In 2003, amidst fervent anti-Iraq war protests across the planet, author and journalist Patrick Tyler wrote in the New York Times that there were two superpowers in the world — the United States and world public opinion. In the intervening years, the relentless accumulation of power by China has ensured that a second nation-state has joined the US at the pinnacle of world rankings. And simultaneous to the ascent of China, global public opinion is climbing higher on the shoulders of “web 2.0” technologies.

We currently exist in a world order with three superpowers — China, the US and the more amorphous but frequently coagulating masses of citizens and movements who join hands on single or intersecting issues. The victory of the “Internet sector”, an alliance of netizens and IT firms which waged collective action against anti-piracy bills in the US, was a show of force by this third superpower, which includes Web freedom advocates, nihilists, transnational anti-globalisation protesters and more country-specific agitators with socio-economic and political demands.
The third superpower has from time to time displayed its potential to disrupt the agendas of states and corporations, most visibly during powwows at the World Trade Organisation, the Bretton Woods Institutions, the World Economic Forum, the G7 and the G20. Since the economic downturn of 2008, we are witnessing this broad force gaining ground by occupying streets and pressurising politicians to turn to the Left. The “justice brigade” catches attention by being vocal, ideologically charged and technologically innovative.
Unlike the formally registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the third force is less bureaucratic, more horizontal and decentralised. The force shares these traits with violent non-state actors such as terrorist groups, although it is mainly non-violent. Occasionally, one does see its legions descending into vandalism for photo-ops, but it would be a mistake to broad-brush all components of the justice brigade as extremists who deserve police clampdown.
In a bipolar or multipolar world, where states and corporations are maximising their own selfish gains in the name of the earth’s seven billion people, and where the NGOs are mostly suborned by governments or corporates, the amalgamation of mass movements through technological platforms is a necessary counterbalance. Imagine a Europe without anti-austerity mass movements today. It would be a continent going down the road to foretold macroeconomic destruction based on fiscal conservatism and corporate bailouts, if not for the angry opposition from spontaneous grassroots phenomena such as the indignados (“angry ones”) of Spain.
Yet, there is one troubling element within the loosely structured “justice brigade” that uses the idioms of war and revenge, and which deploys virtual violence in the cyber realm. The arrests this week in Latin America and Europe of 25 suspected members of the multinational hacking network, Anonymous, are shining light on a shadowy world of computing nerds and their propensity to challenge the sheriffs of the world.
The apprehended individuals are believed to be operatives of Anonymous in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain, and were nabbed through coordinated Interpol raids. They are accused of attacking websites of Presidents, defence ministries and public utilities in numerous countries of Latin America. Their capture follows a series of daring online attacks and hackings carried out by Anonymous on communications systems of the American and British police, the US department of justice, the US Central Intelligence Agency and affiliates of the Kremlin in Russia.
Snooping into classified emails, conducting large-scale “denial of service” attacks on targeted websites, and leaking confidential conversations that embarrass the powerful are the staple functions of Anonymous. Its notorious spokespersons, wearing Guy Fawkes masks, issue statements seeped in militaristic language and codes such as “Tango down” and are boastful of their global crusades against what they consider as oppressive institutions.
Unlike Al Qaeda or even WikiLeaks (whose founder Julian Assange has been glorified by Anonymous), these “hacktivists” are a bunch of radicalised techies who have no known leaders, hierarchies or state sponsors. They are not to be confused with anarchists, however. Anonymous and its ilk mount transnationally synchronised attacks with impressive technological sophistication and a commonly shared purpose.
Some fringe hackers may be in it for the sheer audacity and adrenalin thrills of “strikes” against IT systems of intelligence agencies or corporate honchos, but identified groups with banners and symbols like Anonymous are politically rather than idiosyncratically or commercially driven. They are agents of a “New Left” of the Internet era that is geographically more diverse and has more technological tools in its hands than the New Left of the anti-Vietnam war era.
Will Anonymous be busted through harsh law enforcement? One of its infamous partner groups, “Lulz Security”, announced last year that it was ceasing its cyber war on governments and corporations after a crackdown by police in multiple countries. Though Lulz’s own propaganda painted it as a club of geeks intent on causing online mayhem for “fun” and “entertainment” (earning them the moniker “grey hats”), it took aim at the computer networks of the Brazilian government and its state-owned energy giant, Petrobras, as well as the US Senate and the CIA. These political targets are no safer today, even though Lulz has disbanded.
Anonymous is older than Lulz and could morph into a new grouping with a new name. The message implied in the reincarnations of hackers’ consortiums is that their battles are eternal and will last as long as perceived unfairness and injustices prevail in the global economy and within particular countries. They are the pirates and the Web-based shock troops who second on-the-street physical protesters and campers demanding progressive politics.
Governments which are investing in counter-hacking and cyber surveillance view Anonymous-type organisations as “terrorists”, but often fail to read the political and economic contexts that make them popular. Counter-cultural hacktivists, who first made their mark as whacky rebels exposing “white hat” security professionals for their treachery and “sell out” to corporates and governments, have now matured into keyboard guerrillas of the bigger global third force. The Guy Fawkes mask represents a militant arm of the third superpower.

The writer is vice-dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs and the author of the recent book International Organizations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones