Strategic Trust-Building

The EastWest Institute (EWI) and the Russian Institute of International Information Security Issues at Moscow State University (MSU), partnering in the framework of the International Information Security Research Consortium (IISRC), have released a joint working group study on ”Methodological issues of the application of norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour of states to promote an open, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful ICT environment.” The new report is the result of multi-year efforts to promote Russia’s engagement with the West on the development of coherent international cyber norms. The idea of a joint U.S.-Russia project to explore methodological hurdles in reaching international consensus on cyber norms was first discussed by EWI and MSU leaders in late 2017. 

The initiative was born when the United Nations Governmental Group of Experts’ (UN GGE) fundamentally disagreed on the applicability of international law to states' use of ICT, preventing the group from delivering its 2016/2017 consensus report (Report of the UN Secretary-General A/72/327). The Track-2 MSU-EWI project was supported by the IISRC at its meeting in April 2018 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen (Germany), by forming an international group of experts to discuss methodological differences in, and develop common approaches for assessing the applicability of the UN GGE 2015 report recommendations. At that meeting, MSU and EWI representatives were joined by experts from the Cyber Policy Institute (Estonia and Finland), the ICT4Peace Foundation (Switzerland) and the Korea University Cyber Law Centre (Republic of Korea). 

Understanding the issue’s complexity, participants of the IISRC working group decided to limit their effort to only three norms of the UN GGE 2015 report: paragraphs 13(g), 13(h) and 13(k). Respectively, these norms focus on the requirement for states to take measures to protect their critical infrastructures from ICT threats, the requirement to respond to appropriate requests for assistance by another state whose critical infrastructure is subject to malicious ICT acts; and the requirement not to conduct or knowingly support activity to harm the information systems of the authorized emergency response teams of another state, as well as discouraging a state from using authorized emergency response teams to engage in malicious international activity. Working group participants also deliberated general methodological issues of cyber norms implementation, including technical and legal aspects.

By 2020, the participants of this discussion concluded that they were not able to develop a consensus set of recommendations, even for the three selected topics, initially considered to be the easiest for international cooperation and voluntary, non-binding implementation. The disagreements between and Russian and Western scholars in this area are concisely summarized in the joint comment by the experts of the Cyber Policy Institute, the ICT4Peace Foundation and the EastWest Institute, published as an integral part of the report (reproduced below). However, participants agreed to publish their findings and major points of agreements and disagreement, primarily as useful thought-provoking material for diplomats, lawyers and technical specialists involved in the current stage of UN-sponsored efforts within the GGE and the Open-Ended Working Group. 

The need to continue dialogue and joint research among scholars and consultants of different schools of thought was also considered to be a priority to help Russia and the West overcome their political disagreements. This effort follows the EastWest Institute’s many years of building partnerships with various institutions in Russia, starting with the Institute of Information Security Issues (IISI) at the Lomonosov Moscow State University—a leading think tank in this area. See our select joint publications, below:

• Russia-U.S. Bilateral on Cybersecurity: Critical Terminology Foundations, 2011 
• Russia-U.S. Bilateral on Cybersecurity: Critical Terminology Foundations, 2014 
• A Measure of Restraint in Cyberspace Reducing Risk to Civilian Nuclear Assets, 2014 

The EastWest Institute would like to express special acknowledgements to Professor Anatoly Streltsov and Dr. Eneken Tikk for their leadership in shaping the discussion, coordinating the activities of the Working Group and persistently navigating the text of the report to completion. We are also grateful to Dr. Vladislav Sherstyuk and Ambassador Andrey Krutskikh for their political support and help in enhancing outreach to the highest levels of the Russian and international diplomatic communities.

----------------------------------

Comment by experts from the Cyber Policy Institute and the ICT4Peace Foundation, supported by the experts of the EastWest Institute

It is not often that the Western scholars get to work with their Russian colleagues on issues of international information or cyber security. It is unfortunate as the lack of contacts makes it difficult to find ways forward in the climate of political differences and competing world views.

We have found our cooperation with the Russian colleagues extremely informative and useful as it has helped us understand the Russian positions and views on several contested issues. We entered this project at the invitation of the International Information Security Research Consortium, Moscow State University to better understand how our colleagues approach the issue of implementing the norms, rules and principles of responsible state behavior as outlined in the UN GGE report of 2015.

At the end of this project, we can conclude that there are not only political but also fundamental methodological differences in how the Western and Russian scholars approach non-binding norms and international law. These differences make it close to impossible for the Western colleagues to acknowledge and appreciate the proposals made by the Russian colleagues on how to implement the UN GGE recommendations and make them universally accepted. Whether there is agreement to be found on these differences or not, we consider it necessary to highlight these differences to facilitate finding consensus and ways forward in the international cybersecurity/information security discourse.

