How Obama can respond to Russian hacking

As more details emerge about Russian hacking during the 2016 election, the US must be careful about resorting to retaliation. The world needs agreements that lessen the fear of cyberwarfare.

AP Photo
Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen in Japan Dec. 15, 2016. The Obama administration suggested Thursday that Mr. Putin personally authorized the hacking of Democratic officials’ email accounts in the run-up to the presidential election.

President Obama has promised a “proportional” response to the Russian cyberattack on the Democratic and Republican political committees during the 2016 election. In some ways, his dilemma over how to respond is similar to the one faced by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 at the height of the cold war. After the Soviet Union placed nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba, Kennedy had to ask: Exactly where will retaliation lead?

The dangerous standoff during the Cuban crisis taught Moscow and Washington a lesson about their reliance on the fear of mutual assured destruction with powerful weapons. Such a fear is not just mad, it can be counterproductive.

By 1964, the United States and Soviet Union started discussions that led to the first agreement to place restraints on nuclear and missile systems. More pacts followed as well as one for peaceful use of nuclear power.

Might Russia and the US be at a similar point in setting international norms to prevent cyberwarfare – and the promotion of cyberstability? The groundwork has been laid for such agreements.

About 68 countries have signed the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. In 2015, China and the US made an informal agreement that countries should not support cybertheft for commercial gain. The Group of Twenty nations has affirmed that international law applies to the conduct of governments in cyberspace. Meanwhile, a United Nations panel, known as the Group of Governmental Experts, continues talks on setting rules of the road in all areas of the cyber communication.

In a new book, “Securing Cyberspace – International and Asian Perspective,” India security expert Arvind Gupta writes: “Unlike the other commons, namely the land, sea and space, wherein international law has grown immediately, cyberspace is still largely lawless. Sustained discussion by international experts is necessary to generate ideas on the way forward towards building a consensus on cyber-security issues.”

Just as fear had to be addressed during the cold war’s reliance on nuclear weapons, so must the Digital Age come up with new codes of conduct. If the world can safeguard the Internet with rules, says Michael Fallon, Britain’s defense secretary, “A hundred years from now our successors will look back on this moment, the dawn of a new cyber age, as the moment when a potentially devastating threat turned into a dazzling economic and social opportunity.”

Mr. Obama’s response to the Russian hacking could be a defining moment, not for retaliation but for negotiations for peace in cyberspace.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.