companies with a specific timeframe and process to follow in the case of a data breach; and define the role that state agencies and law enforcement would play in those instances. In addition, this law would apply to all companies that own, license, or manage RI residents’ personal information, and not just cover companies based in RI.

    Similarly, the bill proposed by President Obama intends to protect consumers while providing much-needed focus on concrete steps that can be taken in case of a breach. The president’s proposal would simplify the maze of state breach laws that currently exist. While most states, including Rhode Island have existing data breach notification laws, there are no national standards.

    Lawmakers have tried for nearly a decade to pass a federal bill to replace the patchwork of state laws, but have repeatedly failed, in part because either the laws went too far, or didn’t go far enough. DiPalma’s bill could be a model for the nation.

    Additional cybersecurity proposals that the President is scheduled to announce include a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights that would give consumers more control over their digital data; a Student Data Privacy Act, which would prevent information collected about students from being used for anything but educational purposes; and a broadband expansion plan.

  • The Case for the New Congress to Restore Defense Earmarks

    Pell Center Executive Director Dr. Jim Ludes and Ms. Kelly Mendell, President of MIKEL, a RI based defense company, published an op-ed today calling for the restoration of Congressional earmarks for defense research and development.  An excerpt is below.  The full piece is available at at RollCall.com.

    A Rose by Any Other Name: It’s Time to Bring Earmarks Back to Defense R&D

     By James M. Ludes and Kelly Mendell
    Nov. 5, 2014, 5 a.m.

    In 2010, congressional Republicans campaigned in the midterm elections on a promise to end earmarks — the direction of appropriated dollars to specific projects, typically in a lawmaker’s district. Proponents of the ban championed it as a step towards fiscal discipline. In reality, the ban has come at the expense of America’s small businesses and our national security, and it coincides with an historic period of legislative inertia. It’s time to restore earmarks.

    Small businesses are the lifeblood of the American economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2011 (the last year for which data is available) there were nearly 5.7 million small businesses — a firm with fewer than 500 employees. In total, small businesses employed nearly 55 million Americans that year and paid nearly $2.2 trillion in wages — and it wasn’t a fluke. From 1993 to mid-2013, small businesses created 63 percent of the net new jobs in the United States. The truth is that the economy grows as small businesses grow.

    Small businesses also play an important role in the American defense industrial base, where small, high-tech firms rapidly churn out or integrate cutting edge technology. Previously, these businesses lobbied Congress for earmarks to support investment in important, but unfunded, research and development (R&D). The resulting earmarks brought new thinkers to specific challenges with impressive results, such as the Predator drone.

    The signature vehicle of American aerial strike since 9/11, the Predator began with a series of earmarks secured by Republican Reps. Buck McKeon and Jerry Lewis of Southern California. The local beneficiary of their efforts was a small, eight-person shop: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. The firm is now one of the world’s leading developers of drones and employs thousands of workers. . . .

    To continue reading, click here.

     

  • Quick Hit: The President’s Strategy for ISIL Assessed

    Obama Address to Nation (140910)

    In 15 minutes of remarks tonight , President Barrack Obama laid out his strategy to confront the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL.) The president’s much awaited strategy can be condensed to this:

    1. Train and equip local forces—whether Iraqi or Syrian—to fight ISIL on the ground. Provide additional American advisors to support these local forces.
    2. Use American airpower to support forces on the ground—including in Syria.
    3. Take necessary measures to harden America’s homeland defenses while also countering extremist ideology. And
    4. Respond to the humanitarian crises spurred by ISIL’s rampage and the Syrian civil war.

    The strategy presented tonight bears a strong resemblance to the approach described by President Obama in his May commencement address to the graduating class of 2014 from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

    Things the President Did Well

    1. Stating an objective. The president said: “I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL….” You can parse that anyway you want, but the president gets high grades for simply stating the problem in clear language.
    2. Insisting on political progress in Iraq as a precursor for deeper American involvement. One reason ISIL was so successful in Iraq this summer was the condition of Iraqi politics.
    3. Recognized that the problem can’t be solved in Iraq or Syria alone. This is a transnational problem and will need to be addressed on both sides of the border.
    4. Follow the Money. The sources of ISIL’s financial sustenance have been well documented. The President rightfully prioritized cutting off the flow of seemingly endless financial resources to ISIL.
    5. Seal the Borders. Foreign fighters continue to pour into Syria from neighboring countries—especially Turkey. Turkish forces can and should make that transit much more difficult.
    6. Counter the ideology. I’ve gone on at length about both the Obama and Bush administrations failing to mount real counter-ideological campaigns. The plan described by the President tonight sheds no additional light on this element of the struggle–but he did mention it and for that he should get credit.

    Things the President Didn’t Do Well

    1. Boasting. The President bragged that when Russia grew aggressive in Ukraine, the world looked to the United States. It was poorly conceived for the President to call out Russia now when in the same speech, he expressed his intention to chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to seek more international support against ISIL. In case anyone forgot, Russia still has a seat–not to mention a veto–on the Security Council.
    2. Describe the political end-game in Syria. And here’s the rub. Even if we get Iraq “right,” without a political end-game in Syria, it’s incredibly difficult to imagine how this campaign ends.
    3. Focused too much on tactical military operations. The President’s strategy, as described tonight, really is focused on the application of armed force. That’s not to say it’s inappropriate. But the conversation in this country would benefit from a President who took the time to educate the public about real strategic choices and not simply tactical options.

    What seems most likely is a period of persistent conflict with the terrorist army known as ISIL. The American military will kill a lot of extremists. Our aircraft will destroy their pickup trucks and the equipment they’ve seized from routed Iraqi forces. After several years of conflict, American pundits–if not some leader–will declare ISIL dead. And that organization will, ultimately, be killed. But the extremist threat will continue on as long as the ideas that undergird ISIL go unchallenged.

     

Page 5 of 10« First...34567...10...Last »