Now Playing Tracks

Obama splits Chicago Summit, moves G8 meeting to Camp David

From the Chicago Tribune:  The G-8 economic summit will be held at Camp David, not in Chicago as had been scheduled.

The White House announced the surprise change in the following statement:

“In May, the United States looks forward to hosting the G-8 and NATO Summits. To facilitate a free-flowing discussion with our close G-8 partners, the president is inviting his fellow G-8 leaders to Camp David on May 18-19 for the G-8 Summit, which will address a broad range of economic, political and security issues.

“The president will then welcome NATO allies and partners to his hometown of Chicago for the NATO Summit on May 20-21, which will be the premier opportunity this year for the president to continue his efforts to strengthen NATO in order to ensure that the Atlantic Alliance remains the most successful  alliance in history, while charting the way forward in Afghanistan.” 

Mayor Rahm Emanuel had personally lobbied his old boss, President Barack Obama, to host both summits. It would have been the first time since 1977 in London that the two organizations held meetings in the same city at the same time.

Emanuel’s office put out a statement this afternoon saying he wished “President Obama and the other leaders well at the G8 meeting at Camp David and look forward to hosting the NATO Summit in Chicago.

“Hosting the NATO Summit is a tremendous opportunity to showcase Chicago to the world and the world to Chicago and we are proud to host the 50 heads of state, foreign and defense ministers from the NATO and ISAF countries in our great city May 19-21.”

Chicago police estimated that 2,000 to 10,000 demonstrators were expected to show up for the overlapping G-8 and NATO summits.  At least two major demonstrations were already planned for downtown during the summit, and organizers said they wanted to send crowds of marchers down Michigan Avenue in the middle of the day… .

The head of a Chicago anti-war organization says the decision by the White House to move the G-8 summit is a major victory for protesters.

Joe Iosbaker is with the United National Antiwar Committee in Chicago and was helping to coordinate dozens of groups that planned to protest the twin NATO and G-8 summits in May.  He said the G-8 summit was moved because it had become a major source of controversy.

Iosbaker said the protests will go on during the NATO summit “because the agendas are the same: war and poverty.”

Some people involved in the planning of the summits in Chicago were stunned by the news and said they had no advanced warning of the change in plans.

Rick Jasculca, whose public relations firm has been advising World Business Chicago, the group Emanuel selected to lead the summit effort, said he learned of the change from breaking news announcements.   (photo: Reuters)

EUCOM commander says withdrawing 11,500 troops from Europe is a ‘manageable’ risk

From John Vandiver, Stars and Stripes:  While reducing the U.S. troop presence in Europe will mean assuming some additional risks, new measures such as a decision to deploy V-22s to Europe will help the military maintain its ability to respond quickly to a crisis in the region, the head of U.S. European Command told a congressional committee Wednesday.

“It’s a manageable amount of risk,” EUCOM commander Adm. James Stavridis said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

Stavridis said the loss of two Air Force air control squadrons in Europe will be offset by the deployment of V-22 Osprey to Europe. Stavridis stopped short of saying how many of the tilt-rotor aircraft would be sent or where the aircraft would be located.

Stavridis said the drawdown of 11,500 troops in Europe, most coming from the loss of two Army brigades, will be mitigated by rotating troops through Europe from a “dedicated brigade in the United States.”  (photo: Reuters)

U.S. Ranked 4th in Cyber Defense

From Zachary Fryer-Biggs, Defense News:  The U.S. ranked behind Finland, Israel and Sweden in a new report analyzing the ability of countries to defend themselves against cyber attacks. The report pointed to information-sharing limitations as one of the key stumbling blocks for U.S. security, giving the country four out of a possible five stars.

“Government only inhales, it never exhales,” said Jason Healey, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council. He was part of a panel assembled for the release of the report Jan. 30. “It will take all the information, but it will find any excuse to not share.”

The reputational rankings appeared in “Cyber-security: The vexed question of global rules,” a report based on surveys with 250 leaders in 35 countries that rated 23 countries. Produced by the Security & Defense Agenda, a Brussels-based think tank, and the cybersecurity company McAfee, the report used a methodology developed by Robert Lentz, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber, that measures preparedness based upon a country’s technology and available pool of expertise.

