Cyberspace: Can Real Players be Brought Together Virtually?
CeBit, 2015
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Ph.D. in Political Science, Professor, Deputy Director of the Centre for International Information Security, Science and Technology Policy at MGIMO University under the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Each year Europe and the US celebrate a Safer Internet Day encouraging web literacy among their citizens, especially the young ones – children and students. However, recently international community has been trying to widen the cyber agenda and work more closely on managing cyber threats, securing personal data and overall international cyber cooperation. Further below you will find an Russian expert view on recent report featured by Carnegie Europe covering major issues of Transatlantic cyber cooperation and leadership.
Each year Europe and the US celebrate a Safer Internet Day encouraging web literacy among their citizens, especially the young ones – children and students. However, recently international community has been trying to widen the cyber agenda and work more closely on managing cyber threats, securing personal data and overall international cyber cooperation. Further below you will find an Russian expert view on recent report featured by Carnegie Europe covering major issues of Transatlantic cyber cooperation and leadership.
In January 2016, Carnegie Europe published a report entitled “Governing Cyberspace: A Road Map for Transatlantic Leadership” prepared by Sinan Ülgen, a visiting scholar at the centre in Brussels. The main idea of the report is reflected in its title, that is, it explains the need for the United States and the European Union to establish cooperation in the management of cyberspace, with the aim of consolidating leadership in this area and developing a code of conduct that reflects the interests of the transatlantic partners.
The author proceeds from the need for comprehensive cooperation and coordination of U.S. and EU policies in the management of cyberspace on a wide range of issues, including personal data protection, freedom of speech and self-expression, data flow management, internet governance, ecommerce, cybersecurity and cyberwarfare – that is, the report covers the entire spectrum of military-political, economic, social, humanitarian, political and even technical problems associated with the development of cyberspace.
Can Rules of the Game be Worked Out?
It is worth noting here that the international regulation of cyberspace has attracted more and more attention over the past few years from researchers and journalists, as well as from politicians and diplomats. This is linked, on the one hand, with new technological trends in the field that remain unregulated at the international level (we are talking here about the development of the Internet of Things, cloud programming, etc.). On the other hand, it is linked to the securitization and militarization of this sector, as well as to changes in the balance of powers, primarily Russia and China. Cyberspace is not just a phenomenon of international politics, it is the driving force behind a series of transformations taking place around the world. It is here that modern trends are reflected in a concentrated form, including the rise of new centres of powers, the formation of a multipolar system of relations and the growth of international conflicts and tension. All this makes the need for global cooperation to establish international legal norms and rules that govern the development of cyberspace very real.
The importance of cyber issues and the significance that states have attached do developing rules of the game mean that it is difficult to find a compromise in this area.
At the same time, the importance of cyber issues and the significance that states have attached do developing rules of the game mean that it is difficult to find a compromise in this area. This is even reflected in the terminology used. In Western academic literature, as well as in journalism and diplomatic rhetoric, the word “cyberspace” is generally used, while in Russia, the preferred term is “information space”. As a rule, information space is understood to have a broader meaning than cyberspace, which is limited to computers and other electronic networks and information found on them. Information space united all information and data that exists in the virtual dimension and in reality. This approach reflects the positions of the states in the region – Russia has called for the information sector to be demilitarized and regulated comprehensively at the international level with a view to ensuring safety (this position is a direct response to the events of the Arab Spring, which were seen as an attempt to use the internet and the information space as a whole to destabilize the socio-political systems of those countries that witnessed mass protests. The United States and its allies support the idea that it is necessary to preserve the freedoms and openness of the information sphere, and that regulation is needed only in those areas – primarily technological areas – that could give rise to military and political threats.
The United States and its allies support the idea that it is necessary to preserve the freedoms and openness of the information sphere, and that regulation is needed only in those areas.
It should be noted that the internet, which today is a key infrastructure around which global cyberspace is formed, was created in the United States. It is only natural, therefore, that the United States’ footprint is all over the global network management architecture and the virtual sphere it forms. The existing cyberspace management system to a large degree reflects the interests of the United States, although this is being challenged by a growing number of states. A number of Russian and international scholars have noted that the absence of an international regime in this area would more than likely lead to the balkanization of the internet and its disintegration into a number of unrelated parts.
