‘Atentado suicida contra os guardas revolucionários iranianos provoca três dezenas de mortos‘ in Times

A suicide attack targeting Iran’s Revolutionary Guards killed about 31 people, including at least five senior commanders, Iranian state television said.

More than two dozen were wounded in the attack, which the local prosecutor blamed on a Sunni rebel group in Iran’s restless southeast region near the border with Pakistan.

The Jundollah, or Soldiers of God — ethnic Baluch Sunni insurgents who have been blamed for previous attacks in the region — have claimed responsibility for the attack.

However, a statement from the Guards has accused America and its allies, including Britain, of complicity.

“Surely foreign elements, particularly those linked to the global arrogance, were involved in this attack,” said the statement, reported on the English-language Press TV. Iran often uses the term “global arrogance” to refer to the United States.

The US rejected the accusation as "completely false", and condemned the bombing.

The state broadcaster IRIB said that the bombing happened this morning at the entrance to a sports complex in Sarbaz in Sistan-Baluchestan, a province that is the scene of frequent clashes between security forces, Sunni rebels and drug traffickers.

Guards representatives were due to meet local tribal leaders to promote unity between Sunnis and Shias.

Press TV said that the bomber approached the Guards on foot and detonated his suicide bomb vest. A number of civilians were among the dead.

News agencies named the most high-ranking casualties as the deputy head of the Guards’ ground forces, General Nourali Shoushtari, and the Guards’ commander in Sistan-Baluchestan province, General Mohammadzadeh. General Shoushtari was also a senior official of the Guard’s elite Qods Force, reports said.

It was the most severe attack on the Guards in recent years and underlined deepening instability in the southeastern region bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Revolutionary Guards is an elite and politically influential military conglomerate seen as fiercely loyal to the values of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Numbering 120,000 troops with its own ground, naval and air units, its duties include handling security in sensitive border areas and control of Iran’s missile system programme.

It also commands vast financial resources and has stakes in many sectors of the Iranian economy, ranging from oil and gas to telecoms and farming.

Jundollah has an escalating history of violence, claiming responsibility for a bomb attack on a Shia mosque in Sistan-Baluchestan province in May that killed 25 people. Thirteen members of the faction were convicted of the bombing and hanged in July.

In 2007 the group abducted nine Iranian soldiers in the same region, demanding that Tehran free 16 imprisoned members of the group.

Iran has accused the US of backing Jundollah in order to create instability in the country. Washington denies the charge. Jundollah says that it is fighting for the rights of the Islamic Republic’s minority Sunnis.

Iran, a predominantly Shia country, also claims that there are links between Jundollah and the al-Qaeda network. Most people in Sistan-Baluchestan are Sunnis and ethnic Baluchis. Iran rejects allegations by Western rights groups that it discriminates against ethnic and religious minorities.

The fresh outbreak of internal unrest comes at a time when the Islamic Republic is being tested politically by a reform movement that refuses to go away. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the Iran opposition leader, pledged today that Iran’s reform movement would continue, despite harsh judicial reprisals by the State, and made a fresh plea for prisoners to be released.

“Our people are not rioters. Reforms will continue as long as people’s demands are not met,” Mr Mousavi’s website quoted him as saying.

Mr Mousavi was defeated in the presidential elections on June 12. He and other moderates claim that the vote was rigged to secure the re-election of hardline President Ahmadinejad. Iranian authorities deny the allegation.

More than 100 people, including former senior officials, still remain in jail, and at least one reformist has been sentenced to death.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6879850.ece

‘UE dá luz verde à abertura de negociações de adesão com a Macedónia‘ in EU Observer

The European Commission on Wednesday (14 October) issued a series of assessments of countries hoping to join the EU and said enlargement should not be made a "scapegoat" of Europe's current economic problems.

The reports contained the usual Brussels mix of criticism interspersed with praise and rewards for progress towards EU norms.

The small republic of Macedonia was told that it was ready to start membership talks, a move that would put it on the same level as Croatia and Turkey in terms of EU relations.