While ranked as even with Germany, France and the United Kingdom, among others, the United States was ahead of China and Russia, which only received three stars. The two countries are often cited as the source of the vast majority of cyber attacks, with those emanating from China appearing to be state-sponsored espionage and those from Russia likely financial crime related.  (graphic:  McAfee)

NATO allies grapple with shrinking defense budgets

From Craig Whitlock, the Washington Post:  NATO allies are confronting a sustained weakening of the military alliance as ailing economies are forcing nearly all members, including the United States, to accelerate cuts to their defense budgets at the same time.

The Pentagon’s recent decision to eliminate two of the Army’s four brigades in Europe is the latest blow to NATO’s military capabilities. It extends a year of grim announcements from members of the alliance that they can no longer afford their security commitments and that a long period of austerity is in the offing.

Obama administration officials warned last year that European members of NATO could no longer expect the United States to shoulder a disproportionate burden of maintaining the 28-member alliance, the bedrock of trans-Atlantic security and diplomacy since the end of World War II. The United States accounts for 75 percent of all NATO defense spending, up from 50 percent during the Cold War.

Instead of coming forward, however, European members of NATO are in retreat. Britain announced troop cuts this month that will eventually shrink the size of its army by nearly one-fifth; it already has mothballed its only aircraft carrier.

Germany is trimming the size of its armed forces by a similar amount and canceling orders for fighter jets, helicopters and other weapons systems. Italy, which imposed deep defense cuts two years ago, is confronting another round that could include steep reductions in the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters — a U.S.-made plane — that it had planned to buy… .

U.S. and NATO officials fret that the cutbacks will further erode military weaknesses that were exposed during last year’s air war in Libya. Several European countries quickly ran out of munitions and had to order them on an emergency basis from Washington. European militaries also lacked capability to refuel their own planes or conduct adequate surveillance from the air.

“If there ever was a time in which the United States could always be counted on to fill the gaps that may emerge in European defense, that time is rapidly coming to an end,” Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, told reporters in Washington last month.

At the same time, Europe’s austere economic outlook is leading to a “further weakening of the core ability to defend ourselves,” said Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide.    (graphic: Peter Schrank/Economist)

Digital Spies: The Alarming Rise of Electronic Espionage

From Adam Piore, Popular Mechanics:  The first warning that hackers had penetrated the American oil company came soon after the initial breach, in the summer of 2009. The computer help desk received complaints from employees who were locked out of their accounts or whose computers had already been logged onto. 
 
Then the complaints abruptly ceased: The digital spies had obtained an administrator password and were intercepting help-desk tickets, unlocking accounts, and notifying users that their problems had been fixed. With that access, the hackers copied thousands of confidential emails—including those of top executives—and transmitted them to China in massive files late at night, after the oil company’s employees had left for the day. 
 
By the time the FBI informed the company of suspicious network traffic in the summer of 2010, Chinese firms had outbid the oil company on several high-stakes acquisitions by just a few thousand dollars. But it could have been far worse: For months, malware that allowed the hackers to take over terminals had been burrowing deeper into the company’s systems and had wormed its way into computers that controlled oil-drilling and pipeline operations. 
 
“People were alarmed that their email was compromised, but the hackers could have crippled the business,” says Jonathan Pollet, the founder of Red Tiger Security in Houston. In early 2011, Pollet helped the oil company identify some of the hackers’ breaches; he refused to name the company, citing a confidentiality agreement. 
 
The example Pollet cites is just one incident in an ongoing, aggressive campaign of electronic espionage that costs U.S. firms billions of dollars, endangers our military secrets, and threatens to erode our technological edge, as computer hackers—often but not exclusively traced to China—help their clients, and their countries, gain the upper hand in business deals and steal intellectual property. (An October 2011 report prepared for the Director of National Intelligence titled “Foreign Spies Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace” explicitly accuses China and Russia of hacking U.S. companies, calling Chinese hackers “the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.”) 
 
