Adesso anche le agenzie di intelligence europee ed americane confermerebbero l’uso di armamento chimico da parte delle forze governative siriane.
Dal New York Times di oggi:
[...] American and European intelligence analysts now believe that President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have used chemical weapons against rebel forces in the civil war in Syria, an assessment that will put added pressure on a deeply divided Obama administration to develop a response to a provocation that the president himself has declared a “red line.” According to an internal memorandum circulating inside the government on Thursday, the “intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.” President Obama said in April that the United States had physiological evidence that the nerve gas sarin had been used in Syria, but lacked proof of who used it and under what circumstances. He now believes that the proof is definitive, according to American officials. [...]
The conclusion by American intelligence agencies strengthens their assessment earlier this year and poses an important test for the White House. Mr. Obama had repeatedly said the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would a cross a red line, but he has not indicated what action he would take in response. In an April letter to Congress, the White House said that intelligence agencies had “varying degrees of confidence.” But the conclusion of the latest intelligence review is much stronger and is based on evidence that includes reporting on planning by the regime for the use of chemical weapons, accounts of specific attacks and descriptions of physiological symptoms. The draft statement notes there is no reason to think the resistance has access to chemical weapons. “We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons, and has taken steps to secure these weapons from theft or attack,” it states. “We have no reliable, corroborated reported to indication that the opposition has acquired or used chemical weapons.” According to a C.I.A. report, which was described by an American official who declined to be identified, the United States has acquired blood, urine and hair samples from two Syrian rebels — one dead, and one wounded — who were involved in a firefight with Syrian government forces in mid-March near the town of Utubya, northeast of Damascus. The samples showed that the rebels were exposed to sarin and supports the conclusion that the regime has used the weapon. In recent days, the British and French government have also asserted that there is evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons.
[...] It is not practicable to seek to constrain CNI companies to UK suppliers, nor would that necessarily provide full protection given the global nature of supply chains. The risk to the CNI cannot be eliminated, but Government must ensure that it is managed properly. There must be: – an effective process by which Government is alerted to potential foreign investment in the CNI; – an established procedure for assessing the risks; – a process for developing a strategy to manage these risks throughout the lifetime of the contract and beyond; – clarity as to what powers Government has or needs to have; and – clear lines of responsibility and accountability. When it comes to the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure, Ministers must be kept informed at all stages. • We do not believe that these crucial requirements existed when BT and Huawei first began their commercial relationship. From the evidence we have taken during this investigation, the procedural steps that we have outlined still do not appear to exist. However, as we went to press, we were told that the Government has now developed a process to assess the risks associated with foreign investment into the UK. Whether these processes are sufficiently robust remains to be seen: the steps we have outlined must exist to ensure that Government does not find itself in the same position again.
Un articolo di Guido Olimpio sul Corriere della Sera di oggi:
Il vigliacco attacco di Londra è il sintesi del terrorismo fai-da-te. E ne contiene tutte le caratteristiche portate all’estremo. Innanzitutto il bersaglio: un militare in una città occidentale dove non si aspetta certo di essere aggredito ma che comunque è un bersaglio per la divisa che indossa. Poi le armi: non avendo a disposizione una pistola o fucile, i terroristi hanno usato dei coltellacci. Non servono manuali per organizzare l’agguato, solo la determinazione.
«NON SARETE MAI AL SICURO» – Sembra anche che, imitando quanto già visto in altri scacchieri, abbiano provato ad usare la loro vettura come ariete. Infine la motivazione: se sono vere le parole dell’assassino, ha colpito per dimostrare che gli occidentali “non saranno mai al sicuro”, così come non lo sono i musulmani dove l’Occidente partecipa a operazioni militari. Un tema caro al jihadismo che l’attentatore ha rilanciato in modo efferato con la confessione registrata da un telefonino. Un’immagine che, ne siamo certi, verrà scaricata e vista da molti simpatizzanti.
COME GLI APPELLI QAEDISTI – Tutto questo, anche se le indagini sono ancora aperte, ricorda gli appelli degli ideologi qaedisti ad agire in modo individuale con quello che si trova. Se non sei in grado di fare una bomba – suggeriscono i manuali online – prendi una mannaia e vai all’attacco. Questo non significa che, necessariamente, esista un vincolo con il movimento di Bin Laden. Anzi, per ora, nulla lo fa pensare. Siamo davanti a esplosioni di violenza legate ad una matrice jihadista (spesso vaga), sostenute da una radicalizzazione repentina, condotte da figure dai profili incerti, approssimativi, ma comunque terroristi nei comportamenti. Infine un dato evidente e allarmante. Contro questo tipo di avversario c’è ben poco da fare. E saranno problemi seri per chi li deve contrastare.
Il nuovo numero di Foreign Policy affronta il tema del potere e delle “persone che realmente guidano il mondo“. Tra queste – lo 0,000007% della popolazione mondiale – la rivista statunitense colloca anche 9 italiani. Ovviamente, in assoluto, la quota più importante va agli Stati Uniti (143 persone). Circa i due terzi sono “occidentali” (Europa+Nord America+Australia) mentre Cina (38), Russia (24) ed India (17) inseguono…
Il Financial Times di oggi riporta la notizia secondo la quale l’Mi5, il Servizio di sicurezza britannico, ha messo in guardia le Università inglesi da attività di spionaggio cibernetico effettuate ai loro danni da soggetti stranieri.
