A Global Crossroads: A World without Borders, or a Star Wars Shield?

"There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age."

-- President Ronald Reagan, "Star Wars" Speech, 1983

The year is 2025 -- it has been ten years since Russian separatists detonated a nuclear bomb that destroyed Moscow. The attack produced an unprecedented alliance between Russia and the United States, joined by a coalition of states who were determined to rid the world of terrorism once and for all. Unfortunately, it wasn't that easy. The developed world had not anticipated the extent of growing extremism in the third world. What had earlier been seen as a ramification of religious extremism was now understood to constitute a broader brand of radicalization and violence triggered by increasing disparities of wealth and social justice. The world stood at the precipice of an existential struggle between the "haves" and "have nots." Terrorist training camps and safe havens had steadily grown in number and sophistication. More states had failed and regional conflicts engulfed significant parts of the world. Terrorists were collaborating in brazen attacks against the energy sector and the power grid across the globe. The world's financial system had been targeted for attack, which had caused costly runs on banks and the stock market. Cyber attacks had crippled the greater London area for months. A spectacular attempt to conduct a kinetic cyber attack to take down the three gorges dam in China had been narrowly averted. A new generation of multinational pirates were cruising the high seas, armed to the teeth.  Outbreaks of infectious disease and regional conflicts over scarce resources reflected the unfolding manifestations of global warming. Religious ultra-extremists found common ground as a basis to unify their efforts - in fulfilling the apocalyptic signs of the end of times.

As the world's industrial leaders gathered at an emergency summit in Geneva, the burning question was whether it was too late to restore world order. What actions could be taken to stem the rising tide of terrorism?  The United States, Russia, Japan and the European Union argued that it was too late to reverse increasing levels of instability in parts of the world; they proposed that a "Star Wars" shield be constructed to defend member states, cutting off regions that were no longer governable. It was no longer a viable strategy to occupy countries in order to eliminate threats emanating from within.  Military-intelligence teams would be launched to take out any signs of terrorist attacks, training camps, and safe havens in their formative stages. All travel to and from the outside world would be severely restricted. Such a shield would employ the world's latest scientific and technological advances in order to exclude any possibility that terrorists could infiltrate the alliance. An impenetrable supercomputer would reside at the core of the defenses, capable of controlling the shield's offensive and defensive systems -- and control everyone coming in and out of its protected zones.

Constructing such a shield was not punitive:  a policy of benign neglect would be instituted concerning outlaw areas that fell outside the protection of the shield. The list of lost regions would be reviewed and updated continuously, based on success in eliminating extremism and restoring order to them.  To further that goal, the alliance would issue a declaratory statement to encourage people on the outside to meet specific standards in hopes they could one day join the alliance. In the final analysis, however, collective security would be assured through a containment strategy of denying terrorists a platform anywhere in the world from which to launch strikes into the protected spaces.

That proposal was countered by China, supported by a group of non aligned and third world states. China argued that such a shield was not technologically feasible; the means of violence would outpace our ability to defend ourselves. Moreover, we had failed to address the root causes of terrorism. Notably, the systemic problems of globalization left unresolved after the financial crash of 2009 had finally come home to roost. This was exacerbated by the fact that a world under stress was less a product of man's intentions than of the unintended consequences of man's actions. For example, understanding complex interdependencies was necessary to assess the impact of energy choices on the environment. There was no consensus, but all parties agreed that a shield that separated the world in two parts would frustrate efforts to tackle borderless problems that affect all mankind.

Participants adjourned to consider their options, in agreement that the world had reached a cross roads. The destiny of all people would be forever intertwined, that much was clear.  The only question was whether we would face an uncertain future together - or go our separate ways.

Time to wake up. It is just a bad dream. Or, is it?

Such an Orwellian fulfillment of President Reagan's original "Star Wars" vision may be stark, but if it seems unimaginable, then perhaps it is a sign we are not tracking where the world is heading. A growing number of intractable problems can no longer be solved by the existing institutions, mechanisms and approaches of a bygone age. We rarely eliminate problems; rather, we keep adding new ones to the list. It is time to forge a collective security consciousness that will enable us to develop unprecedented ways of working together to solve shared problems.

Consider the role of intelligence in this regard.  The world needs an intelligence edge more than ever to solve the problems of the 21^st century. The intelligence cycle consisting of requirements, collection, analysis and dissemination of information is well-suited for application to a wide range of threats and problem sets. Yet, intelligence organizations continue to primarily serve national interests. Intelligence nurtured a culture of secrecy in response to espionage-centric requirements of the Cold War. A decision advantage in this era generally consisted of providing privileged information from a well placed spy concerning a rival state's true plans and intentions.  Such sources were precious and had to be protected.  After the collapse of the bipolar world, however, there were widespread doubts as to the continued relevance of intelligence. The discovery of clandestine nuclear programs, a rise in regional conflicts, and a "hydra's head" of transnational threats including terrorism, crime and narcotics, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction reminded us that timely intelligence remained an essential element of decision making. More investments were made in surveillance systems, especially satellites, to peer into denied areas. A greater emphasis was placed on using intelligence to undertake executive action in order to eliminate threats. This trend reflected the diminishing effectiveness of other levers of statecraft, as well as recognition that intelligence had a global reach.

