|
Seán McLoughlin (B.Soc.Sc.) is specialized in transatlantic security. Ireland has established itself as a global hub for the ICT sector, serving as a gateway to Europe for many U.S. multinational tech corporations. Its location on the sheltered Western edge of Europe, its EU membership, its highly educated and English-speaking population, and particularly its 12,5% corporate tax rate (foreign multinationals pay a far lower percentage in practice) all make it an attractive location for multinational corporations. Because of these factors, Ireland hosts not only many headquarters of multinational tech corporations, such as Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Intel, Meta, and Microsoft, but also many data centers serving the global ICT sector. This concentration of multinational tech corporations has spawned a business ecosystem that forms a central component of the Irish economy and makes Ireland a significant transatlantic economic hub. The digital sector is estimated to make up around 13% of Ireland’s GDP and generates significant tax windfalls for the Irish state. Despite its geography as an island on the far-western edge of Europe surrounded by allies, Ireland is not without geopolitical risks for the ICT sector. The Irish, European and transatlantic economies are heavily reliant on the data transferred and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of digital trade annually conducted through undersea fiber-optic cables connecting the European and North American continents. These cables are vulnerable to sabotage and recent events have shown that hostile actors are not averse to resorting to such measures in their hybrid warfare against the West.  Security of Critical Undersea Infrastructure
Nearly 97% of global communications and internet traffic rely on undersea fiber-optic cables. An estimated 10 trillion dollars’ worth of financial transactions a day are carried out through these cables globally. Almost 75% of these cables in the northern hemisphere pass through or near Irish waters. The importance of these connections extends beyond data flow; they are fundamental to financial markets, international communication, and even national security operations worldwide. This gives Ireland a critical role in maintaining the continuity of global communications and commerce but also exposes it to the threat of sabotage. Disruptions could have devastating consequences, from economic upheaval to military communication breakdowns. Another cause for concern is Ireland’s relatively high energy import dependency. Particularly energy intensive data centers are reliant on a stable supply and price of electricity. In 2022 Ireland imported over 80% of its total primary energy requirement, while over 85% of its total primary energy requirement came from fossil fuels. Disruptions to Ireland’s energy importation, including pipeline gas from the UK, from damage to infrastructure or due to wider European supply issues would pose a serious threat to the country’s ICT sector. Recent years have seen increasing scrutiny of the threat posed by state-backed actors, particularly as Russia has shown a strategic interest in undersea cables. Vessels such as the Russian research ship Yantar, discovered to be loitering off the Irish coast in November 2024 and capable of deploying submersibles to tamper with or even sever cables, exemplify the physical risks. In February 2022 the Russian military proposed to hold major maritime exercises off the south- western coast of Ireland within Ireland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area with a significant cluster of transatlantic telecommunications cables. Russia is known to favor “grey zone” warfare and cultivate capabilities to strike against the infrastructure, institutions and populations of its adversaries while maintaining “plausible deniability”. For example, the Balticconnector sabotage in 2023 and the incidents of sabotage against underwater telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea in November 2024 by Chinese affiliated vessels highlight the kind of crude acts of hybrid warfare fiber-optic cables in the Irish EEZ could be subjected to. The 2022 Nord Stream 2 sabotage displays the potential for sabotage against undersea energy infrastructure. Undersea cables and other critical infrastructure are relatively easy to damage and risk of immediate detection is low, particularly when operating in Irish waters. Securing undersea cables is a complex task that requires coordination between governments, private industry, and international partners. The legal framework governing undersea infrastructure is ambiguous, particularly in international waters where multiple countries' EEZs intersect. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grants states’ rights to maintain infrastructure within their EEZs but does not explicitly address military activities or provide comprehensive protection against hybrid threats. To counter these vulnerabilities, international cooperation is essential. NATO’s establishment of the Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell in 2023 aims to map vulnerabilities and enhance cooperation among allies, including public-private partnerships. Such initiatives are critical to developing the situational awareness and technological capabilities necessary to deter hybrid threats. The role of the private sector, which owns and operates much of this infrastructure, is vital in ensuring security standards are met. Ireland is not a member of NATO and, therefore, does not participate directly in NATO's Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell. However, Ireland has engaged in initiatives to protect its undersea infrastructure. In May 2024, Ireland joined a European Union mission aimed at safeguarding underwater sea cables from potential threats. This mission