Andrey NOVATSKY – Independent analyst and researcher

Nowadays the cyberspace is not just a «universal fence» that different «rowdies» use for leaving their messages to «eternity». Economy, military superiority, internal political stability depend on efficiency and predictability of cyberspace. The US official documents define it as space number five (after land, water, air and space) in importance where the United States has interests to be protected at any price.  

It has become necessary to work out definite rules of behavior in cyberspace (for states). There is a need to outline the future (core directions of development) and introduce an international legal foundation for cyberspace activities. The approaches offered are of different character, sometimes contradicting each other. The main debates are centered around a number of initiatives, including the US International Strategy for Cyberspace that saw light in 2011. 

It»s the format of the document that strikes an eye. If some other alternatives offer points for discussion, the American Strategy says: «Here»s our vision. Join if you want to. If not, it»s all the same for us, we»ll act according to these provisions.» How does it look? 

First, as the «Strategy» authors see it, all digital systems are to be «open and interoperable». In theory it»s a great idea: it»s easier to communicate if all cyberspace components are interoperable. But reality is different from theory. The matter is that all innovations are to be standardized and be based on «international standards» only. The US designers have lobbied through the major part of basic technical standards, they don»t care if they meet the interests of other countries. Otherwise «net fragmentation» may take place, an inadmissible thing. Of course it is inadmissible, because the «fragmentation» in cyberspace may make possible for a state to protect its own national interests that may not match the US ones.   

No less attention is given to international norms of «right behavior». The US stance envisages no special international documents to be adopted. It says the many years old international war and peace time conduct norms are applicable in case of cyberspace. To put it in simple language it»s the admissibility of armed resistance in case of a cyber attack (including the use of weapons of mass destruction). One can always refer to the UN Charter concerning a right to self-defense. Any cyber security expert will enumerate dozens of reasons that make this provision unacceptable in the case of cyber attacks even if we turn a blind eye on the fact that the very definitions of the terms «cyber attack» and «cyberspace» do not exist.  

But the Americans don»t care. Their «Strategy»« says clearly they mean not only information, economic and diplomatic means to counter cyber attacks but the military ones as well. A couple of years ago one of US Secretary of Defense Assistants said his country was ready to meet a cyber attack by launching a missile strike. That»s the angle of view adopted while viewing the «Internet control» issue – the USA staunchly rejects the idea of transferring all the authority required to a supranational body within the UN structure defending the ICANN»s leading role.    

Washington continues to insist that any international cooperation is to be based on the Europe Convention on Cyber Crime. It»s noteworthy the USA have grasped at the document that appears to be limited by regional reach. Many members of the Council of Europe have supported it, but a significant number of states in the world have said no (including Russia, Australia, Argentina, Chile, Costa-Rica, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, the Philippines, Senegal, Andorra, Monaco, San – Marino). Some of the signatories are not in a rush to ratify it: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, Canada, Japan and South Africa. As a result only 32 out of 47 members of the Council of Europe have started to implement the Convention. That»s the kind of an «all European document» we»re talking about…And it applies to the Council of Europe only, but the majority of states in the world have no relation whatsoever to this organization and the documents adopted by it mean nothing to them.  

The US International Strategy for Cyber Space gives special importance to «free flow of information» and «freedom of Internet», that directly undermine the foundation of all the countries state sovereignty except the USA. Washington insists that information should circulate unhindered in international nets and no country has a right to restrict it.  

 The view that no state has a right to cyber space sovereignty but the USA is particularly unacceptable for the United States is not able to make the thesis of «freedom of Internet» match its own thesis of the «right to self-defense», that takes root from the notion of «sovereignty».   

The Strategy includes the issue of civil activists. It states directly the US will provide aid (probably funds and experts) to such «activists» to enhance the safety of their e-mails, websites, cell phones. 

There is an example of how «Internet freedom» is viewed in the USA. Not so long ago a young British couple went to the USA as holidaymakers. Before leaving they had distributed the information among their friends through the Twitter micro blogging service. They left two messages saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America" (referring to simply having a good time). In another tweet reference was made to comedy show Family Guy saying that the person would be "diggin' Marilyn Monroe up". After 12 hours of intensive contacts with the officers of the US Customs and Border Protection agency they were deported home to Foggy Albion from «the land of freedom and equality». 

A more fresh example, a United States serviceman posted that he refused to follow the President Obama's orders. The result: after 13 hours of military board deliberations the recommendation was less than honorable discharge (no service benefits) for violation of subordination. That»s what the American interpretation of «freedom of speech in new digital century» looks like…   

The cyberspace bills sent to the US Congress are a bright example of flagrant violation of civil rights. First, they pose a constant threat to other countries. No matter legal foundation concerning the cyber attacks definition and corresponding responsibility is lacking, the USA has an intent to construe the issues exclusively as it sees fit. 

Second, the US cashes in on the thesis of «citizens» rights to information» and blocks whatever contains criticism of Washington. 

 Third, the USA is set on discrediting to the full in media and diplomatic forums any initiatives that run contrary to their own, like it is taking place with the Russian and Chinese proposals. 

Only consistent vigorously defended stance of the alternative projects authors will determine if the USA is be able to intervene into other countries internal affairs with impunity in case these states are seen as «not democratic enough» or create instruments to repel aggressive encroachments upon their interests, including cyberspace.