Since Israel's attacks against Hezbollah using weaponized pagers and walkie-talkies, several countries are discussing how their imports of strategic resources and devices may also compromise their security.
Israel's compromising walkie-talkies and pagers delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon showed the dangers of compromised supply chains.
With the device explosion incident, countries like Australia have already begun conceptualizing how their imports, especially tech imports from China, may be vulnerable to threats.
The West had been concerned with geoeconomic threats due to supply chain disruptions of semiconductors coming out of Taiwan, which resulted from tensions between Taiwan and China.
Recently, the EU launched several initiatives to prevent the weaponizing of supply chains and build resilience against interruptions. European countries and others will look into vulnerabilities within the supply chain due to their external imports of critical resources.
There are several critical strategic resources that countries depend on other states for via imports.
Semiconductors, fuel, energy, pharmaceuticals, military equipment, technology, and critical raw materials are just among many such resources to acquire, which countries depend on the global supply chain for.
The threat from external supply has become the new risk source.
The threat perception from external supply factors was already prevailing in the form of hindering the supply of critical resources, i.e., fuel and pharmaceuticals, and disruption of supply routes, i.e., blocking trade routes or logistics disruptions, as seen during the pandemic.
Although the West or the Global North is internally conceptualizing its supply chain and resources, the biggest threat arising from this new security aspect is to the Global South.
The Global South depends on the Global North for many vital resources, technology being a prime example. Digital technology and information are crucial in politics, the economy, and social life worldwide.
US transnational corporations are reshaping colonialism in the South by owning and controlling intellectual property, digital intelligence, and computational resources.
American transnational corporations, notably Microsoft, Google, and Apple dominate global supply chains as American transnational corporations own intellectual monopolies and many essential industries and computer functions.
Instead of disseminating knowledge, transferring technology, and providing the foundational elements for shared global prosperity on fair terms, wealthy nations, and their corporations seek to maintain their advantage and exploit the South for inexpensive labor and extracting profits.
Big Tech is gaining control over emerging markets by controlling the essential components of the digital ecosystem, promoting their technology in educational institutions and vocational training programs, and forming alliances with business and government leaders in the South.
A worldwide digital order is firmly entrenched in the global order. Digital platforms like Google, Amazon, and Uber are transforming various social sectors, shaping the information industry, commerce, and urban transportation.
These networks, owned mainly by multinational US-based monopolies, gather raw data from underdeveloped nations, turning it into valuable "digital expertise" to dominate entire industries.
This new digital reliance perpetuates the economic exploitation of underdeveloped nations and has far-reaching political, social, and cultural implications.
There is a stark divide between the developing countries and the West regarding technology and innovations in medical technology, military prowess, and life-saving sciences.
In the global geo-economics of the global digital revolution, this device continues to emerge in newer sectors and evolve into a broader difference in existing sectors.
The North has mainly envisioned and drafted the international laws governing commerce, capital, and property rights.
When developing nations finally understood their true implications, they were often too ingrained to agree to institutional reforms that more equitably represent their best interests.
The technology that the Global South, mainly import-dependent countries like Bangladesh, acquire from the West, from any country, West or East, is always vulnerable to tampering and compromise of any variety and nature.
It is undeniable that global powers are willing to any and all depths and lengths to conduct mass surveillance on not only their citizens but also on all countries in which they have strategic, security, and economic interests.
In addition, the global trade war and multi-polarization are prevailing, squeezing the developing countries' geopolitical gridlocks.
It is not unimaginable that competing forces may compromise or jeopardize the external supplies of one country that is a competitor for the other in the respective sectors.
Bangladesh has faced similar scenarios with supply chain disruptions in its Nuclear Power Plan equipment being supplied from Russia, a situation that the US caused through explicit and "legal" means, i.e., sanctions.
Would it be so outlandish that competing forces will not consider doing the same through covert and illegal or extralegal means? Not really!
Moreover, in the name of heightened security and vigilance measures, the West can also create challenges for the Global South by raising costs and adding security and compliance measures to exports going to the West from the Global South. Countries will likely consider installing more rigorous inspection and testing protocols for imported goods.
This will likely result in increased expenditures and a loss of margin for the Global South, which is already burdened with depleting and fluctuating USD reserves and exchange rates, like Bangladesh.
The Global North and Western countries are conceptualizing security threats from external supply threats, especially regarding key and strategic resources. This may even raise the costs of global travel and logistics, creating an additional burden for developing countries like Bangladesh.
Developing countries like Bangladesh must recognize and address the vulnerabilities that arise from external supply factors.
These vulnerabilities, stemming from transnational crime and terror organizations, pose strategic and tactical threats.
Recent events such as device explosions in Lebanon highlight the potential for interdiction attacks, where hardware is tampered with during transport, particularly along complex shipping routes.
The manufacturer could compromise electronic devices such as routers, phones, and cars at any stage, leading to severe consequences beyond malfunctioning devices. Compromised electronics can serve as a gateway to espionage, sabotage, and cyber-attacks, posing significant risks to national security.
If malicious actors, especially those backed by states, tamper with hardware on a large scale, they could gain access to sensitive data, disrupt critical infrastructure, or even disable essential services.
These risks demand urgent attention and proactive measures to safeguard against potential catastrophic implications.
The recent events in Lebanon shouldn't be seen only as distant and against a terrorist organization but rather as a stark reminder of what can happen when supply chains are compromised.
While developed countries can opt for modified supply chains and external supply strategies, as well as increasing domestic production of critical resources, they can also opt for strategic agreements and protocols among each other for their security objectives.
Such strategies may be challenging for countries like Bangladesh and those in the Global South, but customized and targeted trade frameworks for vital imports with supplier countries may be one option to consider.
It is still too early to say how things will evolve in this context. Still, countries should consider preemptive measures and proactively explore those.
Simon Mohsin is a political and international affairs analyst.