EU commissioner Olli Rehn, in charge of enlargement, said the Macedonian government should see the move as "very strong encouragement" to "finally settle the name issue," however. The reference concerns an 18-year old dispute between Macedonia and neighbouring Greece about the use of the name Macedonia.

Croatia, hoping to join the EU in 2011, is "nearing the finishing line" after years of negotiations, said Mr Rehn, but needs to further tackle corruption and organised crime "before negotiations can be concluded."

The commission report urges Turkey to do more to ensure freedom of expression and freedom of religion as well as bolster the rights of women and trade unions.

Ankara has been lagging far behind Zagreb in its EU progress in part due to poor relations with EU member Cyprus, with whom it still has to fully implement a customs agreement. Progress is also slow due to a lack of enthusiasm on the part of several member states for Turkish membership and the pace of Turkish domestic reform.

But with Turkey itself lately taking a more bullish tone about what it can offer the EU in terms of energy security, Brussels was careful to stress the country's importance for "energy supplies" and "promoting dialogue with civilisations."

Of the remaining five entities - Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo - that want to join the EU, Mr Rehn had the most to say about Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The war-torn country was recently given an ultimatum by the EU and the US to sort out internal problems between Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs by 20 October.

Defining the country as of "paramount importance for the region and for the European Union," Mr Rehn said that Bosnia and Herzegovina could only consider an application for EU membership once it "can stand on its own two feet."

"No quasi-protectorate can join the EU," he said, spelling out that the Office of High Representative would have to be closed down first. The post was created as part of the peace deal that ended the 1992-1995 war in the country, and can only be closed after a positive international assessment.

Meanwhile, the Serbian government, which is being pushed to arrest two war crimes suspects from the 1990s, was praised for being "stable" and "demonstrating" a high degree of consensus on EU integration as a strategic priority."

But even as the EU tries to bind all of the countries of the western Balkans and Turkey ever more closely through political and economic ties and the promise of eventual membership, there are continuous doubts about whether it has the political appetite to go through with another large round of expansion.

Apart from Croatia, strongly supported by Germany and where EU membership is virtually assured, internal EU question marks remain over the rest.

"It's important we don't scapegoat enlargement" for some "ills" that were not caused by enlargement, Mr Rehn said, adding that the current economic crisis was not made in the streets of Belgrade but rather on Wall Street.

http://euobserver.com/9/28827

‘Decisão absurda de escolher Obama ridiculariza o Prémio Nobel da Paz‘ in Times

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

Presidência do Conselho Europeu: Tratado de Lisboa abre a porta a um (ainda maior) domínio dos grandes países? in EU Observer

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty.

Addressing the European Parliament on Wednesday (7 October), Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe."

"I am sorry, there will not be a president of Europe. There will be, if we have Lisbon, the president of the European Council. It is important to understand that point because sometimes I think there are some ideas about certain derives institutionelles [institutional drifts]," he said.

Loosely defined in the treaty itself, talk about the nature of the president's role has become one of the main topics in Brussels in recent days, as national governments deliberate whether the post should go to a well-known personality from a big country or a more discreet politician.

The exact job description will be written by the first person holding the job, with ex British prime minister Tony Blair among the most-mentioned candidates for the post. It is widely agreed that a politician of Mr Blair's standing would take the post far beyond the largely administrative role foreseen in the treaty.

According to the treaty, which is still awaiting full ratification by all 27 member states, the president is supposed to chair the regular meetings of EU leaders - known as the European Council - and to drive forward their work.

Mr Barroso, who himself enjoys attending international summits on behalf of the EU, has a personal stake in the issue.

A powerful council president would upset the power balance in the EU and would likely see Mr Barroso relegated to a more much Brussels-based role.

The commission president has no formal powers in appointing the European Council president but he warned: "The European Commission will not accept the idea that the president of European Council is the president of Europe."

Mr Barroso's remarks came shortly after a leaked paper on the new Lisbon Treaty posts by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg underlined the importance of maintaining the "institutional balance" of the union. The paper has been interpreted in some quarters as an anti-Blair move.

Poland has also prepared a document on the role of the president of the European Council. Earlier this week, Polish Europe minister Mikolaj Dowgielewicz indicated to EUobserver the limited role that Warsaw foresees for the new president.

"We have to recognise that the Polish minister of finance or agriculture will only take instructions from his prime minister. He will not take instructions from the president of the council," he said.

Some member states, such as France, have indicated they want to create a major player with the presidential job by appointing someone who can open doors in the US and China and who can give the EU some gravitas on the world stage.

Mr Blair's is not the only name that has been put forward in connection to the job. Other possible contenders mooted include Dutch leader Jan-Peter Balkenende; Luxembourg leader Jean-Claude Juncker and Felipe Gonzalez, a former Spanish prime minister.

http://euobserver.com/9/28799?print=1

‘Sim‘ na Irlanda ao Tratado de Lisboa: resultado de acordo com a única ‘escolha‘ aceitável... nos pequenos países

‘UE processa Portugal por défice excessivo‘ in Expresso

Bruxelas irá fazer uma série de recomendações, colocar Lisboa sob "vigilância orçamental" e avançar com um calendário para sair da situação de desequilíbrio das contas superior a 3% do PIB (défice excessivo), seguindo as regras que estão estipuladas no Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento da União Europeia.

O período que será dado para corrigir o "défice excessivo" português será negociado com as autoridades nacionais. Os prazos já aplicados a outros Estados-membros variam entre 2010, para a Grécia, e 2013/14 para a Irlanda e Reino Unido.

Em Novembro adoptaremos propostas de correcção do défice para os oito países da zona euro que, segundo as previsões, vão violar o défice este ano", declarou no início de Junho o comissário europeu dos Assuntos Económicos e Monetários, Joaquin Almunia.

Ao todo, catorze dos 27 países da União Europeia, incluindo Portugal, vão em 2009 exceder o limite autorizado por Bruxelas para o défice.

Todos os Estados-membros comunicam (reportam) à Comissão Europeia e ao Eurostat (Abril e Outubro) o estado das suas contas públicas (últimos números do ano anterior e previsão para o corrente ano).

Em ano de crise económica, praticamente todos os países no espaço UE esperam apresentar défices orçamentais, à excepção da Bulgária, que conta com um excedente das suas contas públicas em 1,5% do PIB (ao nível do reportado no ano anterior).

O governo português já avisou que o seu défice deverá chegar este ano aos 5,9% do PIB, agravando-se assim o valor face aos 2,6% estimados pelo Executivo de José Sócrates para 2008.

Os países que esperam os maiores saldos negativos são, no entanto, o Reino Unido e a Irlanda, com os governos a esperarem défices de 12,6 e 10,7% do PIB, respectivamente, depois de ambos terem, em 2008, reportado uma estimativa de 7,1% do PIB.

Acima dos 3% ficam ainda os défices da Letónia (8,5%), Espanha (5,8%), França (5,6%), Roménia (5,1%, Polónia (4,6%), República Checa (3,9%), Grécia, Itália e Eslovénia (3,7%), Bélgica (3,4%) e Holanda (3,3%).

De acordo com os dados reportados em Abril pelos vários governos ao Eurostat, em 2008 já quebraram a regra dos três por cento o Reino Unido e a Irlanda, ambos com 7,1%, a Roménia (5,4%), a Grécia (5%), Malta (4,7%), a Letónia (4%), a Polónia (3,9%), a Espanha (3,8%), a Hungria e a França (3,4%) e a Lituânia (3,2%).

O executivo comunitário já iniciou em Fevereiro passado procedimentos por défice excessivo contra seis Estados-membros da União Europeia: Espanha, França, Grécia, Irlanda, Malta e Letónia que tiveram em 2008 um défice orçamental superior ao valor de referência permitido pelo Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento.

http://clix.expresso.pt/ue-processa-portugal-por-defice-excessivo=f538274

Referendo na Irlanda: ‘Não somos carneiros‘ (cartoon de Chapatte in Le Temps)

‘OCDE prevê que o comércio mundial se contraia 18% este ano‘ in Público

O comércio mundial vai contrair-se 18 por cento este ano e “recuperar ligeiramente” no próximo ano, indicam as últimas projecções da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Económico (OCDE).