The phenomenon blurs the lines between white-collar crime, international spying, and even acts of war, but the attacks are known in the intelligence community as advanced persistent threats, or APTs. Well-financed, patient teams of hackers that U.S. intelligence agencies believe are backed by foreign governments now constitute a major national security risk. The hackers use tactics that are inherently difficult to trace and choose targets that have deep roots within U.S. infrastructure, government, and military. Recent news accounts have identified APT victims that include Google, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Morgan Stanley, Dow Chemical, Symantec, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, to name just a few. 
 
Private industry is understandably reluctant to reveal such breaches, even to the government: If a digital attack strikes fear in the hearts of a company’s executives, one can only imagine how it would make shareholders feel. But digital spying is like a cockroach infestation—for every one that you see, thousands thrive out of view. “I can’t find an organization, an entity, a business, or a department that hasn’t suffered from cyber intrusions,” says Gordon M. Snow, assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division. “If they really believe they haven’t, they’re just not aware of it yet.” 
 
In August 2011, a report by the security firm McAfee detailed hacks into some 72 public and private computer networks in 14 countries and warned of “the biggest transfer of wealth in terms of intellectual property in history.” 
 
Technology theft is the most common motive for digital espionage, but China and other nations have used it to squelch internal political dissent as well. Stolen source code from Google was used to hack into the accounts of Chinese dissidents, and after an Iranian hacker broke into Dutch security firm DigiNotar, the stolen technology was used to help his government spy on troublemakers in Iran. These attacks can cause collateral damage that compromises the security of everyone online. Digital security certificates from DigiNotar were part of the basic verification system of the Internet. If you can fake one of those, you can fool a browser into thinking any site is safe… .
 
Computer espionage has a history almost as long as that of the modern Internet. In the late 1980s, the German hacker Markus Hess and several associates were recruited by the KGB to penetrate computers at American universities and military labs. They made off with sensitive semiconductor, satellite, space, and aircraft technologies. Today, China, Israel, and Russia are reportedly the most aggressive about stealing secrets. But China is playing a game of a different magnitude. “The Chinese didn’t create this problem,” [former head of U.S. counterintelligence during the Bush and Obama administrations JoelBrenner says. “But there’s no question China is the worst offender now. They are all over us. It’s just relentless… .” 
 
Byzantine Hades, linked to the People’s Liberation Army Chengdu Military Region First Technical Reconnaissance Bureau, an electronic espionage unit of the Chinese military. According to the cables, Byzantine Hades targeted not only the U.S. government and industry, but also high-level European officials. The Chinese hackers even managed to remotely activate the computer microphones and Web cameras of French officials so they could peek in on everything from office gossip to high-level diplomatic planning sessions. In the past, surveillance like that would have required spies to know where their targets were staying and mic the room—but in the age of cellphones and laptops, spies can listen in on foreign officials half a world away.  (graphic: Popular Mechanics)

Poland: NATO can’t keep subsidising Afghan army

From Gabriela Baczynska, Reuters:  Afghanistan cannot expect current levels of Western financial aid for its armed forces to be sustained beyond 2014, when NATO forces plan to pull out, Poland’s defence minister said on Thursday.

European members of the alliance have been coming under pressure to help sustain the Afghan armed forces after NATO’s planned withdrawal.

But Tomasz Siemoniak signalled that Poland, the largest ex-communist NATO member with nearly 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, was not willing to pass on the so-called ”transition dividend” - money it now spends on maintaining its presence there - to Kabul after 2014.

“No country can be subsidised indefinitely,” he told Reuters in an interview. 

He said Afghanistan needed to be focused on building political stability to attract investors.

“My perspective is more political and military than economic. I believe what will be going on in Afghanistan beyond 2014 will depend on political stability. Now it’s hard to imagine somebody investing money in such an unstable country,” Siemoniak said… .

NATO’s mission to Afghanistan and international aid currently account for more than 60 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), Siemoniak said.

European Union defence ministers will discuss the issue in Brussels next month, before a meeting of NATO heads of state and government in Chicago in May, he said.  (photo: AP)

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union