Category Archives: Government

Britain, Government, National Security, Russia, Society, United States

The Kremlin’s power to paralyse

WESTERN SECURITY

RUSSIA’S tentacles of sinister cyber operations are snaking out across the globe and pose the gravest of threats to Western security and democracy.

Recent revelations expose the sheer scale, breadth and audacity of the Kremlin-backed plots – and our vulnerability to this new brand of warfare.

Among those who were targeted were a British television network, the Democratic Party in America, public transport hubs in Ukraine, the US engineering giant Westinghouse, and the World Anti-Doping Agency based in Montreal – apparently hacked in a brazen act of revenge for showing Russia’s systematic abuse of the testing regime at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014.

Perhaps the most disturbing of all, however, was the unsuccessful attacks on our own soil – at the Foreign Office and Porton Down – and the foiled attempts by four Russian agents to hack the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague.

The OPCW is continuing to conduct investigations into the Salisbury novichok poisonings and the use of banned weapons by the Russian-backed Assad regime in Syria.

About a dozen or so “cyber-actors” have been identified as responsible, but they are all fronts for the GRU – the Russian military intelligence unit also implicated in the attempted assassination of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

Given are dependence on computers, its coordinated attacks have huge implications. Everything from cash machines to home heating systems, from electricity generators to mobile phones, and to the health service which is relying more on cyber technology. We have seen many times in recent years the enormous disruption caused by a temporary breakdown in service, as happened during the botched IT upgrade at the TSB bank.

Similarly, 18 months ago the NHS was hit by a major cyber problem, prompting the mass cancellations of appointments and operations. Then the North Korean government of Kim Jong-Un was cynical enough to take the blame and the fear inspired by that. But it is clear, from the wealth of mounting evidence, that the Russians certainly have the capability and determination to launch similar attacks.

If patients’ lives were put at risk by such a cyber-attack, it would create a real global panic – the cyber equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

That is why we should be worried. What is happening now in cyberspace is even more dangerous and certainly more unpredictable than the darkest days of the Cold War.

For all the anxieties back then about a nuclear stand-off, at least the hostility between the West and the Soviet Bloc was governed by respected boundaries. The rules – such as a prohibition on assassinations – were generally upheld. Both sides communicated with each other, partly from the need to avoid a nuclear apocalypse through a catastrophic misunderstanding.

That culture has disappeared. We live in a much more fluid world where restrictions on movement – especially in Europe – hardly exist at all. At any given moment there are probably more than 100,000 Russians in Britain, most of them wholly innocent and here to work, study or by enjoying a break. Yet that transient mass also provides cover for hostile intelligence agents.

Moreover, technology makes it much easier for someone to cause mayhem. During the Cold War, if the Soviets wanted to hit a water pumping station or sabotage an aircraft, they had to send in armed agents. Today, that could be accomplished from an office in Moscow or Kiev – just as computer programs can churn out millions of emails to damage businesses, influence elections and propagate fake news and untruths.

Then there are the armies of hackers in “troll” factories who spread and disseminate destabilising information, such as Hillary Clinton’s emails or the intricate medical details of Olympic cyclist Bradley Wiggins’ asthma prescriptions. The aim is to undermine public respect for Western politicians and heroes alike.

The fall of the Berlin Wall almost three decades ago was a remarkable triumph for freedom and capitalism over totalitarianism. But that ascendency lulled Western politicians into a false sense of security.

Russia, which has an economy no bigger than that of Britain or France, is showing almost by the day that if resources are focused on a certain area – in this case cyber warfare – then a nation can still have lethal power.

And we are only just coming to terms with it. Lord Ricketts, who served as Britain’s National Security Adviser until 2012, has warned that the recent plots are just the start, “pilot projects” to test defences in advance of a full-blooded cyber assault to bring anarchy to the West.

As President Putin’s invasion of Crimea and his support for the blood-soaked Assad regime in Syria has shown, he is not a man constrained by normal democratic values. Throughout his presidency he has been pushing at boundaries, seeing what he can get away with, what will provoke the West to act.

