With each passing day, computer hacking against countries, organizations and people is forcing the subject of cybersecurity to the top of national security agendas.

An estimated 42.8 million cyber attacks will take place this year, according to experts. Scaling up to meet this challenge is why more than 140 people from science, politics, business and the military attended the fourth annual Cyber Security Summit at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) on Sept. 19-20.

The Munich Security Conference and Deutsche Telekom sponsored the event. CISAC is in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Participants delved deep into issues associated with today’s online world, including how to balance privacy and civil liberties with the need for intelligence, for example. Discussions ranged on questions such as:

• What will the future of warfare look like – human soldiers or killer robots?

• How do we ensure that technological progress does not escape human control?

• What are the biggest challenges combatting the online activities of groups like the Islamic State?

• What are the possible cyberspace conflicts between the U.S., Russia and China?

• Are countries ready for cyber attacks against key infrastructure such as energy, water and utilities, or the U.S. election system, for example?

Electoral impact

In a talk on cyber attacks and the U.S. elections, panelists discussed how such electoral manipulation in the ongoing presidential campaign might happen, and what could be done about it. While it was noted that foreign adversaries could undermine the American public’s confidence in its election system, one expert pointed out that it’s unlikely to occur undetected on a widespread basis.

Credibility is now the battlefield, one panelist said. If hacking occurs, how will an election be validated? The track record shows that Russian has attempted to influence elections in Eastern Europe, so hacking into U.S. political entities is their way to sow doubt among voters.

The economic costs of cyber attacks – $400 to $500 billion a year was one participant’s estimate – and “cyberspace norms” were other issues explored. Countries and companies are grappling with the losses associated with these incursions, and with how – and who – should set the rules for the “digital game.”

On encryption, questions in one discussion revolved around how the public and private sectors can resolve such issues, how far data privacy could be compromised for effective intelligence work, and vice versa.

Online jihadism was another subject. The conference panelists talked about which tools are most effective in countering jihadist propaganda and recruitment on the Internet. Also, the need for Europe and the U.S. to work together on such fronts was mentioned.

CISAC and FSI participants included Amy Zegart, co-director of CISAC and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; Martin Hellman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering; among others. Other attendees hailed from U.S. and European Union agencies and businesses, and local Silicon Valley companies.

Zegart said a collaborative spirit and drive for innovation characterizes Stanford. “In the past three years, we have built an exciting program dedicated to educating current and future cyber leaders, producing policy-driven knowledge, and convening leaders across sectors and borders,” she wrote in the program guide.

McFaul, in his opening statement, noted the origins of CISAC – it was created when there was a different technological concern – nuclear materials. Then, scientists and social scientists at CISAC got together to work on nuclear proliferation. Today, the threat is cyber attacks, and CISAC is confronting this challenge. He said the scariest briefing he had in his ambassador position at the U.S. Department of State was on cybersecurity.

For his discussion on terrorism, Hellman brought pages of pro-encryption quotes from government officials. He suggested end-to-end encryption was good for Americans.

Crossing borders

The Munich Security Conference is considered to be the most important informal meeting on security policy. Outside speakers included Michael Cherthoff, former secretary of Homeland Security; Jane Holl Lute, the under secretary general for the United Nations; and Christopher Painter, coordinator for cyber issues at the U.S. Department of State.

Wolfgang Ischinger, the chair of the Munich Security Conference, said at the press conference that, “cybersecurity has over the last few years evolved to be one of the most indispensable agenda items.”

The “quest for rules” in cyberspace, he noted, is overwhelmingly difficult and vitally important.

Thomas Kremer, board member for co-sponsor Deutsche Telekom AG, said, “cyber attacks don’t accept national borders.” Cybersecurity has become a global issue, he explained, with ramifications for countries, companies and everyday people.

He added, “Our chances to fight cyber crime are far better when we collaborate.”

Stanford and CISAC are at the forefront of the national discussion on cybersecurity. The university launched the Stanford Cyber Initiative; hosted President Obama’s cybersecurity summit and defense secretary Ashton Carter’s unveiling of a new U.S. cyber strategy; and CISAC and the Hoover Institution have teamed up in recent years for media roundtables and Congressional bootcamps on cybersecurity.

Finally, CISAC senior research scholar Joe Felter and other experts held Hacking for Defense & Diplomacy class for educators and sponsors on Sept. 7-9. (See the final class presentations here). In spring 2016, they held the first such class to train students in cybersecurity for defense purposes. Steve Blank, a consulting associate professor in the Stanford School of Engineering’s Department of Management Science and Engineering, helped develop the class. This fall, they will prototype a Hacking for Diplomacy course at Stanford.

Click here for the Munich Security Conference’s agenda for this event and a list of participants. 

The international order is unraveling, according to a Stanford scholar. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has generally served as the top leader in this world order. But now the power equation is shifting, and the U.S. may see more countries challenging global rules and norms.