No documento que analisa as principais tendências e desafios na Europa nos próximos anos, a OCDE considera que “as mais recentes projecções indicam um declínio do comércio mundial de 18 por cento em 2009, a maior queda em décadas, e uma recuperação ligeira em 2010”.

A contracção do comércio e as consequências internas em termos de combate ao comércio livre estão entre as preocupações da OCDE, que afirma que um dos principais desafios da União Europeia e dos Governos dos Estados-membros é a resistência à pressão para a adopção de medidas proteccionistas.

[A queda no comércio mundial] “está a pôr pressão em muitos países para aumentarem a protecção às empresas nacionais, o que implica que os próximos anos são um desafio à implementação de políticas de comércio global”.

Nas recomendações que os peritos da organização sedeada em Paris deixam aos Governos europeus e à Comissão Europeia, encontram-se o “aprofundamento da liberalização do comércio multilateral” e o apoio ao sucesso das negociações de Doha – através de uma “redução dos subsídios internos, que distorcem a concorrência”, e da “eliminação dos subsídios à exportação”).

http://economia.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1401571&idCanal=57

‘Ossétia do Sul: onde fica isso?‘ cartoon de Chapatte in Le Temps

‘Apoio ao Tratado de Lisboa em queda na Irlanda‘ in EU Observer

With just a month to go until Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a poll has shown that 46 percent support a yes vote, down eight points since May.

Published by the Irish Times, the TNS mrbi poll shows a rise of one point in those saying they plan to vote No to 29 percent with the Don't Knows registering at 25 percent, up seven points in comparison to a pre-summer survey.

The newspaper notes that most of the people who have left the Yes side have entered the Don't Know category rather than crossed to the No camp.

The drop in support for the treaty is reminiscent of the trend in the weeks ahead of the first referendum which resulted in a No in June last year. It is set to spur the government to place more focus on a strong and coherent campaign.

However, prime minister Brian Cowen's Fianna Fail party, grappling with the devastating effects of the economic crisis, has reached an historic low in polls, garnering just 17 percent support in another poll by the Irish Times.

The survey indicates that 85 percent are dissatisfied with the government's performance while 11 percent approve it.

Dan Boyle, chairman of the Green Party, the junior governing party, said that it will be a "challenge" for the government to survive until January, with general elections only due in 2012.

For his part, Mr Cowen has met with the main opposition parties to work out how to make the most effective Yes campaign ahead of the 2 October poll.

He has also tried to persuade to voters to rise above their feelings for the government and concentrate on the issue at hand in the referendum.

"I don't believe this is about the future of this government or the future of personalities, it's about the future of the country. This is not politics as usual. It goes beyond any issues of party, organisation or locality. It is about our country's future," said the prime minister on Wednesday (2 September).

Economic crisis

However, Irish citizens have been shocked by the gravity of the economic crisis and the austerity measures proposed by the government to tackle it. In addition, much of the discussion in recent days has concerned the government's controversial plans to set up a 'bad bank', or National Asset Management Agency, to swallow toxic assets but the plan is viewed with scepticism by the public.

The Irish vote is hugely anticipated in Brussels, where there is widespread hope that the Lisbon Treaty will be passed and a backlog of decisions and discussions can then take place in light of the result.

Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland must also complete ratification of the Treaty, which introduces a powerful EU foreign policy chief, a president of the European Council and gives greater powers to the European Parliament.

http://euobserver.com/9/28616?print=1
JPTF 7/09/2009

Leituras: Cox & Forum, Black & White World IV

Cartoon: o Japão sai da recessão

Leituras: ‘A surpreendente recuperação da Ásia‘ in The Economist

‘O jogo duplo da Turquia na segurança energética da UE‘ in EUObserver

Turkey has agreed to grant access to Russia's South Stream gas pipeline through its part of the Black Sea, in a move which could hurt the prospects of an EU-backed project to reduce Russian energy dependency.