Now his dwindling popularity at home over his domestic agenda – particularly his attempt to raise the retirement age – makes it all the more imperative for him to wrap himself in the nationalist flag with high-profile attacks on the West.

 

AT least the complacency in Europe and America is beginning to lift and we are starting to fight back – such as when the Dutch defence minister, Ank Bijeveld, and Peter Wilson, the British ambassador to the Netherlands, explained how the OPCW conspiracy was foiled.

In the context of cyber warfare, the West has unparalleled expertise. The staff of both the US National Security Agency and our own formidable base at GCHQ in Cheltenham have world-beating abilities in hacking computers and other electronic devices.

So far, the West has proved far more restrained than Russia in deploying that expertise. There is only one documented case of Western agents using a computer against an enemy state’s infrastructure. That occurred when the Israelis and the Americans worked together to release the Stuxnet virus into the computers that operated Iran’s nuclear programme. It proved what the West can do if necessary.

But any escalation in cyber warfare is fraught with risk. A miscalculation by any rogue agents, anxious to ingratiate themselves with the Kremlin, could have disastrous consequences.

The reality of the new world disorder is one in which Putin is not only promoting, but relishing. We would do well to remember that.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

A Brexit Plan B is needed

BREXIT

TIME is running out for Theresa May to save her Chequers plan.

The Cabinet have given the Prime Minister one last chance to sell her proposals to EU leaders at a summit next week.

Ministers have now warned, however, they will demand a Plan B if there is a repeat of the humiliating rejection she faced in Salzburg last month.

European Union negotiators have been talking up the chances of reaching an agreement at the meeting on issues such as the Irish border. But, largely, they are still refusing to accept the proposals set out in Mrs May’s Chequers plan on how a trade deal could work.

The European Commission is expected to offer the UK a “supercharged” free trade deal but will reject about 60 to 70 per cent of the Prime Minister’s blueprint, including the demand for frictionless trade.

Despite the anticipated setback, ministers are planning to hold off on moves to force Mrs May into ditching her Chequers plan until after next week’s meeting in Brussels.

Hopes of a breakthrough in Brexit talks have continued to rise as Ireland said the chances of a deal were good.

Dublin’s deputy prime minister Simon Coveney said: “The withdrawal treaty is already about 90 per cent agreed in terms of text – the issues that have not been signed off yet relate predominately to Ireland and the two negotiating teams need to lock themselves in a room.”

The more optimistic remarks came after both European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker and his counterpart at the European Council, Donald Tusk, delivered an unusually upbeat message.

 

YET, Theresa May remains adamant that it is either her Brexit plan or nothing. Brexiteers, most notably Boris Johnson, takes issue with Mrs May’s assertion and set out an alternative approach that would keep the promises previously made to leave the EU in a manner that fulfils the referendum mandate to return control to the UK.

Mr Johnson resigned from the Cabinet in July in protest at the policy thrashed out at Chequers, so his antipathy to that plan is well known. But, in the meantime, it has become clear that not only does he and many Conservative (and Opposition) MPs oppose Chequers, but so does the EU. Mrs May’s humiliation at Salzburg should have convinced the Prime Minister that her way is a dead end. Instead, she has decided to plough ahead with a set of proposals hardly anyone thinks can work.

The alternative put forward by Mr Johnson – as it was by the European Research Group of Conservative MPs recently – is for Britain to seek a Canada-style trade deal when talks on the future relationship begin after Brexit.

Mrs May insists that this would not solve the problem of the Irish border, in that the so-called “backstop” to which she has agreed would mean Northern Ireland staying – unlike the rest of the UK – in a customs union with the EU, thus breaking the Union.

Mr Johnson’s answer to this conundrum is for Mrs May to withdraw that promise. As he appreciates, that would mean a different type of withdrawal agreement would have to be negotiated and the Irish border question settled as part of future economic arrangements. It would, indeed, be a “difficult step” for Mrs May, who made the ill-advised pledge last December in order to move on to the next stage of the talks, only to find that it is proving an insuperable stumbling block to an acceptable agreement.