Experts in this very small group remained divided in three fundamental questions:

1. The relevance of the existing international law and current state practices to provide guidance on state behavior. The Russian colleagues are much more pessimistic about the susceptibility of existing rules and standards of international law to be usefully applied to issues of cybersecurity without progressive development. Based on our experience and expertise, we consider it possible to apply the rules and standards of existing international law, such as the prohibition of intervention or the obligation of peaceful settlement of international disputes, to issues of international cybersecurity. It would, indeed, require dialogue between states as to how to best interpret and implement these rules and standards.
2. The nature of the 2015 UN GGE report recommendations for norms, rules and principles for responsible state behavior. In the Russian conception, these norms, rules and principles will be implemented only after they acquire the legally binding status, either by state practice or treaty negotiation. From our perspective, the UN GGE recommendations can be implemented partially on the basis of existing international law and partially by way of national legislation and policy, which, as the Russian colleagues point out, constitutes the exercise of sovereignty.
3. The relevance of the question of attribution in the three examined GGE recommendations. Differences on attribution are particular to strategic contestants and, between these States, have raised concerns of less than satisfactory implementation of international law. For most of the States, however, attribution remains a still to be developed capacity and capability. Therefore, it is early to conclude whether the issue of attribution is, indeed, an equally significant issue of international law for the international community, or will the improvements and increase in national resilience and capacity resolve this issue in practice.

These divisions are also some of the key issues in the political negotiations that have taken place globally and bilaterally. Therefore, we conclude that successful and global implementation of the recommended norms is unlikely before nations come to agreement of their relevant premises and assumptions.

Most importantly, given these foundational differences, expert exchange, joint academic research and political dialogue must continue. This interaction should also cross disciplinary borders and involve more scholars and experts. Remaining in our trenches will only keep the war of attrition going on.

Full text of the report can be found here. 

Институт «Восток-Запад» (ИВЗ) сегодня публикует русскоязычную версию экспертного доклада «Терроризм в Афганистане: совместная оценка угрозы». Доклад представляет собой итоговый отчет созданной под эгидой Института россйско-американской неправительственной рабочей группы по противодействию терроризму в Афганистане. В докладе, подготовленном американскими и российскими авторами, дается беспристрастная оценка терроризма и вооруженного конфликта в Афганистане, а также исследуются вопросы борьбы с терроризмом в более широком геополитическом контексте отношений США и России. Английская версия отчета была выпущена в свет 27 мая текущего года.

«Несмотря на продолжающуюся напряженность между США и Россией, Афганистан и борьба с терроризмом остаются редкими, динамичными областями для продолжения конструктивного двустороннего диалога», - отметил Владимир Иванов, директор Рабочей группы и программы ИВЗ по России и США. «В этот критический момент на пути Афганистана к миру, в то время как вооруженное насилие в стране продолжается, для США и России как никогда важно лучше согласовывать свои усилия по борьбе с терроризмом и поддержке мирного процесса в Афганистане. Согласованность политики этих двух глобальных игроков имеет критическое значение не только для безопасности и стабильности Афганистана, но и для региона, и мира в целом».

Перейдите по ссылке здесь, чтобы увидеть полный текст доклада.

Итоговоый доклад Рабочей группы призван служить аналитическим инструментом для политиков и экспертного сообщества, стимулом для совместных действий США и России. В отчете представлен обзор ситуации в области безопасности и мирного процесса в Афганистане с учетом политики, приоритетов и интересов США и России; дается анализ вооруженных террористических группировок, действующих в Афганистане; исследуются интересы безопасности различных региональных заинтересованных держав по отношению к Афганистану. Также рассматриваются проблемы, связанные с управлением границами, торговлей оружием и финансированием терроризма в раздираемой гражданской войной стране.

В отчете предлагается несколько приоритетных тем для дальнейшего диалога между США и Россией, в том числе:

• Противодействие угрозе безопасности, связанной с перемещением террористов с Ближнего Востока в Афганистан и с северо-запада Пакистана на север Афганистана.
• Содействие международным гарантиям для устойчивого прекращения огня и проведения продуктивного межафганского переговорного процесса.
• Определение размеров остаточного контингента военных и контртеррористических сил США.
• Разработка стратегии взаимодействия с Талибаном и поддержание рычагов влияния (будь то санкции, военное давление или другие средства), которые стимулируют переговоры и соблюдение Соглашения о мире в Афганистане.
• Понимание возможностей влияния США и России на региональных игроков, включая Пакистан и Иран.
• Создание предпосылок для обеспечения нейтральной внешней политики Афганистана в будущем.
• Обеспечение потенциала для более широкой роли ЕС и НАТО как заинтересованных сторон в мирном процессе в Афганистане, как в качестве партнеров для содействия Афганистану в области безопасности, так и участников его постконфликтного восстановления.