Three key factors threaten the distribution of power and authority among nations, said political scientist Amy Zegart, co-director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. But, she said, America can take a “pragmatic” approach to protecting its national interests.

The rise of China, more dangerous non-state actors than ever before and the weakening of international institutions are converging to create greater global instability, Zegart said.

Zegart co-wrote a journal article with Stanford political scientist Stephen Krasner about the benefits of a “pragmatic engagement” approach for the U.S. They also co-chaired a Hoover Institution working group on foreign policy and grand strategy to examine these issues.

If China continues to grow economically at its current rate, it will displace the U.S. as the country with the most material resources in the world, a position the latter has held for more than a century, Zegart said. Such a scenario comes with risks.

“It would mark the first time a great power would be a developing nation,” she said. “This has profound implications for the international order.”

For example, will China become a responsible stakeholder within the existing rules of the global order, Zegart said, or will it challenge that order?

“The record so far is decidedly mixed,” she said, noting that even if China wants to uphold the international economic and political order, it’s not clear that it can, based on its domestic political situation.

Challenges to power

On terrorism, technology has given weak states, non-state actors and even lone individuals the ability to wage cyberattacks, biological attacks and – potentially – nuclear attacks, according to Zegart.

“In this world, uncertainty abounds,” she said. In such an environment, people and even nations tend to retreat and not engage outside their spheres. “That’s part of the reason why in a recent survey, more than half of all Americans said they felt less safe today than they did on 9/11.”

Finally, international institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union are “misaligned with power realities,” as Zegart describes it.

“Institutions freeze into place the power relationships that exist at the time of their creation. They struggle to adapt to change. We see this at the domestic level, too. The U.S. government is built around a 1947 national security architecture that has a hard time adapting to 21st-century challenges, from cyberthreats to homeland security,” she said.

In the short term, Zegart said, the world is likely to see more contests for influence and more actors challenging what the United States will do. When the U.S. is not the guarantor of this order, the dynamic invites boundary testing.

“We see this with Iran’s missile testing, even after the Iran deal. We see it with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s computers. We see it with China’s aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea. We see it with North Korea’s escalation in the frequency of its nuclear and missile tests,” Zegart said.

Boundary testing is not healthy for international relations – it raises the odds of crisis escalation. “Meanwhile, leaders are so busy managing the crisis du jour that seeing emerging dangers becomes much more difficult,” Zegart said.

To address the challenges, U.S. national security policymakers should “return to the basics and ask what our objectives are in a more chaotic world and what strategies we think will best achieve them, and then deploy resources to meet those objectives,” Zegart said.

Guiding principles

The working group that she and Krasner co-chaired advocated three guiding principles for U.S. national security strategy.

“First, we have to be unapologetic about the pursuit of American economic and security interests, and more tempered in the pursuit of our ideals. We have always as a nation stood for universal freedoms but we have pursued those freedoms abroad in different ways, to different degrees, in different times as the external environment demanded and internal capabilities allowed,” she said.

Zegart said the U.S. should lead by democratic example, not democratic imposition.

“The most fruitful path toward spreading democracy is not toppling dictators without a clear path to a successor regime. It comes from bolstering civil society for internal transitions to democracy and demonstrating the benefits of democracy here at home,” she said.

Second, the U.S. can reform the international order by bolstering alliances and regional organizations, Zegart said. This includes Europe and the Asia Pacific region, and international institutions like the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

“We are advocating pragmatic international engagement, not isolationism,” she said.

Third, Zegart suggests that America can develop flexible unilateral capabilities that can be deployed against a wide array of increasing threats.

“The world is uncertain and our resources are limited. Smarter spending starts with developing more agile military capabilities and more robust non-military levers to advance our vital interests. We need Pentagon acquisition reform, moving from exorbitant, niche weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and investing in low-cost unmanned systems and cyber capabilities,” she said.

Zegart noted that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is working hard to reform the way the Pentagon does business, but he faces resistance from entrenched interests.

As for the domestic and political impacts of a less stable world, Zegart said it is difficult to foresee all the consequences.

But she pointed to some disturbing indicators: growing chaos across the Middle East, rising nationalism in the U.S. and Europe, rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific region and domestic politics in many countries.

“I worry about rising political violence, erosion of trust in many institutions, not just political ones, and the backsliding of democracy, both in the United States and abroad,” she said.

Contact

Amy Zegart, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-4202, zegart@stanford.edu

Clifton B. Parker, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-6488, cbparker@stanford.edu

Biosecurity leaders gathered at Stanford this week to offer new ideas and perspectives on a wide range of issues critical to societal health.

The conference, “Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity,” began Sept. 13 with a trip to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the East Bay. The second day featured a series of panel discussions on the Stanford campus. The fellows, chosen by the UPMC Center for Health Security, hailed from a wide array of backgrounds, including biological science, medicine, policy, the military, law, public health and the private sector.