It may be a difficult step, but it is one she must be ready to make if the impasse is to be broken. We are now just days away from what is supposed to be the summit to settle the withdrawal agreement and only six months away from the Brexit date itself. We need a Plan B, and Mr Johnson has offered one. Not only Mrs May, but the Cabinet, too, need to consider that with time running out fast, accelerating towards the cliff edge is no longer a realistic option.

. See also Scotland’s EU Continuity Bill now being tested in Supreme Court

Standard
Britain, Government, Health, Society

Saving the overmighty NHS with little platoons

BEVERIDGE & THE NHS

THE National Health Service, which celebrated its 70th anniversary this summer, is not only the standard-bearer for Britain’s welfare state but also the cuckoo in the nest. The institution is a source of national pride, much loved and admired by the public, but also a source of exasperation. Its regular winter crises and its ongoing struggles with issues such as bed-blocking by older patients and the inability in some cases to offer even a half-decent service – recent figures released suggests that one patient waited more than 62 hours for an ambulance – raises relevant questions about whether taxpayers are getting the services they pay for.

They are certainly paying for it. The NHS’s “birthday present” this year – additional spending of more than £20bn per annum by the early 2020s – will add to the cost of an NHS that already accounts for nearly a third of all spending on public services. This is up from 10% in the early 1950s, and costs about 12 times as much what it did when it was founded.

The financing of the NHS has gone well beyond anything Lord Beveridge envisaged in his 1942 report which provided the blueprint for the postwar welfare state in Britain. The NHS – large, monolithic and one of the biggest employers in the world – has also moved beyond Beveridge in another way.

His 1942 report was one of three he wrote during that decade, the others being Full Employment in a Free Society in 1944 and Voluntary Action in 1948. Before the welfare state was established, much healthcare and support for the poor were provided by a network of voluntary organisations. The system was patchy and fell short of the universal care that was provided in 1948 (and which has expanded hugely since).

Beveridge was clear that the welfare state and voluntary action should be complementary, writing that “the state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility” and should “leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual”.

Today, some are putting that into practice. HelpForce, for example, is, along with other charitable bodies, providing volunteer support to the NHS and is making a difference. Volunteers who ring patients to remind them of their appointments to attend memory clinics have lifted the attendance rate from 15% to 100%. Motorbike enthusiasts act as volunteer couriers, shipping around blood and other essential supplies.

These efforts are making a difference, but things could go much further. Most people do not even know they can volunteer in an NHS hospital. You might imagine, then, a Britain where millions of people are proud to be the HelpForce – a country where giving back to the NHS and other public services becomes ingrained in our social fabric, where you can expect companionship and support through your entire time in the health system and where communities support nurses and doctors.

It is an attractive proposition. David Cameron, the former prime minister, meant well when he launched his Big Society initiative in 2010. Allowing people to organise and provided for their communities would, he argued, represent “the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street”. Overcentralisation and bureaucracy had, he said, turned too many public sector workers into the “disillusioned, weary puppets of government targets”.

It is an ambition and a criticism that remain valid but Mr Cameron was, in most respects, the worst person to launch it. Coming hard on the heels of the government’s austerity programme, it looked to some like an attempt to get public services delivered on the cheap. And, perhaps more importantly, the key to building a bigger voluntary contribution should be from the ground up, not from the top of government down.

That entire experiment should not, however, be a source of discouragement. As the experience of HelpForce demonstrates, people want to volunteer and find their involvement fulfilling. Figures from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations show that 35% of men and 39% of women do formal voluntary work at least once a year. More than a fifth of both sexes volunteer once a month or more. There is also a huge untapped resource of people who do not currently volunteer but would like to do so.

There is an optimistic vision here of voluntary action, working in tandem with state-provided public services, to provide the care that our ageing population needs; pensioner numbers are set to increase by some 9million over the next 50 years. It is a vision that fits perfectly with the Beveridge vision of the welfare state. And it is one that should largely be embraced.

Standard