Commentary

We’re nearing the moment of developing international cyber norms

Last month, the Netherlands hosted the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015, which brought together nearly 2,000 government officials, academics, industry representatives and others. I chaired a panel on cyber peace and security that included a Microsoft vice president and two foreign ministers. This “multi-stakeholder” conference was the latest in a series of efforts to establish rules of the road to avoid cyber conflict.The capacity to use the Internet to inflict damage is now well established. Many observers believe the American and Israeli governments were behind an earlier attack that destroyed centrifuges at an Iranian nuclear facility. Some say an Iranian government attack destroyed thousands of Saudi Aramco computers. Russia is blamed for denial-of-service attacks on Estonia and Georgia. And just last December, U.S. President Barack Obama attributed an attack on Sony Pictures to the North Korean government.

Until recently, cybersecurity was largely the domain of a small community of computer experts. When the Internet was created in the 1970s, its members formed a virtual village; everyone knew one another, and together they designed an open system, paying little attention to security.

Then, in the early 1990s, the World Wide Web emerged, growing from a few million users then to more than 3 billion today. In little more than a generation, the Internet has become the substrate of the global economy and governance worldwide. Several billion more human users will be added in the next decade, as will tens of billions of devices, ranging from thermostats to industrial control systems (the “Internet of Things”).

All of this burgeoning interdependence implies vulnerabilities that governments and nongovernmental actors can exploit. At the same time, we are only beginning to come to terms with the national-security implications of this. Strategic studies of the cyber domain resemble nuclear strategy in the 1950s: Analysts are still not clear about the meaning of offense, defense, deterrence, escalation, norms and arms control.

The term “cyberwar” is used very loosely for a wide range of behaviors, ranging from simple probes, website defacement and denial of service to espionage and destruction. In this, it reflects dictionary definitions of “war,” which include any organized effort to “stop or defeat something viewed as dangerous or bad” (for example, “war on drugs”).

A more useful definition of cyberwar is any hostile action in cyberspace that amplifies or is equivalent in effect to major physical violence. Determining whether an action meets that criterion is a decision that only a country’s political leaders can make.

There are four major categories of cyberthreats to national security, each with a different time horizon and (in principle) different solutions: cyberwar and economic espionage, which are largely associated with states, and cybercrime and cyberterrorism, which are mostly associated with nonstate actors. The highest costs currently stem from espionage and crime, but the other two may become greater threats over the next decade than they are today. Moreover, as alliances and tactics evolve, the categories may increasingly overlap.

During the Cold War, ideological competition limited U.S.-Soviet cooperation, but both sides’ awareness of nuclear destructiveness led them to develop a crude code of conduct to avoid military confrontation. These basic rules of prudence included no direct fighting, no first use of nuclear weapons, and crisis communication, such as the Moscow-Washington hotline and the Accidents Measures and Incidents at Sea agreements.

The first formal arms-control agreement was the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, which can be considered mainly an environmental treaty. The second major agreement was the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. The U.S. and the Soviet Union perceived both pacts as positive-sum games, because they involved nature or third parties.

Similarly, the most promising areas for early international cooperation on securing cyberspace are problems posed by third parties such as criminals and terrorists. Russia and China have sought a treaty for broad United Nations oversight of the Internet. Though their vision of “information security” could legitimize authoritarian governments’ censorship, and is therefore unacceptable to democratic governments, it may be possible to identify and target behaviors that are illegal everywhere. Limiting all intrusions would be impossible, but one could start with cybercrime and cyberterrorism. Major states would have an interest in limiting damage by agreeing to cooperate on forensics and controls.

Of course, historical analogies are imperfect. Obviously, cyber technology is very different from nuclear technology, particularly because nongovernmental actors can exploit it much more easily.

Nonetheless, some institutions, both formal and informal, already govern the basic functioning of the Internet. The U.S. wisely plans to strengthen the nongovernmental Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers by having it supervise the Internet “address book.” There is also the Council of Europe’s 2001 Convention on Cybercrime, with Interpol and Europol facilitating cooperation among national police forces. And a U.N. Group of Government Experts has been analyzing how international law relates to cybersecurity.

It is likely to take longer to conclude agreements on contentious issues such as cyber intrusions for purposes like espionage and preparing the battlefield. Nonetheless, the inability to envisage an overall cyber arms-control agreement need not prevent progress on some issues now. International norms tend to develop slowly. It took two decades in the case of nuclear technology. The most important message of the recent Dutch conference was that massive cyber vulnerability is now nearing that point.

Joseph S. Nye, a professor at Harvard University, is the author, most recently, of “Is the American Century Over?” THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on May 18, 2015, on page 7.

Recommended





Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here