RAND_MR1382

But today’s concept of globalization has many new elements and dynamics, particularly
in its deemphasis of the state and its association with the information revolution. 50
Both nationalism and globalism will continue to coexist, much as the Manchester Creed
coexisted with classic power politics. 51 Both will continue to galvanize all kinds of
netwars around the world. While many of the violent terrorist, criminal, and ethnic
netwars have mainly nationalist origins and objectives, most social netwars have strong
globalist dimensions. Thus, the two forces in play in today’s world—nationalism and
globalism—mirror significant aspects of the two faces of netwar. This is worth pointing
out, partly because many current discussions about networked actors and informationage
conflict treat them as being mainly the products of globalization, and downplay the
enduring significance of nationalism. However, it is important to note that some “dark
netwarriors” (e.g., criminal networks) have little or no nationalist motivations.
An eventual question is whether a new “harmony of interests” based on the rise of
global civil-society actors relying on soft power will erode the dominance of hardpower,
nation-state politics. To some extent, developments in the theory and practice of
netwar will affect both these world tendencies. That is, learning better how to build
networks against crime and terror may tamp down some of the problems that attend
ethno- and hypernationalism. Also, states that learn to nurture nonstate civil-society
actors may help reduce some of the “demand” for terror, and some of the quests to
create ever more nation states. Whichever path unfolds, it will be one in which netwar
will surely be found at every turn.
The duality of Janus, first discussed in our introductory chapter, is re-introduced here.
According to a modern interpretation by Arthur Koestler (1978), Janus symbolizes the
eternal human tension between the need for individual self-assertion and the progress
that comes with integration into larger, ultimately global groupings. When kept in
equilibrium, in a system allowing individual striving but encouraging connectedness to
the world as a whole, the bright face of this dual spirit moves ahead. Today, that
tendency is represented by activist NGOs waging social netwar on behalf of human
rights and political democracy; they aim to integrate the world around a model of civil
society based on common, worldwide values. But “under unfavourable conditions, the
equilibrium is upset, with dire consequences” (p. 58). 52 Trouble, for Koestler writing in
the 1970s, arises especially when the individual is suborned in a totalitarian society—he
gives the examples of Stalinist excesses, Nazi atrocities, and the infamous Mil-gram
“authority experiments” of the 1950s. The modern-day netwar equivalent corresponds to
the dark-side terrorists, criminals, and ethnonationalists who pursue self-assertion for
narrow purposes.
Two Axes of Strategy
The chapters on terrorist, criminal, and gang networks ended with observations and
recommendations for strengthening counternetwar. The chapters on the social netwars