Will the Main Roles Change?
The absence of an international regime in this area would more than likely lead to the balkanization of the internet and its disintegration into a number of unrelated parts.
The report names the United States, the European Union, China and Russia as the key actors in the information space. At the same time, according to the author, only the United States and the European Union possess the necessary technological leadership and political vision to effectively manage cyberspace, which faces a number of challenges and needs strengthening. Transatlantic leadership can be strengthened, first of all, by overcoming the disagreements that currently on a number of issues in this area between the United States and the European Union (including personal data protection, regulating ecommerce, etc.) and, secondly, by more actively promoting their own agendas on the international stage.
To some extent, a report such as this one can be seen as a response to the deepening cooperative ties between Russia and China in the field of information security and internet management and their interest in taking the initiative to manage the agenda on the matter.
To be sure, Russia has initiated discussions on international information security and actively supports the creation of an international regime in this area. An equally important issue is internet management, which is also viewed through the prism of security. As the author rightly notes, China and Russia have similar (but not always identical) approaches to most issues related to the management of cyberspace.
This calls the United States’ leadership in this area into question. At the same time, the unilateral policy of the United States has met with significant resistance in recent years, especially in light of Edward Snowden’s global surveillance disclosures, which revealed the scale of the United States’ surveillance operations, which included keeping tabs on their allies within NATO. In this context, the author’s recommendations on the need to further develop relations between the United States and the European Union seem rather fragile.
Creating an International Cyber Regime
Only the United States and the European Union possess the necessary technological leadership and political vision to effectively manage cyberspace.
To some extent, a report such as this one can be seen as a response to the cooperative ties between Russia and China in the field of information security and internet management.
It is interesting to compare cyberspace with nuclear safety and the need to sign contracts similar to those that exist with regard to nuclear weapons. To some degree, this is the result of the author’s professional experience, as nuclear security is one of Sinan Ülgen’s priority research areas. But these kinds of analogy can be heard with increasing frequency. The respected American researcher Joseph S. Nye Jr. drew similar parallels in his article “Nuclear Lessons for Cyber Security?” In the article, Nye notes that the political and ideological standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far more serious than the current differences between the United States, China and Russia. But this did not prevent international cooperation from being developed and mutually acceptable solutions from being sought, turning situations into positive sum games.
Continuing the nuclear analogy, it is worth noting that it was only after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when both sides realized their vulnerability, that the United States and the Soviet Union started to develop international cooperation. We are at a similar stage of recognizing vulnerability in the development of the new rules of cooperation in cyberspace, which all the sides involved see as a strategically important area. However, unlike the international regime for nuclear arms control, understanding one’s vulnerability will not be the result of a large-scale international crisis, but of a number of international events that are crucial for world politics and security. The Stuxnet attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was one such event, demonstrating the vulnerability of a critical informational infrastructure and the possible large-scale consequences of cyberattacks. Islamic State’s activities in cyberspace are of particular note here. The organization’s information policy is aimed at spreading its ideology, recruiting new members and demonstrating its strength to its opponents. It is one of the main components of its military and political success. The countries of the world and the global community need to band together to fight terrorism, and this one again confirms the importance and timeliness of developing and intensifying international cooperation in this area.
It is interesting to compare cyberspace with nuclear safety and the need to sign contracts similar to those that exist with regard to nuclear weapons.
Of particular note are the results of the work of the UN Group of Governmental Experts, which concluded in July 2015. The main result of this work was the recognition of the need to develop a code of conduct for states in cyberspace.
It would thus seem that the priorities have been skewed somewhat. If we look at global cyberspace (and in the broader sense, the information space) as being a shared resource of humankind similar to outer space, then this will encourage us to search for common solutions, turning situations into positive sum games. Any attempt to strengthen one’s leadership in the field assumes a zero sum game, which will inevitably make reaching compromises that much harder and also hinder the development of international cooperation. We thus need to search for a unifying and positive agenda. And the recommendations of the UN Group of Governmental Experts can serve as a basis for this.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
