Cyber Key
Cyber undermines the whole bilateral trade relationship
Segal, NBR China Studies senior fellow, 2015
(Adam, “Stabilizing Cybersecurity in the U.S.-China Relationship”, 9-14, http://nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=605)
U.S.-China Relations in the Cyber Domain
Cyberspace is an especially contentious issue in the Sino-U.S. relationship. According to Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel, cyberspace has the “potential to drive strategic mistrust in the relationship” between the two nations. [1] Beijing and Washington have been unable to find common ground on cyberattacks, the security of information and communications infrastructure, and Internet governance. Cyberattacks constitute a threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and many of these attacks emanate from China. Some of these attacks are conducted by state actors or by hacker groups sponsored by Chinese government actors. Other attacks are conducted by criminals working on their own. These attacks fall into three categories. The majority are the cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, business strategies, and trade secrets. There is also a widespread campaign of political and military espionage such as the hack of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which may have exposed the records of over twenty million current and former federal employees. In addition, the members of the People’s Liberation Army Unit 61398 have reportedly penetrated the networks of natural gas pipelines and electric utilities, possibly to map the potential future battlefield or prepare for a destructive attack. The cybersecurity issue has also spilled over into trade relations. In part motivated by disclosures of U.S. cyberespionage against Chinese targets made by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and in part a reflection of a long-held techno-nationalism, Chinese policymakers have introduced a number of regulations designed to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers for critical technologies. New banking regulations, for example, and the draft antiterrorism and national security regulations in China require companies to share source code and build backdoors into encrypted products in an effort to make technology “secure and controllable.” Although the bank regulations were suspended in April, protectionism remains tightly linked to cybersecurity concerns. Beijing has also stepped up efforts to shape the governance of cyberspace. In November 2014, China hosted the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, a clear signal that it intends to take a more active role in defining the international agenda. In particular, Beijing has stressed the norm of Internet sovereignty—the idea that every state has the right to make rules and regulations covering cyberspace—and has argued that this right should be recognized internationally. In other words, the global Internet should be subject to local controls. Beijing recently extended its vision of the Chinese Internet to the United States. In April 2015, researchers at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto and the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, discovered what they called the “great cannon,” a program that hijacked traffic and directed it at GreatFire.org, a site that runs mirrors of other sites blocked in China, and GitHub, a software coding site that was also hosting content Beijing found objectionable, in order to overload and crash both sites’ servers. The Great Cannon attack knocked GitHub offline for five days and was an unacceptable interference to Internet access and free speech within the United States. During the June 2015 Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), senior U.S. officials warned their Chinese counterparts that the theft of intellectual property undermines trust and threatens the economic foundations of the bilateral relationship. Recent press reports suggest that Washington is considering sanctioning individuals or entities that benefit from cybertheft. [2] If such a move comes after the conclusion of the summit, President Obama should clearly explain to President Xi when the two meet how the sanctions will be implemented and what evidence the United States has of the hacking. President Obama will want to stress that the United States is getting better at attribution and that it is willing to make some types of evidence public to support its claims. Recommendations While the two sides are unlikely to close the gap on cyberespionage, they should broaden and deepen the discussions on cybersecurity and cyberconflict. Beijing suspended the U.S.-China cyber working group after the indictment of five alleged PLA hackers in May 2014, but the discussions to manage disagreements do not have to be housed within one formal structure and should continue in the S&ED and military-to-military contacts. The announcement of a new dialogue between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Chinese Ministry of Public Security is a useful step, though it will focus on cybercrime. Attribution remains a point of contention, with Beijing calling the United States’ claim that China was behind the attacks on the U.S. Office of Personal Management “irresponsible and unscientific.” Yet a shared understanding of what types of evidence can be used to attribute an attack and how that information is presented would be an important first step to defining norms of behavior. At the June 2015 S&ED, State Councilor Yang Jiechi called for China to work with the United States to develop an “international code of conduct for cyber information sharing.” While the Chinese side has not offered any specifics, Washington and Beijing could establish a joint forensics team, made up of experts from the government, private sector, and academia, to investigate an attack on a third party and identify types of information to be shared. Beijing and Washington have a common interest in preventing escalatory cyberoperations—attacks that one side sees as legitimate surveillance but the other views as prepping the battlefield. The two sides could consider conducting formal discussions on acceptable norms of behavior and possible thresholds for use of force as well as greater transparency on doctrine. These cooperative measures can reduce the chance of misperception and miscalculation and thus diminish the likelihood that a conflict in cyberspace will become kinetic.
