Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
About US strategy for cyberspace
Material posted: Publication date: 18-04-2012

To date, cyber is not just the "world fence", on which a variety of "bullies" leave your message "to eternity". On the performance and predictability of cyberspace and, in particular, the Internet tied to the economy, the achievement of military superiority, political stability. In the US, the cyberspace official document generally fixed as of the fifth (after earth, water, air and space) a space in which the States have their own interests to be security at any cost.

There was a need to develop certain rules of conduct in cyberspace (primarily for States), to determine the future of cyberspace (the key point of development), to relate activities in cyberspace with the existing international legal framework. There are different, often conflicting approaches, the main debate today is around a number of initiatives, including those put forward in 2011, "the International U.S. strategy for cyberspace".

Remarkable the format of this document. If someone offers, ways in which discussion, the Americans in their "Strategy..." actually say, "this is our vision. You'd like to join. You don't want – we don't care we act, on the basis of these approaches." How does it look?

First of all, according to the authors of the Strategy, all digital systems must be "open and compatible". In theory the idea is great: all components of cyberspace are compatible, leading to facilitation of communication. However, reality differs from theory. We are talking about that standardization should be everything innovative products, and they should be based purely on "international standards". They are suitable for other countries or not – the developers of USA, which lobbied for a significant portion of basic technical standards, don't care. Otherwise, they say, there is a risk of "fragmentation of the network", which is unacceptable. Of course, it is inadmissible, because the "fragmentation" could be the ability of the state to stand on the site of cyberspace of their own national interests than U.S. interests.

Much attention is given to strengthening international norms of "correct behavior". The US stand on the position that there is no need to take on the expense of any special international instruments – like, long-standing international norms governing the actions of the state during the war and the world also apply to cyberspace. In plain language we are talking about the ability to respond to cyber attack weapons (including weapons of mass destruction) and you can always invoke the provisions of the UN Charter on the right of States to self-defence. However, any expert on cybersecurity will call a dozen reasons that make this provision inapplicable to cyber-attacks, even if we close our eyes to the fact that there is not only the definition of "cyber attack", but the actual concept of "cyberspace".

However, Americans, it again don't care: in his "Strategy..." they just talk about using to repel cyber attacks not only informational, economic and diplomatic but also military capabilities. A couple of years ago one of the assistants of the Minister of defense said that his country was ready to respond to a cyber attack by a missile. In the same context is considered and the problem of "Internet governance" - the United States categorically rejects the idea of transferring all the necessary powers to supranational authority of the UN system, in advocating a leading role for ICANN.

Washington also continues to insist that any international cooperation should be built around the European Convention on cybercrime. It is remarkable with what tenacity the USA grabbed the document, it would seem, purely regional significance. Despite the fact that this Convention was supported by many member countries of the Council of Europe, many refuse to sign (among nepodpisanija - Russia, Australia, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Philippines, Senegal, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino). And even those who signed this document, do not hurry up with its ratification: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, Canada, Japan and South Africa. In the end, only 32 member countries of the Council of Europe of 47 member countries, started to implement the Convention in practice. Here's a "European document"... And it's only in the Council of Europe, and in fact the vast majority of countries in the world actually have no relation to the organization and its documents for them mean nothing.

Of particular importance in "the International U.S. strategy for cyberspace" are the provisions of "free information flows" and "Internet freedom" that directly undermine the foundations of state sovereignty of any country except the United States. Washington insists that information should absolutely freely circulate in international networks, and States have no right to limit it.

The American side denial of any sovereignty in cyberspace, in addition to the sovereignty of the USA, is doubly unacceptable, because the us is unable to also link the notion of "Internet freedom" with his own thesis of a "right to defend itself" rooted in the concept of "sovereignty".

Affect the authors of the strategy and the issue of the work of civil society activists. It is explicitly stated that the US will help (apparently, money and experts) of such "activists" to improve the security of their electronic mailboxes, web sites, mobile phones.

Of how to understand "Internet freedom" in the United States, speaks at least such example. Not so long ago a young British couple decided to go on holiday in the USA. Shortly before the visit, the young man decided to inform their friends through the system micro-blogging Twitter, where he left two messages: "We're gonna blow up America!" (I mean is there a good walk) and "dig the grave of the old lady Marilyn" (a direct quote from the American animated series Family Guy). The results of two messages: 12 hours of intensive communication with the employees of the border service immediately after arrival in the United States and further imminent deportation from "the land of freedom and equality" back to Albion.

A more recent example: an employee of the U.S. army published online Facebook message that he would refuse to follow orders of President Barack Obama. And again summary: 13 hours of discussion in the military Council and recommendation to dismiss for insubordination and without saving the privileges of service in the armed forces of the United States. Looks like "freedom of speech in the new digital age" the American interpretation...

Introduced in the U.S. Congress several bills on cyber security are a visual aid for the violation of civil liberties. First, they pose a constant threat to other countries. Despite the unresolved legal issue of classification of cyber attacks and responsibility for them, the U.S. intends to treat all related matters to its exclusive benefit.

Secondly, the USA are speculating on the thesis "protection of the rights of citizens to information" and immediately block the information with criticism of Washington.

Thirdly, the U.S. seeks to discredit in the media and in diplomatic forums of any initiatives of their own alternative, as is happening now with the Russian and Russian-Chinese proposals. Only from a more coherent, forward-looking positions of the authors of such alternative initiatives will depend on whether the United States continues with impunity to interfere in the internal Affairs of other States, snubbed by Washington as "insufficiently democratic", or those States will create mechanisms of protection against aggressive attacks on their interests, including in cyberspace.




RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security