involves collaboration with other EU member states to develop capabilities for surveillance, reconnaissance, and response in maritime environments, with completion expected by 2035. Additionally, Ireland has updated its partnership with NATO to include dialogue on undersea infrastructure protection, reflecting a commitment to enhancing the security of its critical maritime assets. Military Capabilities The security risks faced by the Irish ICT sector are accentuated by the fact that the Irish military has suffered decades of chronic underinvestment and the country’s ability to monitor and protect undersea infrastructure is questionable at best. With its outdated and insufficient equipment, a staff retention crisis and military non-alignment, it is not exaggeration to call Ireland Europe’s “soft underbelly” when it comes to national defence. Particularly acute is the personnel shortage in the Irish military, as the total strength of the defence forces has fallen to below 7,500 in 2024. Due to a combination of staffing shortages and technical issues the Irish Naval Service has at times over recent years only been able to deploy one patrol ship at a time in Irish waters. Consisting of only six patrol vessels, with two more being phased in this year, and lacking sonar capabilities, the Irish Naval Service is ill-equipped to police its vast marine territory consisting of hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. As a result, the British defence forces have often stepped in to support the policing of Irish territory, for example in late 2023 when the Royal Navy detected and deterred a Russian submarine near Irish waters. Apart from the Naval Service, the rest of the Irish defence forces also suffers from serious inadequacies. The Irish army has reached record-low personnel numbers this year and Ireland has consistently kept a negligible military budget of 0,2-0,3% GDP over recent years. A significant shortfall of Ireland’s ability to monitor its territory and detect threats is also its lack of a primary radar system. The Irish Air Corps has no combat aircraft and only two maritime patrol aircraft in service, leaving it with extremely limited air space control capacity. Indeed, recognizing these shortfalls and an increasingly hostile international security environment, the Irish government has announced a historic military budget of 1,35 billion euros for 2025. This is part of a larger target of increasing the country’s military spending by 50% by 2028. The Irish government’s plans include improving staff retention and increasing recruitment, purchasing new equipment such as a multi-role naval vessel and transport aircraft and acquiring a primary radar system and subsea monitoring systems. However, these improvements and procurements take time to be implemented and materialize and Ireland has a long way to catch up with most EU states. Other Threats Other geopolitical risks for the ICT sector in Ireland are potential cyber-attacks and espionage operations carried out against institutions or corporations in Ireland. For example, the 2021 cyberattack on Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) by a Russian-linked group highlighted the potential for cybercrime to wreak havoc on critical national infrastructure. Due in part to its military neutrality, Ireland has also been known to be subject to Russian spying and influencing operations conducted primarily through its embassy in Dublin. Ireland’s location on the southern end of the so-called Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, which constitutes a major geostrategic chokepoint for Russian naval entry into the North Atlantic, is also something to be considered. These risks also tie into each other in many ways. Conclusion Particularly Ireland’s neglect of its defence forces’ capabilities and its traditional policy of military neutrality exacerbate the security risks facing the country. Regardless of the November 2024 general election results, political momentum to increase investment in Ireland's defence forces is expected to persist. The deteriorating international security landscape and the conclusions from fresh reports on the state of the Irish military are likely to maintain concern for the capabilities of the nation to monitor and defend its territory and vicinity. However, the traditional Irish policy of military neutrality and non-alignment is likely to remain in the foreseeable future, despite close partnerships with EU and NATO security structures. The developments in Irish security policy and its partnerships with European states and the US are of vital importance to mitigating hard security risks to the global ICT sector Ireland houses. The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this guest article and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Mission Grey Inc. (Image: TeleGeography - https://www.submarinecablemap.com/, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=132139764) Mission Grey Chairman Jouko Ahvenainen attends the Horasis Asia Meeting 2024. The event is organized in connection with the Global Freight Summit on November 18-19, co-hosted by DP World in Dubai's Expo City, the United Arab Emirates.
Ahvenainen will moderate a panel discussion on Asia's Geocentric Future. The topics cover Asia's geopolitical future, its role in the global economy, regional digital transformation, and sustainability. The special focus will be on the Regional Economic Partnership (RCEP) which has eliminated 90% of internal tariffs between 14 Asian and Pacific nations, representing 30% of the world's GDP. GFS 2024 connects over 5,000 industry leaders from 155+ countries across diverse sectors, providing an opportunity to gain actionable insights on digitalisation, sustainability, and building resilient trade routes. Jouko Ahvenainen is the Chairman of Mission Grey Inc.