That’s the biggest issue for future relations-outweighs geopolitical conflict
Wyne, Project for the Study of the 21st Century global fellow, 2015
(Ali, “The Strategic Importance of U.S.-China Trade Ties”, 6-3, https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0106)
Given these developments, it is natural to fear that a miscalculation at sea could spiral into an armed confrontation between the United States and China; some observers, such as the University of Pennsylvania's Avery Goldstein, have even ventured that such a clash could involve nuclear weapons. To their credit, the two countries are taking steps to preempt destabilizing contingencies. In November 2014, for example, the U.S. Department of Defense and the Chinese Ministry of National Defense signed a memorandum of understanding on "rules of behavior for safety of air and maritime encounters" and another on "notification of major military activities." While the escalatory potential of China's maritime disputes is foremost on many observers' minds, the greatest long-term threat to U.S.-China relations may be something far less vivid: the gradual weakening of economic, and especially trade, interdependence between the two countries. Aside from the sobering historical record—conflicts between leading powers and rising ones have often culminated in disaster—that interdependence has arguably done more than any other phenomenon to furnish a rationale for sustained cooperation between the United States and China, whose relationship lacks the sorts of organic factors that dissuade many other pairs of countries from contemplating conflict: shared values, comparable systems of governance, and compatible understandings of history, to name a few.
Laundry List Impact
US-China cooperation solves a laundry list of threats – climate change, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, anti-disease response, natural disasters and drug trafficking – key to survival of humankind and international peace
Jianmin 4/16/15 – Wu, Former President of China Foreign Affairs University; Member, Berggruen Institute’s 21st Century Council, “Cooperation on Curbing Nukes and Climate Change Strengthens U.S.-China Link” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wu-jianmin/china-us-nukes-climate-change_b_7079932.html
Three Dimensions of Cooperation China-U.S. cooperation is multi-dimensional. It covers three areas: global challenges; bilateral trade, economic, cultural and educational cooperation; and military exchanges and security cooperation. The common challenges facing mankind have never been so daunting as they are today -- climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, terrorism, pandemics, natural disasters, drug trafficking, just to name a few. No country, no matter how powerful it is, is able to meet these challenges alone. Common challenges bring people together. Mankind is bound to unite for its survival. When China and the U.S., the world's two largest economies, cooperate, it makes a difference. In November 2014, President Xi Jinping and President Obama made a joint pledge on reducing pollution and carbon gas emissions. As a result, the upcoming United Nations conference on climate change to be held in Paris from Nov. 30th to Dec. 11th this year, looks much more promising. Nuclear weapons proliferation also poses a serious threat to international peace and security. Of all the global challenges it is the most complicated. The North Korean nuclear issue is the other major concern along with Iran. The Six-Party Talks on this issue have so far stalled for six years and at present show no sign of resuming any time soon. Even so, the fact that China and the U.S. have agreed to pursue the goal of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has kept the issue from getting out of control. The year 1950 witnessed violent confrontation between China and U.S. in the Korean theater, but 2015 is a long way from 1950. China-U.S. cooperation has been a significant factor in keeping the lid on this conflict. Such cooperation, whether on Iran, North Korea or climate change, is an important building block for the new model of the major countries relationship. The way to conceive of this relationship is as a big house. It has to be built gradually, block by block. The more building blocks laid, the faster that house will be built. As President Xi Jinping has put it: "A sound China-U.S. cooperation can become a ballast stone of world stability and a booster of world peace. "
Econ Impact
US-China cooperation is key to prevent economic decline
Atlantic Council 13 – The Atlantic Council promotes constructive leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the Atlantic Community's central role in meeting global challenges, “China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future” http://globaltrends.thedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/China-US-cooperation-Key-to-the-Global-future.pdf
Strengthening and rebalancing the global economy. The Vision Group can address the long-term challenges presented by the global economy, including economic rebalancing, avoiding protectionism, providing funds for economic and financial stabilization, and bolstering financial safeguards. The group could make recommendations on the best ways to cope with huge stresses on resources, especially food and water, that will be exacerbated by climate change on the one hand and the growth of population, cities, and the middle class on the other. The global economy is likely to be extremely volatile and subject to shocks as well as long-term structural changes such as the shale gas and oil revolution and the third industrial revolution. While some people in both countries express schadenfreude at the economic difficulties of the other, both nations—and the world—will be most successful when each succeeds. And that is more likely to be ensured by close US-China cooperation on the global economy as well as bilateral economic relations.