These developments in intelligence work were harbingers of revelations to come. The 9/11 attacks erased doubts concerning the evolving threats of the 21st century. This was not just an attack against America; it was a declaration of war against world order.  Most now see terrorism and weapons of mass destruction as being strategic threats with a global character.  Many do not yet see that these evil twins have been joined by siblings compounding the challenges to global security. These new threats can not be fully appreciated, much less eliminated, by states acting alone. In the final analysis, national security can no longer be assured without achieving collective security. A complete re-examination of intelligence  requirements, collection, and analysis in this context could begin by drawing up a new list of top priorities, including:

• Nuclear Threats
• Biological Weapons Threats
• Terrorism
• Patterns of Global Extremism
• Proliferation
• Supplier & Smuggling Networks
• Organized Crime & Narcotics
• Human Security, Poverty, Human Rights
• Regional Conflicts, Instability, and Genocide
• Failed States, Piracy
• Infectious Disease, AIDS
• Energy and Environmental Security
• Threats to the Global Financial System
• Threats to Critical Infrastructure
• Cyber Threats

Taking on these sorts of requirements presents special challenges for intelligence organizations. Why? Threats overlap; a development in one area will affect others. Some are man made. Others belong to natural systems that defy classical intelligence analysis. All are borderless, unpredictable, and non linear in terms of trend lines and patterns. They flow from a broader set of global trends that are interdependent, unfolding rapidly, and not well understood, especially in governments. Consequently, intelligence's ability to provide reliable foresight and warning of impending events and crises has become more problematic. A failure to provide early warning will not only impact negatively on the security of individual states; it will hold even greater consequences for collective security, because a lack of preparedness will be magnified. Yet, few international institutions possess the action orientation, global knowledge system, resources, and networking capabilities that could substitute for intelligence's role in assuring security.  Thus, intelligence organizations must adapt to meet new threats - or have the courage to discard traditional structures and methodologies if they prove to be unsuitable for the task at hand.

For any intelligence organization to be successful, collection and analysis of information must be tailored to fulfill critical requirements. It follows that the ways and means of collection and analysis should vary, depending on what must be provided to decision makers to undertake effective action. Mindful of this driving objective, the answers to a set of baseline questions could define the raison d'etre of global intelligence and determine its scope, missions, structure, and methodologies:

• What is the purpose of intelligence?
• How can intelligence best serve national and global security?
• What is the role of secrecy?
• What types of intelligence support do decision makers need?
• What is the role for intelligence in taking direct action?
• What information must be collected?
• What is the best means to acquire this information?
• What new analytical tools and methodologies are required?
• How should information be shared to have greatest impact?
• How should intelligence interact with non governmental entities?

This partial list of questions is intended to spark a deeper dialogue on the merits of creating a global intelligence organization, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations. Such an organization should be focused on setting requirements that help assure our collective security interests. Such an organization should collaborate with national intelligence services to augment their efforts, not compete with them.  It should serve as a center for experimental forms of collection and analysis appropriate for multilateral work.  It should recognize that some of the best practices no longer reside in governments, e.g., cutting edge business intelligence and investigative research techniques may prove more appropriate and productive than employing clandestine modus operandi. Moreover, many of the best experts do not work in intelligence organizations or in governments. Analytic tradecraft should be tailored to decipher complex, interdependent problem sets, leveraging the best minds in and out of governments. Open source exploitation should be emphasized and espionage disavowed in global intelligence practice. A "need to share" ethic should replace the "need to know" principle in sharing information in areas affecting collective security. Information should be classified only when necessary and transparent, timely sharing should prevail with rare exceptions to the rule.

Applying practical and realistic principles to guide the development of global intelligence is vital if the idea is to succeed. Accepting the inevitable complications and obstacles of creating a robust multilateral intelligence capability is pointless, if states are not convinced of the imperative to do so. National intelligence services will continue to remain highly relevant, as will their traditional ways and means on some problem sets. Thus, national and global intelligence entities should be viewed as complementary but different pieces of one whole. Mindful of this, how can global intelligence contribute to our collective security?  Decision makers should look to the future, rather than to the past, to find the answer to this question. This will require suspending conventional wisdom concerning the necessity of secrecy and the pursuit of narrow self-interest. Instead, intelligence theory and practice should be rolled back to first principles and re-examined at the core as they are applied to specific problems. We will learn it is increasingly necessary to work together in order to succeed individually. The sooner we walk the path in search of truth together, in the name of the common good, the sooner our leaders will have the intelligence edge they need to solve the world's problems.

For more of Rolf Mowatt-Larssen's writing on the topic, see "The Strategic Threat of Nuclear Terrorism" at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=404.