.png)
.jpg)
Optimism has been described as the triumph of hope over experience. The Obama administration’s approach towards China’s cyber looting would be charitably described as “optimistic,” if it didn’t involve such high stakes.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) just released a report indicating that Chinese hackers have compromised the designs of perhaps two dozen of America’s top defense programs. The sheer breadth of China’s cyber-espionage as reflected in the types of programs is breathtaking, ranging from missile defense systems (AEGIS, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD) to helicopters (Blackhawk and MV-22 Osprey) to warships (the Littoral Combat Ship) to fighter aircraft (the F-35 and the F/A-18 Hornet) and drones (Global Hawk).
The DSB report follows on the heels of the Mandiant report, which identified a unit of the People’s Liberation Army as one of the “advanced persistent threats” engaged in cyber-espionage, and the Verizon RISK report, which noted that China is the leading source of state-sponsored cyber-espionage. Taken together, these three reports, as well as a host of others, indicate that Chinese cyber-espionage is part of a systematic effort, undertaken by elements of the government and the armed forces, aimed at a sweeping array of targets, both military and civilian, government and commercial.
Yet, far from holding the People’s Republic of China (PRC) responsible for its actions, the Obama Administration is instead seemingly intent upon rewarding Beijing for its actions. Even as the DSB was issuing its report, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon was in Beijing calling for deeper military-to-military ties. This follows Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey’s visit to Beijing, where he invited China to work with the US on cyber-security—as though China was but another innocent victim of cybercrime, rather than a leading perpetrator. Earlier, the Administration had invited Beijing to participate in the 2014 RIMPAC exercises, which includes not only the United States, but key allies such as Japan and Australia. Is it any wonder that the Chinese jumped at this invitation to an intelligence buffet, and accepted with alacrity?
If the Administration thinks that by constantly imploring Beijing, China will change its behavior, it is being incredibly “optimistic.” Of course, there’s another word for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
China Renews Cyber Attacks Against U.S.
China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has resumed its cyber attacks against the U.S., according to The New York Times.
When news surfaced months ago that elements of the PLA were engaged in cyber attacks, there was a hope in some quarters that the Chinese government might be “shamed” into suspending such attacks. It was hoped that, coupled with comments by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon that Chinese cyber attacks were jeopardizing U.S.–Chinese ties, Beijing would suspend such activities. Instead, after only a brief pause, the Chinese appear to have renewed their cyber activities, although they have modified some of their methods.
This renewed set of attacks highlights the flawed assumption that Beijing can be coerced into suspending its broad range of computer network penetrations, which span the gamut of government, commercial, civilian, and private computers and networks. This naïve assumption presumes that publicizing Chinese cyber activities will somehow outweigh the evident benefits China gains from hacking—including access to key American intelligence databases. Is it really credible to believe that the Chinese will forgo opportunities to learn the identities of American agents in China, because its activities will be highlighted?
Indeed, the entire American approach seems to start from questionable assumptions. General Martin Dempsey, in his recent trip to China, reportedly told Chinese leaders that it was against their strategic and economic interests to allow cyber intrusions to continue—as though Chinese cyber activities were the product of independent hackers, rather than the Chinese military itself. Indeed, he seems to accept at face value Chinese denials that they have anything to do with computer attacks.
It should be remembered, though, that General Dempsey has previously stated that, “should China’s military be found to be behind hacks into the U.S. infrastructure, it would not necessarily be a ‘hostile act.’” It is therefore perhaps not surprising that, despite evidence that the PLA is in fact behind various computer attacks, he remains open to cooperation with China, rather than viewing them as the source of attacks, i.e., “hostile.”
Yet, with Donilon’s comments as a backdrop, the impending summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping offers an opportunity to make clear to Beijing the serious consequences of its cyber activities. The question is whether the Obama Administration will seize it.
By Special Arrangement with : The Heritage Foundation