Biosecurity and its relationship to global health is a key issue for Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), which hosted and helped organize the conference along with the sponsoring UPMC Center. The conference was sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the emerging leaders program run by the UPMC. 

With rapid advances in technology and science, biosecurity is increasingly focused on how harmful biological agents could become national security threats and risks.

‘A changing world’

David Relman, co-director of CISAC, addressed the fellows on Wednesday with remarks on the origins of CISAC’s involvement in biosecurity. Relman, a professor in the departments of medicine, and microbiology and immunology, later served as a panelist in a discussion on biosecurity and national and international policy.

Megan Palmer, a fellow and CISAC senior research scholar on biosecurity, panel moderator and organizer of the conference, described the program as one that “brings together some of the most talented and committed rising leaders from multiple organizations and disciplines critical to national and international biosecurity.”

She noted, “Stanford's biosecurity programs are focused on developing strategies for biosecurity in a changing world. Today we face complex biosecurity challenging ranging from emerging infectious diseases, intentional misuse of biotechnology, and potential accidents and unintentional consequences of our increasing ability to manipulate living systems.”

At the same time, biotechnology continues to be an important and growing part of the global economy, Palmer said. “Our scholarship and engagement work seeks to developing new ways to think about and act in this changing environment.”

Research focus

Through the “emerging leaders” program, fellows deepen their expertise in biosecurity, build leadership skills, and forge networks of lasting professional relationships, she added.

The two-day conference included talks on threat awareness, biodetection, a “viral storm” exercise, bioengineering research, computational biology and national security, biosecurity and national and international policy, the evolving biotechnology field, among other topics.

Stanford participants and speakers included CISAC’s William Perry, the former secretary of defense; Drew Endy, a Stanford associate professor of bioengineering; Tim Stearns, chair of the biology department; Milana Trounce, clinical associate professor of emergency medicine; and Manu Prakash, assistant professor of bioengineering.

CISAC activity in biosecurity includes research on:

• Risks in misusing the emerging life sciences;
• Social and political factors behind drug-resistant antibiotics, leading to an tight pipeline for new drugs;
• Examining the ethical responsibilities of scientists in this field and the needs for regulation;
• Anticipating and pre-empting the misuse of biotechnology by people with the intent to do harm.

Matthew Watson, a senior analyst for the UPMC Center, said, “It is difficult to imagine a more fitting venue for the fall Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity workshop than Stanford. Few institutions can bring together this array of world class talent, including leaders from national security, the life sciences, and the private sector.”

Back in February, the UPMC Center for Health Security chose its 2016 fellows and launched the program with a Washington, D.C. workshop in March.

With nuclear policy an increasingly serious issue in the world today, a Stanford scholar suggests in a newly published paper that the U.S. presidential candidates explain their viewpoints on these topics to the American people.

The journal article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists includes six questions on nuclear terrorism, proliferation, weapons policy and energy developed by Siegfried Hecker, a nuclear scientist and senior fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Hecker served as a director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory before coming to Stanford. He is a world-renowned expert in plutonium science, global threat reduction and nuclear security. Hecker suggests that journalists and the public ask the candidates for the U.S. presidency the following questions:

• "Do you believe that nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats facing the United States, and, if so, what will you do to invigorate international cooperation to prevent it?

• How will you attempt to roll back North Korea’s increasingly threatening and destabilizing nuclear weapon program?

• Will you continue to support the (Iranian nuclear) deal and, if so, how will you work with Iran, quell dissent among our allies in the region, and answer criticism here at home?

• Do you plan to continue building a strategic partnership with India, and, if so, how will you reassure Pakistan that the U.S. insistence on nuclear restraint in South Asia includes not just Pakistan, but India as well?

• Will you continue to push for a reduced role for nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy? If so, will you promote further nuclear arms reductions and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? And if Russia and China stay their current course, how will you deal with US nuclear modernization, and how will you reassure America’s allies?

• What are your plans for the domestic nuclear power industry and for the role the United States will play in this sector internationally?"

In his article, Hecker describes the context surrounding many of these questions. For example, he noted that the alarming acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal in the last six years indicates that the current U.S. policy approach to that country needs to be revisited.

Also, Hecker points out the complexity of the current nuclear arms situation worldwide. Both Russia and China have expanded their nuclear systems and are pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy. On the other hand, every president of the post-Cold War era has reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons for its national security.

In the article “Debate Over Trump’s Fitness Raises Issue of Checks on Nuclear Power,” published in The New York Times on August 4th, CISAC senior fellow Scott D. Sagan discusses historical evidence showing a close nuclear call – and how it was diverted – during Nixon’s presidency. Highlighting the ambiguous state of nuclear checks and balances, Sagan claims that the U.S. “would be in uncharted waters if a president ordered the use of nuclear weapons and the secretary of defense refused”. To read the full article, click here.