Scrive il quotidiano:
[...] Eric Thomas, president of Universities UK and vice-chancellor of the University of Bristol, said academic institutions were at risk because they possessed intellectual property “that many people would give their right arms for”. “We are drawing the sector’s attention to these issues,” said Professor Thomas. “We are saying, ‘You have to understand that you will be subject to purposeful attacks to get your data.’ Universities need to be on high alert.” [...]
The threat against universities is two-fold: the hacking of their computer systems in Britain, and the theft of data from academics’ computers when they travel abroad. [...]
The problem for universities, according to Prof Thomas, is that the need to increase security cuts across the tendency of academics to be transparent and forthcoming about their research. [...]
Il Ministro degli Esteri britannico ha annunciato oggi la costituzione, all’interno della Oxford MartinSchool, del Global Centre for Cyber Security Capacity Building.
Diretto da Sadie Creese il centro sarà finanziato dal governo inglese (500.00 sterline all’anno) il quale mira a renderlo un punto di eccellenza di livello internazionale.
[...] The establishment of the Global Centre for Cyber Security Capacity Building is a key element of the UK contribution to international efforts to raise cyber security. Its research will help define global priorities for capacity building and it will work with a wide range of partners to ensure increased and more effective effort against the wide range of cyber issues and threats.
Sadie Creese, Professor of Cyber Security and Co-Director of Oxford Martin School’s Institute for the Future of Computing will head the new Centre. “We aim to make our research findings available to governments, communities and organisations in a manner which can define global priorities for cyber security capacity building; identify opportunities for mutual support and international development; stimulate investment in areas crucial to capacity building; and underpin the increase of their capacity in ways appropriate to ensuring a cyber space which can continue to grow and innovate in support of well-being, human rights and prosperity for all.” [...]
Obiettivi dichiarati del Centro sono i seguenti:
1. Creating and keeping up to date a critical guide to global expertise on cyber-security: through research to identify the full spectrum of cyber-security issues and where one can go for help and expertise to tackle cyber security issues.
2. Setting out what needs to be done to close gaps in the global response: by setting agendas and priorities for capacity building by region, country and organisation.
3. Identifying what works, what doesn’t and why, in cyber capacity building projects: setting out and encouraging the up-take of best practice and the sustainable development of cyber-security.
4. Increasing the supply of effective capacity building: through identifying public- and private-sector motives and stimulating funding, access to expertise and mechanisms for collaboration.
There are three current global trends that matter most: China is rising, the Middle East is exploding, and Europe is muddling through. Set against a G-Zero backdrop, the structural losers of these trends are the JIBs, countries impacted most directly and problematically by changes now underway in the geopolitical order. These countries find themselves in very similar positions, for three reasons. 1) Their special relationships with the United States no longer carry quite the importance, or centrality, that they used to. 2) They sit just outside the major geopolitical changes underway, and have few available means of playing a constructive role in them. 3) Key domestic constraints in all three countries (political, social, historic, and otherwise) make it particularly difficult for them to respond effectively to the challenges posed by these changes. Japan faces a much tougher relationship with China, one that’s far more difficult to navigate than other countries in Asia. Unlike other Asian countries, where China’s leaders believe that the power balance (and the presence of Chinese minorities) benefits them sufficiently to allow for an incremental strategy, Japan is too big for that. Further, Japan doesn’t have as much importance for China to be concerned about the potential downside—China no longer needs Japan’s investment dollars because it can get much the same technology from South Korea and Taiwan. Accordingly, China is increasingly prepared to provoke. With the new Japanese election, the potential for Japan to give the Chinese further excuse to lash out is high. Dangerous geopolitical conflict is on the horizon in 2013. It’s probably the single most important, and dangerous, geopolitical conflict on the horizon in 2013, and Japan has little capacity to avoid it. Great Britain is damned if they do and damned if they don’t with the European Union. If they stay in, they will become more marginalized as the Eurogroup plays a larger role; they are increasingly “takers” on a bunch of regulatory issues. If they don’t, they face a Europe that will be increasingly heading in a very different direction in terms of economic and regulatory models. Great Britain’s “best of both worlds” with Europe will become unsustainable—Britain won’t necessarily exit (certainly not this year), but its decision to remain at the margins of the continent and its changes will prove economically problematic. Israel faces the erosion of moderation and mounting tension between Shia and Sunni extremists, who will compete for influence. The countries they could historically work the most closely with in the region—Egypt and Jordan—are now under tremendous domestic strain and are likely to become at best problematic occasional colleagues, at worst directly antagonistic. Turkey hasn’t the same domestic turmoil, but Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sees advantage in being ahead of the crowd and has turned against the Israelis, and the traditional alliance with the United States buys them less than it used to. The good news: They have the security advantages. But that’s increasingly the only good news they’re seeing. Given all the trouble, it’s a critical time for the Israelis to get truly serious on resolving the Palestinian conflict, but with domestic political trends in Israel moving the country in the other direction, that’s implausible.
La Reuters ci aggiorna sul furto di dati riservati realizzato da un tecnico dell’Intelligence svizzera. Un furto che avrebbe esposto seriamente anche l’Mi6 e la CIA.
Chi era che, proprio in questo blog, parlava dell’importanza della sicurezza delle informazioni…???
Qui il Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
As usual l’Italia si presenta solo verso la 250esima posizione. As usual il top è rappresentato dalle Università anglosassoni che monopolizzano la quasi totalità delle prime 30.
Inutile ripetere che il nostro Paese appare sempre più estraneo alle dinamiche globali dell’economia della conoscenza. Ahinoi…