The Agenda: Affairs

President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela has won. Not Venezuela’s most recent presidential election, as such – various credible analyses have concluded that he could scarcely have stolen it more brazenly had he declared victory wearing a mask, a hooped shirt and shouldering a bulging sack labelled “swag”. But Maduro has won insofar as he remains president while opposition candidate Edmundo González is exiled in Spain and González’s ally María Corina Machado has been forced, as of this writing, into hiding. The response from those countries that refuse to recognise Maduro as legitimate – more or less everyone but Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea – has been predictable, piling further sanctions atop the teetering stack of measures already imposed upon Maduro’s regime during its miserable decade in power.

They won’t work. By and large, sanctions don’t. They’re mostly deployed by countries that either will not act decisively about a particular situation but want to look like they’re doing something or cannot act decisively, so are doing what little they might. There is, indeed, an entirely plausible case that Maduro – and Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, two Iranian Ayatollahs and three generations of North Korean Kims, among others – were or are strengthened by sanctions. None of them ever wanted for anything; all the pain was passed down to the people. (I visited a Baghdad hospital during Saddam Hussein’s rule, and a couple of his palaces after his removal. Take a wild guess which had the gold-plated bath taps.)

Venezuela seems a ripe subject for an experiment in the opposite approach; what might be thought of as subversion by engagement. The same countries that have damned Maduro as a thug, a crook and a fraud should nevertheless do everything they can to encourage trade and cultural exchange with Venezuela, and tourism to it. Energy companies should be liberated to exploit Venezuela’s immense reserves of oil and natural gas. Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia and Barquisimeto should feature on the tour itineraries of major musicians. Holidaymakers from the US, Europe and all over Latin America should be cooling their toes on the Caribbean beaches of the Los Roques islands. Venezuelans – ordinary Venezuelans, many, many of whom voted against Maduro – would make money. Some of the millions who have fled Maduro’s misrule might return and bring their anger home with them. Poor and isolated people have little choice but to endure dictators; prospering and connected people start to feel like there are options. — L
Andrew Mueller hosts ‘The Foreign Desk’ on Monocle Radio.

SOCIETY — USA
Q&A

Libby Liu
CEO, Whistleblower AidWashington-based non-profit Whistleblower Aid was founded in 2017 to help whistleblowers inside government and the private sector navigate the legally fraught terrain that the practice entails. We meet the charity’s ceo, Libby Liu.

Has what constitutes a whistleblower changed?
No, I don’t believe so. These individuals feel that they’ve been put in situations where they’ve been forced to keep secrets that are harmful to the public. It is a question of conscience for many of them.

How do you help?
As soon as somebody reaches us, we have a conversation with them, because the client has to be credible. Then we find a safe, legal way for them to bring their information to whoever needs to address the danger and harm that the whistleblower has seen.

Are there any recent cases that illustrate your work?
The events at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Congress wanted to find out why the National Guard didn’t help to stop the violence. Earl Matthews, a colonel, came forward because he knew who had made the decision not to send soldiers in to help.

What is the most challenging aspect of supporting a whistleblower?
Whistleblowers go through extraordinary hardship. Their companies or the government agencies they worked for will retaliate against them to discourage others.
whistlebloweraid.org

September’s attack on communication devices in Lebanon, widely believed to have been conducted by Israel, caused outrage and concern. Outrage because of the indiscriminate nature of the attack but also concern over what it means for the future. The attack was not something that could be accomplished quickly with limited resources. Understanding an adversary’s supply chains and probable end users requires time and well-placed human sources. Intercepting and tampering with such a large number of devices undetected is not an easy task. The scope and nature of this attack represents an intelligence success in planning and implementation. But now that it’s public knowledge that communication networks and devices can be transformed into tools of espionage and warfare, what does that portend for the wider world?

For terrorists and criminal organisations, it’s a wake-up call regarding the ability of their adversaries to insert themselves into their communications network in ways that extend far beyond traditional methods of surveillance. These groups will now be forced to evaluate their current systems and technology, and will be likely to develop new mechanisms of communication. Bicycle couriers, physical dead drops and chalk markings, though more time- consuming, are much less susceptible to interception – or, indeed, conversion into an explosive device.

Remotely detonated electronic devices are less of an operational concern for well-funded nations and militaries. Nevertheless, these entities will be examining the security and integrity of the digital supply chains for their technology. Indeed, the Pentagon recently awarded Intel a contract to build chips inside the US, where it has greater influence over the supply chain. A more pressing challenge for them is the question of resilience: it’s more difficult for a centralised and hierarchical military organisation to operate when its communications are disrupted than it is for decentralised entities. Are they capable of and comfortable with functioning effectively when disconnected?

That said, global citizens should not have undue concern. The probability of such an attack on their devices is quite low. Unlike a random pager or walkie- talkie manufacturer, major technology vendors such as Apple and Samsung take great steps to ensure the security and integrity of their manufacturing and supply chains. While not completely impenetrable, they’re much more difficult to manipulate for malicious purposes. Nevertheless, September’s pager attack should be a reminder for everyone about the frailty of our modern dependence on connectivity, and how much we don’t know about the devices that play such an important role in our lives. — L
Forno is director of the graduate cybersecurity programme and assistant director at the UMBC Cybersecurity Institute.

DIPLOMATIC SPAT
Shaky ground

Who vs who:
Spain vs Portugal

What it’s about:
Olivenza. Or, if you’re Portuguese, Olivença, a town of about 12,000 people in Spain’s southwest. Some Portuguese believe that it was dubiously wrested by Spain under the terms of the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz – which should not, in their view, override the 1297 Treaty of Alcañices under which Olivenza/Olivença was allotted to Portugal. This exciting dispute was recently revived by Portugal’s defence minister, Nuno Melo, who demanded the return of Olivenza/Olivença “not yesterday, but today”.

What it’s really about:
Melo has had a bee in his bonnet about this issue for some time and might have believed that taking a stand would rally voters to his banner. However, the response from Melo’s fellow Portuguese politicians was largely irritation and bewilderment. Shortly afterwards he issued the kind of “clarification” that usually follows an abrupt phone call from one’s prime minister.

Likely resolution:
Spain did not officially respond to Melo’s provocation. This was probably due to indifference but Spain cannot harrumph at anyone else’s territorial claims as long as it covets Gibraltar. Whatever the reason, Spain might have set a valuable example in the resolution of diplomatic flaps, many of which might go away if ignored. — L

In the basket: Nine Boeing kc-46a Pegasus aerial refuelling aeroplanes
Who’s buying: Japan
Who’s selling: The US
Price: $4.1bn (€3.7bn)
Delivery date: tbc

Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force (jasdf) had already ordered six kc-46as and received four. Coming back for nine more reveals the jasdf – the first non-US operator of the kc-46a – as a satisfied customer but also an anxious one. Japan, like all countries in its region, understands that there is little prospect of China ceasing to throw its considerable weight around. Japan’s Ministry of Defence baldly acknowledged that this increase in the complement of air tankers was driven by the need to enhance the capabilities of the country’s fighter fleet in those portions of Japan at which China occasionally makes menacing lunges. In recent weeks alone, a Chinese intelligence-gathering aircraft has violated the airspace of Japan’s Danjo islands, and a Chinese aircraft carrier has sailed between two of Japan’s Yaeyama islands and aircraft.