The Turkish deal is a major breakthrough for the Russian pipeline, which has to cross the maritime economic areas of either Turkey or Ukraine, but with Ukraine very unlikely to give consent.

At a signing ceremony in Ankara on Thursday (6 August), Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, insisted that South Stream is not a rival to the EU-backed Nabucco pipeline project.

"Even with the construction of South Stream, Nabucco will not be closed," Mr Putin said at a news conference. "The more infrastructure projects, the better, because that will create reliability and stability of energy supply to Europe."

The European Commission also officially rejects the idea the two projects are in competition.

"We consider [South Stream] a complementary initiative to our ongoing Nabucco efforts," commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said at a press briefing in Brussels.

South Stream is designed to bring more Russian gas under the Black Sea to Bulgaria and Italy. Nabucco is to bring gas from Caspian Sea area countries to Europe via Turkey, bypassing Russia.

Experts warn that if South Stream is built the EU will be forced to buy Caspian gas at a much higher price, however.

"I argue that if South Stream is built, Nabucco will not be, at least not for Caspian gas," Zeyno Baran, a Turkish-American energy expert with the Washington-based Hudson Institute, told Euobserver.

"If South Stream is built, all that Caspian gas is going to pour into it. Nabucco is important not only for diversifying Europe's needs, but it's also freeing the Central Asian countries and the Caucasian countries from the hold of Russia. Now with this, Turkey sent a signal, whether it to wanted or not, that it doesn't really care about those countries, it just cares about becoming a gas hub."

Turkey just last month signed a legal framework agreement for Nabucco, raising hopes of the country's strategic backing of EU energy security interests.

"Europeans need to really understand what's going on in Turkey, how close it has gotten to Russia as opposed to Europe and the US," Ms Baran said.

In terms of geopolitical impact, South Stream would reduce the importance of Ukraine's transit pipeline network, which currently ships 80 percent of Russian gas to the EU.

The new situation would make it easier for Moscow to exert political pressure on Kiev by raising the price of its gas exports to Ukraine without the fear of a potential knock-on effect on its EU customers.

If South Stream is built before Nabucco, it could also see Azerbaijan sell its extra gas into the Russian pipeline, damaging prospects for Georgia's independence.

Georgia currently buys all its gas from Azerbaijan, with the country being forced to go back to Russian suppliers if its Azeri channels were blocked.

In a parallel development highlighting Russia's attitude to the energy sector, Mr Putin on Thursday also signed an executive order definitively rejecting the country's participation in the Energy Charter Treaty.

The 1991 multilateral agreement is designed to help EU companies invest in Russian energy firms and to grant access to Russia's vast pipeline system, effectively breaking its monopoly on Caspian zone exports.

http://euobserver.com/9/28530?print=1

JPTF 2009/08/10

Leituras: ‘Networks and Netwars. The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy‘ de John Arquilla e David Ronfeldt

Iraque: a ciberguerra que não chegou a ser

por John Markoff e Tom Shanker

It would have been the most far-reaching case of computer sabotage in history. In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government’s financial system before the United States invaded Iraq. He would have no money for war supplies. No money to pay troops.

“We knew we could pull it off — we had the tools,” said one senior official who worked at the Pentagon when the highly classified plan was developed.

But the attack never got the green light. Bush administration officials worried that the effects would not be limited to Iraq but would instead create worldwide financial havoc, spreading across the Middle East to Europe and perhaps to the United States.

Fears of such collateral damage are at the heart of the debate as the Obama administration and its Pentagon leadership struggle to develop rules and tactics for carrying out attacks in cyberspace.

While the Bush administration seriously studied computer-network attacks, the Obama administration is the first to elevate cybersecurity — both defending American computer networks and attacking those of adversaries — to the level of a White House director, whose appointment is expected in coming weeks.

But senior White House officials remain so concerned about the risks of unintended harm to civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure in an attack on computer networks that they decline any official comment on the topic. And senior Defense Department officials and military officers directly involved in planning for the Pentagon’s new “cybercommand” acknowledge that the risk of collateral damage is one of their chief concerns.