Global politics is rarely straightforward. It’s a constant balancing act, with many twists and turns. With Donald Trump’s return and the Republicans winning the Senate, speculation abounds about what lies ahead. While we can’t predict the future, we can consider some insights on what these developments might mean and how to navigate forward. Global politics today isn’t black and white; it’s filled with shades of gray. Understanding the underlying forces is essential. The Challenge of a Two-Party System After following politics for decades, I once believed the two-party system provided voters with clear choices. But in today’s polarized world, I’ve changed my mind. A two-party structure can push parties to extreme positions, even as the world needs more consensus and compromise. What’s surprising is that there isn’t a natural force driving both parties toward the center to appeal to a wider base. Instead, parties seem to retreat further into their corners. A similar trend is seen in the UK: Tony Blair’s centrist approach took advantage of a Conservative party that had shifted too far right. When David Cameron moved the Conservatives back toward the center, Labour drifted left, losing power in 2010. Labour then swung far left under Jeremy Corbyn, leading to a major Conservative win under Boris Johnson. It was only under Keir Starmer’s centrist approach that Labour regained traction, while the Conservatives once again moved to the right, experiencing historical losses. The U.S. has followed a similar pattern, with the Democrats potentially alienating centrist voters with ideological approaches. Analyzing the strategies and behavior of two-party systems could shed light on their impact on political shifts. At the very least, it’s clear that these systems can produce rapid shifts, requiring us to stay prepared for swift changes. Economic Perspectives: Short- and Long-Term Implications The short-term economic outlook may appear positive: the Republicans’ influence typically signals lower taxes, less regulation, and reduced additional costs, especially in the U.S. For other countries, trade wars and tariffs will likely shape their focus on competitiveness and international trade agreements. However, longer-term economic risks loom. Trade wars, protectionism, and geoeconomic instability pose threats to sustainable growth. National security concerns, and even the possibility of conflicts, add further complications. While these trends are not new, they’re certainly accelerating. The question is whether we can foster a positive shift globally or if things will worsen before they improve. In the evolving economy, AI and technology development are key. Countries that lag in these areas will face economic challenges, and it will also be a security risk, as technology increasingly underpins defense capabilities. Nations with outdated strategies might struggle, as technological competitiveness becomes crucial. Geopolitical Tensions: Ukraine, China, and Beyond Two major issues dominate the geopolitical landscape: the war in Ukraine and the ongoing U.S.-China tension. These aren’t just isolated conflicts; due to global alignments, they influence almost every country. And it’s not a simple division into two camps — many countries remain in the gray zone, particularly among the BRICS and Global South nations. Currently, the conflict in Ukraine is at a standstill. For Ukraine, support from allies is crucial, yet even with assistance, completely neutralizing the Russian threat is unlikely. Russia will remain a factor, and the challenge will be managing this persistent presence. Ukraine might eventually need to prioritize either further integration with the West or holding on to all its territories; a tough choice, yet common in international politics. Similarly, the U.S.-China relationship impacts global influence. Should the U.S. adopt a more isolationist stance, it leaves room for China to expand its influence in regions like Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In the Middle East, Israel continues to strengthen ties with certain Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, in hopes of isolating Iran and perhaps advancing a regime change in Tehran. These complexities remind us there are no easy answers. Today’s political landscape demands careful navigation through countless variables. Strategies for Navigating a Complex World Governments and businesses alike need strategies to avoid risks, thrive, and make sound decisions in this intricate global landscape. There are no easy answers or straight paths. Success requires gathering the right information, understanding critical forces, and making informed choices in near real-time. Fortunately, more information is available than ever. The challenge now lies in pinpointing relevant data, analyzing it, and making actionable decisions. This is where artificial intelligence plays a pivotal role. In today’s environment, AI is no longer optional; it’s essential for success. AI helps gather and analyze large volumes of data quickly, enables better decision-making, and continuously monitors changes 24/7. Mission Grey offers an AI-driven solution that excels in understanding geoeconomics, geopolitics, and the business environment, all with unprecedented speed and accuracy. It’s a tool worth exploring for anyone looking to navigate today’s challenges. Juha Särestöniemi has over 30 years of experience in various roles in the ICT sector. He currently focuses on data management and Enterprise Resource Planning systems.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gained widespread attention due to its expanding applications. Many of those are highly useful and contribute to its growing popularity. The more information AI gets, the better it becomes. However, AI is not only useful but, in some cases, may also be dangerous. This text will focus on real, everyday data concerns AI presents for users, not on extreme scenarios. What should the users be concerned about when using AI tools? There are at least seven risks to take into account. 