To be or not to be? Global control or cyber - independence?

Original article: https://www.lantidiplomatico.it/dettnews-essere_o_non_essere_controllo_globale_o_cyber__indipendenza/39099_54169/

In March, the seventh session of the Intergovernmental Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes concluded at the UN. The Convention should have been approved by now, but due to the sensitivity of the topic, the complex international situation and the extent of the document's impact on countries' criminal systems, work is still ongoing.

The Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of a Convention was established in 2019 after countries literally split into two camps in their approach to the concept of cybercrime and its prevention. On one side were the drafters of the existing resolution on combating cybercrime. These are Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, Cambodia, Myanmar, Nicaragua and some other countries depending on the issue. Among the threats to international information security considered in the Russian draft Convention are the use of information and communication technologies by states in the military-political and other spheres to undermine sovereignty, violate the territorial integrity, social and economic stability of sovereign states, and interfere in their internal affairs; monopolisation of the ICT market by individual states and/or with their assistance by private companies; the advancement by some states against others of unfounded allegations of cybercrime; and the use of ICT in the military-political and other spheres. In order to prevent and resolve inter-State conflicts in cyberspace, Russia proposes to be guided by the principles of the sovereign equality of States, the inadmissibility of interference in internal affairs, refraining in international relations from threats or the use of force against the information and communications infrastructure of another State, and refraining from adopting doctrinal documents and plans aimed at provoking threats and conflicts in global information space. 

    This approach was not favoured by the US, the EU, NATO bloc countries and their allies, who called on the General Assembly to reject the resolution because of concerns that "it could limit the use of the Internet as a means of realising human rights and as a means of social and economic development". In 2021, the work of the Ad Hoc Committee was made more "inclusive" by including institutions, the private sector and non-governmental organisations. So-called "human rights organisations" immediately began to express concern that “some of the most repressive governments in the world are spearheading the process of creating a cybercrime treaty”. At the same time, NATO countries in Brussels adopted the "NATO 2022 Strategic Concept", which stipulates the decision to consider serious hacker attacks as real military actions, up to their falling under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires members of the alliance to come to the aid of the country that has been subjected to aggression. Due to the fact that the blame for hacker attacks is most often a priori put on Russia, North Korea and China, these countries will be declared aggressors. The document of the alliance's development until 2042 also describes the need for absolute cognitive superiority over Russia and China, particularly in the cyber operational space by creating a network with a single Cyber Operations Centre between the US, the EU and the countries of the Indo-Pacific region. The EU is already successfully working in this direction by uniting the countries of the union in the Digital Europe programme, although the ultimate goal of such a merger is probably not fully known to everyone. 

    Russia, which proposed the initial draft of the Convention, with the agreement of a number of countries supporting this line, proposes to neutralise the existing threats and disagreements by "concluding a legally binding multilateral international treaty within the United Nations" so that the Convention becomes not voluntary, but legally binding and with mechanisms to monitor its implementation. But Western countries and their associates consistently oppose the creation of new legal obligations for cyberspace, arguing that existing international law is already sufficient to regulate relations in the digital environment. At the same time, they do not oppose the adoption of the Global Digital Compact, which should become an essential part of the Pact for the Future, which will be adopted at the end of September 2024 at the end of the Future Summit. It will be held under the auspices of the UN and its main objective will be to advance the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals, which are "far behind schedule". They are not opposed to it, but on the contrary, they are initiators of various new conventions on combating cybercrime, for some reason emphasising the gender component. Western human rights organisations that advocate freedom and protection of personal data of bloggers and hackers are somehow not at all concerned about the ID2020 project, which envisages the total digitisation of the earth's population through microchips by the caring hands of the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, Bill Gates and GAVI.

    Given all this, it is safe to say that the importance of the Convention on Cyber Security is comparable to nuclear security agreements. In today's most complex geopolitical situation, the political leadership of each country must realistically assess the existing and possible risks for their countries, their citizens, and their future. What will become of them? Will the country exist in the future? Or will it be replaced by a digital colony in a few years? It depends on their current actions. Maybe it is time to think, to open our eyes to what is happening, to consider the situation from all sides, and not to follow an imposed line of behaviour. The future starts here, in today's decisions.