“We are deeply concerned about the second- and third-order effects of certain types of computer network operations, as well as about laws of war that require attacks be proportional to the threat,” said one senior officer.

This officer, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the work, also acknowledged that these concerns had restrained the military from carrying out a number of proposed missions. “In some ways, we are self-deterred today because we really haven’t answered that yet in the world of cyber,” the officer said.

In interviews over recent weeks, a number of current and retired White House officials, Pentagon civilians and military officers disclosed details of classified missions — some only considered and some put into action — that illustrate why this issue is so difficult.

Although the digital attack on Iraq’s financial system was not carried out, the American military and its partners in the intelligence agencies did receive approval to cripple Iraq’s military and government communications systems in the early hours of the war in 2003. And that attack did produce collateral damage.

Besides blowing up cellphone towers and communications grids, the offensive included electronic jamming and digital attacks against Iraq’s telephone networks. American officials also contacted international communications companies that provided satellite phone and cellphone coverage to Iraq to alert them to possible jamming and to ask their assistance in turning off certain channels.

Officials now acknowledge that the communications offensive temporarily disrupted telephone service in countries around Iraq that shared its cellphone and satellite telephone systems. That limited damage was deemed acceptable by the Bush administration.

Another such event took place in the late 1990s, according to a former military researcher. The American military attacked a Serbian telecommunications network and accidentally affected the Intelsat satellite communications system, whose service was hampered for several days.

These missions, which remain highly classified, are being scrutinized today as the Obama administration and the Pentagon move into new arenas of cyberoperations. Few details have been reported previously; mention of the proposal for a digital offensive against Iraq’s financial and banking systems appeared with little notice on Newsmax.com, a news Web site, in 2003.

The government concerns evoke those at the dawn of the nuclear era, when questions of military effectiveness, legality and morality were raised about radiation spreading to civilians far beyond any zone of combat.

“If you don’t know the consequences of a counterstrike against innocent third parties, it makes it very difficult to authorize one,” said James Lewis, a cyberwarfare specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

But some military strategists argue that these uncertainties have led to excess caution on the part of Pentagon planners.

“Policy makers are tremendously sensitive to collateral damage by virtual weapons, but not nearly sensitive enough to damage by kinetic” — conventional — “weapons,” said John Arquilla, an expert in military strategy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The cyberwarriors are held back by extremely restrictive rules of engagement.”

Despite analogies that have been drawn between biological weapons and cyberweapons, Mr. Arquilla argues that “cyberweapons are disruptive and not destructive.”

That view is challenged by some legal and technical experts.

“It’s virtually certain that there will be unintended consequences,” said Herbert Lin, a senior scientist at the National Research Council and author of a recent report on offensive cyberwarfare. “If you don’t know what a computer you attack is doing, you could do something bad.”

Mark Seiden, a Silicon Valley computer security specialist who was a co-author of the National Research Council report, said, “The chances are very high that you will inevitably hit civilian targets — the worst-case scenario is taking out a hospital which is sharing a network with some other agency.”

And while such attacks are unlikely to leave smoking craters, electronic attacks on communications networks and data centers could have broader, life-threatening consequences where power grids and critical infrastructure like water treatment plants are increasingly controlled by computer networks.

Over the centuries, rules governing combat have been drawn together in customary practice as well as official legal documents, like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter. These laws govern when it is legitimate to go to war, and set rules for how any conflict may be waged.

Two traditional military limits now are being applied to cyberwar: proportionality, which is a rule that, in layman’s terms, argues that if you slap me, I cannot blow up your house; and collateral damage, which requires militaries to limit civilian deaths and injuries.

“Cyberwar is problematic from the point of view of the laws of war,” said Jack L. Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School. “The U.N. Charter basically says that a nation cannot use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. But what kinds of cyberattacks count as force is a hard question, because force is not clearly defined.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=irak%20war&st=cse

JPTF 2009/08/03

Leituras: ‘Os contra-reaccionários‘ de Pierre-André Taguieff