1. Misinformation and Accuracy AI can sometimes provide inaccurate or misleading information, especially if it doesn’t fully understand the context or if the information it’s trained on is incomplete or outdated. Over-reliance on AI for critical decisions without verification can lead to mistakes. Applications like ChatGPT are extremely good in summarizing and simplifying many topics. That is done by feeding it data, from which it creates the summary. The accuracy of the summarized information depends mostly on the data fed to ChatGPT. However, when one asks questions to which the AI application searches for the data on its own, it relies solely on the data it finds and creates the summary of that. It believes the data to be accurate and, too often does not even give any indication of potential inaccuracies. It means the responsibility of the verification is on the user – who should be aware of it. Therefore, my recommendation is not to use general AI tools for topics in which the users have zero expertise. That is why we need domain specific AI tools. 2. Bias and fairness AI systems are trained on large datasets. If those datasets contain biased information (regarding race, gender, culture, etc.), the AI can perpetuate or even amplify those biases. This can result in unfair treatment or discrimination in areas like hiring, law enforcement, or healthcare. All publicly available AI systems are owned by large US corporations. Most likely some governments have systems of their own, but they are not widely available. How are the rules of the publicly available systems created and what limits are built in for data usage or output? This is mostly unknown. Thus, AI is not to be used for oversimplified questions and the answers given by it should be carefully considered. 3. Privacy and data security AI systems often require a large amount of data to function effectively. There is a risk that sensitive personal information could be misused, mishandled, or exposed through vulnerabilities. Users need to be cautious about what data they share with AI services. Companies providing AI applications are not doing that for the common good, but trying to make profit and find business models for AI usage. When using the systems for free (and perhaps even when paying for it), the users give their most valuable asset for improving the AI: their data. This should be considered before every query for any AI. Since it is often impossible to know how the data is processed and stored by the AI application provider, one should be extremely cautious in inserting any sensitive data into the system. Once the data is collected, the lines around who owns user data are often blurred. It is processed by AI in data lakes, especially since users often don’t fully understand the extent of the data they’re providing. This raises ethical questions about their rights and consent. 4. Unawareness of AI Sometimes users interact with AI without their knowledge or consent, like in the cases of… 1. Massive Data Aggregation: Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have extensive “data lakes” where they gather enormous volumes of user data, often in ways not entirely transparent. This data can include browsing habits, search queries, location history, and social interactions. AI algorithms then analyze the data to improve services or create targeted ads, often without the user realizing how their data is being used. 2. Predictive Profiling: Without clear user consent, AI algorithms may create detailed profiles of user preferences, habits, and even psychological characteristics. These profiles may be used to anticipate behavior, which can feel invasive and potentially manipulative. 3. Influencing User Behavior: AI can track and predict user behavior to create a highly personalized experience, such as tailoring content feeds, ads, and recommendations. However, it can also lead to nudging where AI subtly influences decision-making and behavior. For instance, AI-curated news feeds can amplify particular topics, reinforcing specific viewpoints or behaviors that align with the company’s goals. 5. Legal and ethical concerns AI can be used in ways that raise ethical issues, such as in surveillance, deep fakes, or even autonomous weapons. The lack of clear regulation or ethical guidelines in some areas means AI could be misused in ways that harm society or individuals. AI algorithms have been instrumental in distributing political content, often without users knowing the selection criteria. This can intensify political polarization by showing users content that aligns with their existing beliefs, often called the “echo chamber” effect. Many jurisdictions don’t address AI’s unique challenges, meaning there may not be a clear legal path to hold anyone accountable for AI’s actions. Without specific legislation, holding developers or companies responsible is complicated. Even if developers attempt to make their AI secure, it’s nearly impossible to account for all potential attacks. This means that, in practice, accountability is often not clear-cut, and harm can occur with no party being fully accountable. 6. Lack of accountability When AI systems make decisions (especially in high-stakes fields like law, healthcare, or finance), it can be difficult to hold anyone accountable if things go wrong. Determining who is responsible for an AI’s actions (the developers, the users, or the AI itself) is a complex issue that hasn’t been fully addressed. AI systems, despite their capabilities, are not moral agents. They don’t make decisions based on ethics or inten |