Созданная в октябре 2017 года, Рабочая группа в течение двух лет проводила встречи американских и российских экспертов по политическим и техническим вопросам в Москве, Вашингтоне (округ Колумбия), Брюсселе и Вене. С тех пор деятельность группы получила положительные отзывы и поддержку со стороны ключевых собеседников, включая Государственный департамент США, Министерство обороны США и Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации, а также Организацию Североатлантического договора (НАТО) и Организацию по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе (ОБСЕ).

Building on themes from EWI’s recently released report, Terrorism in Afghanistan: A Joint Threat Assessment, the roundtable brought together American and Russian policy and technical experts to exchange views on the many uncertainties and complexities surrounding the pending drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan and its likely ramifications for the stability and security of Afghanistan’s neighbors. 

As allegations of Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers have further aggravated bilateral tensions, and intensified violence in Afghanistan has cast doubts on the war-torn country’s prospects for peace, the roundtable provided a rare opportunity for candid dialogue on Russian and American concerns vis-à-vis ever-evolving security threats in Afghanistan and the prospects for continued bilateral cooperation in this arena.

Discussion focused on several possible outcomes of the U.S. troop withdrawal, including the resurgence of terrorist and militant actors in Afghanistan and increased Pakistan-India rivalry; the short- and long-term consequences for regional players, such as Pakistan, India and the Central Asian states; and the role of regional actors in ensuring the stability of Afghanistan following the United States’ departure. Participants also highlighted the obstacles facing the intra-Afghan peace talks and political reconciliation. 

EWI plans to host a second virtual roundtable later this summer focused on U.S.-Russia cooperation on economic development and connectivity in Afghanistan and the region.

A select delegation of leaders from the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties and the global business community traveled to Beijing, China to meet with senior officials from the Communist Party of China (CPC) on November 18-21, 2019. The discussions were part of the 11th U.S.-China High-Level Political Party Leaders Dialogue organized by the EastWest Institute (EWI) in partnership with the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (IDCPC). 

Launched in 2010, the U.S.-China High-Level Political Party Leaders Dialogue seeks to build understanding and trust between political elites from the U.S. and China through candid exchanges of views on topics ranging from local governance to foreign policy concerns. The dialogue process consistently involves sitting officers from the CPC and the U.S. Democratic and Republican National Committees. 

In the 11th iteration of the dialogue, the CPC delegation was led by Song Tao, minister of IDCPC. Gary Locke, former secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, former governor for the state of Washington and former United States Ambassador of China; and Alphonso Jackson, former secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; lead the U.S. Democratic and Republican delegations, respectively. Throughout the dialogue, members of both delegations spoke freely on relevant topics including foriegn policy trends, trade disputes and emerging areas of economic cooperation. 

EWI facilitated a series of meetings for the U.S. delegation, which included a productive meeting with Wang Qishan, vice president of the People’s Republic of China at the Great Hall of the People. The delegates also met with Yang Jiechi, director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs; Dai Bingguo, former state councilor of the People’s Republic of China; and Lu Kang, director of the Department of North American and Oceanian Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The U.S. delegates visited the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and met with their president, Jin Liqun, as well as the Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University to engage prominent scholars on the future of the U.S.-China relationship. 

With U.S.-China competition in full force, amid looming tensions in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait, the 11th U.S.-China Sanya Initiative Dialogue came at a crucial junction where the risk of miscalculation has increased rapidly in the strategic relationship. The dialogue afforded an opportunity for candid exchanges on key current and future flashpoints that are consequential to the security and stability in the Asia-Pacific.

In addition to the closed door exchanges between the American and Chinese delegates, the group has also met with General Zhang Youxia, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, the governing body of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Senior military and civilian personnel from the United States Embassy in Beijing have also taken part in the event.

Since 2008, the U.S.-China Sanya Initiative has regularly facilitated high-level dialogue between retired American and Chinese generals and admirals in order to strengthen military-to-military ties between the United States and China.

China as the first mover in developing military infrastructure on the border with India has long enjoyed an advantage. This is being progressively balanced with development of border infrastructure by India, which means easier and more border patrolling by Indian forces, and thus increased room for frictions at the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Improving the infrastructure on its own side is not changing the status quo by India as China self-servingly claims.

The 2005 Agreement on the Parameters and Guiding Principles for the settlement of the India-China border speaks of “the principle of mutual and equal security”. Equal security means that India has every right to reduce the long-standing unequal security situation on its Himalayan border. 

Click here to read the full article in The Economic Times.