Resource War Impact
US-China cooperation solves resource scarcity – the impact is failed states and regional conflict
Atlantic Council 13 – The Atlantic Council promotes constructive leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the Atlantic Community's central role in meeting global challenges, “China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future” http://globaltrends.thedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/China-US-cooperation-Key-to-the-Global-future.pdf
Ensuring resource security. One of the most vexing set of problems for the US and China and for the global community at large will be ensuring resource security in the coming decades as the demand grows dramatically for virtually all resources, including food, water, energy, and nonrenewable natural resources. Potential gaps between resource supply and demand will affect global economic growth and political stability, placing great strains on many countries and even leading to state failure and internal and regional conflict. The US and China will not only be affected indirectly by the impact of such regional developments but also will face the impact of resource constraints directly. Resource scarcities could lead to destabilizing price increases and, if extreme, even military conflict. On the other hand, strategic foresight-informed international cooperation could support measures to mitigate the supply-demand gap, enhance development and dissemination of technological solutions to resource scarcities, and provide assistance, especially food and water, where it is most needed. Monitoring, assessing, and providing warnings and recommendations for joint action to address these issues will be a continual challenge for the Vision Group.
Resource scarcity causes nuclear war
FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources.¶ Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world.¶ In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. .¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.”¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.”¶ This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.”¶ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves.¶ Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry.¶ A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon.¶ The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
Yes Warming Impact
Failure to solve warming causes extinction – geological history proves
Bushnell, NASA Langley Research Center chief scientist, 2010 (Dennis M. has a MS in mechanical engineering, won the Lawrence A. Sperry Award, AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award, the AIAA Dryden Lectureship, and is the recipient of many NASA Medals for outstanding Scientific Achievement and Leadership, "Conquering Climate Change," The Futurist 44. 3, May/Jun 2010, ProQuest)
Unless we act, the next century could see increases in species extinction, disease, and floods affecting one-third of human population. But the tools for preventing this scenario are in our hands. Carbon-dioxide levels are now greater than at any time in the past 650,000 years, according to data gathered from examining ice cores. These increases in CO2 correspond to estimates of man-made uses of fossil carbon fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The global climate computations, as reported by the ongoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies, indicate that such man-made CO2 sources could be responsible for observed climate changes such as temperature increases, loss of ice coverage, and ocean acidification. Admittedly, the less than satisfactory state of knowledge regarding the effects of aerosol and other issues make the global climate computations less than fully accurate, but we must take this issue very seriously. I believe we should act in accordance with the precautionary principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures become obligatory, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. As paleontologist Peter Ward discussed in his book Under a Green Sky, several "warming events" have radically altered the life on this planet throughout geologic history. Among the most significant of these was the Permian extinction, which took place some 250 million years ago. This event resulted in a decimation of animal life, leading many scientists to refer to it as the Great Dying. The Permian extinction is thought to have been caused by a sudden increase in CO2 from Siberian volcanoes. The amount of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere today, through human activity, is 100 times greater than what came out of those volcanoes. During the Permian extinction, a number of chain reaction events, or "positive feedbacks," resulted in oxygen-depleted oceans, enabling overgrowth of certain bacteria, producing copious amounts of hydrogen sulfide, making the atmosphere toxic, and decimating the ozone layer, all producing species die-off. The positive feedbacks not yet fully included in the IPCC projections include the release of the massive amounts of fossil methane, some 20 times worse than CO2 as an accelerator of warming, fossil CO2 from the tundra and oceans, reduced oceanic CO2 uptake due to higher temperatures, acidification and algae changes, changes in the earth's ability to reflect the sun's light back into space due to loss of glacier ice, changes in land use, and extensive water evaporation (a greenhouse gas) from temperature increases. The additional effects of these feedbacks increase the projections from a 4°C-6°C temperature rise by 2100 to a 10°C-12°C rise, according to some estimates. At those temperatures, beyond 2100, essentially all the ice would melt and the ocean would rise by as much as 75 meters, flooding the homes of one-third of the global population. Between now and then, ocean methane hydrate release could cause major tidal waves, and glacier melting could affect major rivers upon which a large percentage of the population depends. We'll see increases in flooding, storms, disease, droughts, species extinctions, ocean acidification, and a litany of other impacts, all as a consequence of man-made climate change. Arctic ice melting, CO2 increases, and ocean warming are all occurring much faster than previous IPCC forecasts, so, as dire as the forecasts sound, they're actually conservative.
Share with your friends: |