Will the United States attack China?

'On the outskirts of Shanghai, in a run-down neighborhood dominated by a 12-story white office tower, sits a People’s Liberation Army base for China’s growing corps of cyberwarriors,' according to the New York Times.

'The building off Datong Road, surrounded by restaurants, massage parlours and a wine importer, is the headquarters of P.L.A. Unit 61398. A growing body of digital forensic evidence — confirmed by American intelligence officials who say they have tapped into the activity of the army unit for years — leaves little doubt that an overwhelming percentage of the attacks on American corporations, organizations and government agencies originate in and around the white tower.'

“Either they are coming from inside Unit 61398,” said Kevin Mandia, the founder and chief executive of Mandiant, in an interview last week, “or the people who run the most-controlled, most-monitored Internet networks in the world are clueless about thousands of people generating attacks from this one neighborhood,” according to the New York Times.

The real issue to the attack is the US' Rules of Engagement in Cyberwarfare. In the days of David Patraeus, Pentagon and Washington drafted counter-responses to cyberattacks and foremost among the responses is a high chance and possibility of military strikes.

The Rules of Engagement as propounded by Pentagon targeted Iran majorly. Washington as at then believed the series of cyberattacks on the US was coming from Iran till experts proved the fictitious fact wrong.

Washington and Pentagon in the formulation of the Rules of Engagement were so abrasive. It was at the time when Israel was making heinous and calculative moves to launch an attack on Iran and bring Washington in.

Now that China is 'behind' the attacks though the allegation has been denied by the Chinese embassy in Washington, will the United States in the long run go ahead and fulfil the mission of her Rules of Engagement by attacking China?

Cyber Rules on the Rise in Europe and the US

Cyber warfare, crime and security is assuming a muscular dimension in the world. Different rules flow from the United States down to Europe. The war seems to have been taken to the media and financial institutions fully.

 

New York Times, Bloomberg News and Associated Press have all complained of cyber attacks especially from China. The US rules of engagement on cyberattack tilts towards military response.

 

On the part of the EU, over 40,000 firms, including energy providers, banks and hospitals could be required to report cyber-break-ins under new rules proposed by the EU.

It is part of a move to intensify global efforts to fight cybercrime.

Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said that Europe needed to improve how it dealt with cybersecurity.

But firms are concerned that reporting online attacks and security breaches might damage their reputations.

The EU is keen that member states share information about attacks and shore up their cyber-defences.

Under the proposals, each country would have to appoint a Computer Emergency Response Team and create an authority to whom companies would report breaches.

These new bodies would decide whether to make the breaches public and whether to fine companies.

Announcing the changes, Ms Kroes said: "Europe needs resilient networks and systems and failing to act would would impose significant costs on consumers, businesses and society."

According to the EU, only one in four European companies has a regularly-reviewed, formal ICT security policy. Even among ICT companies, the figure is only one in two, it said.

A recent study by accountants PwC suggested that three quarters of UK small businesses, and 93% of large ones, had recently suffered a cybersecurity breach.

Paul Kagame: A model for Africa

When I read about the genocide of Rwanda, I begin to wonder what sort of humans my people have turned into in Africa. Beasts. The conclusion and end to the genocide did not come from outside of the continent, at least Rwanda has no oil majorly or gold centrally. In that case, neither the US nor France can intervene.

Bill Clinton and the United Nations refused to label the genocide with its proper appellation thus extricating themselves of any R2P. The solution to the Hutus' killing of Tutsis came from the sagacious, bold and farsighted courage of a Rwandan himself; Paul Kagame.

Kagame raised a rebel group composed of Tutsis, the tribe being hatched in the pogrom and crossed into Rwanda from Uganda. After winning the battle against the Hutu majority, he became President and since then, he has led Rwanda to a glorious era in which ethnic animosity is fast becoming a forgotten past.

No other leader has achieved this feat in Africa; of leading a massively divided country based on ethnic bigotry into prosperous 'united' nation. Nigeria currently still finds it hard to discuss her ethnic divide from the past to the present especially finding ways to get off the hook of the Civil War.

Kagame continues to show the result of what dedicated leadership is. A book has been written about him and his leadership style. In the book authored by the New York Times bestselling author, Patricia Crisafulli and Andrea Redmond, he is said to lead more like a company's CEO than a political leader and that is exactly what he is. With just a secondary school certifcate, Kagame has shown great wisdom in governance. Read More