08.03 Kristi Raik

EU global strategy in the context of tightening big power competition

Kristi Raik alustab sellest, et rahvusvaheline süsteem ja kord on muutunud ja murranguhetki on küll harva, kuid 20.08.91 kui Nõukogude tankid olid liikumas Tallinna poole ja nad suudeti peatada, see oli üks neist murrangulistest hetkedest, selle illustratsiooniks näitas pilti tankidest liikumas Tallinna poole. Teine pilt, mis ta näitas oli Ida-Ukrainast, kus ei suudetud tanke peatada. Need pildid illustreerivad murrangulisi hetki rahvusvahelises süsteemis. Nendega kaasnevadki ebastabiilsuse ajad ja tihtipeale ka sõjalised kokkupuuted.

Viimased pöördelisemad hetked on olnud bipolaarse maailmarežiimi kokku varisemine aastal 1991, millele järgnes külmale sõjale järgnenud hegemoonia.

Mis on muutunud rahvusvahelises korras? Muutunud on see, kui palju on võimukeskusi. Külma sõja ajal bipolaarne süsteem, kaks keskust. Praegu on multipolaarseid keskusi rohkem; Hiina kindlasti üks, mis jõulisemalt kasvab. Kuid see, palju suurriike meil lihtsalt on, see üksi ei ütle väga palju. Pigem see, et milliseid võimuinstrumente kasutatakse, kus ja kuidas. Mängureeglid on muutnud ja need ei kehti enam (peale külma sõda), eriti on taoline soov Venemaal.

Teine mõõde oleks – realism vs liberalism, mis aitab paremini rahvusvahelist poliitikat mõtestada, seletada, ellu viia. Realism on ühelt poolt justkui nullsumma mäng, liberalismi kohaselt on aga taolised võit-võit mängud võimalikud rahvusvahelises korras. Erinevused tulevad eriti välja strateegiate välja töötamisel. Venemaa ja kuidas ta eelistab nullsumma mängu mängida, Euroopa Liidu liberaalne ehk idealistlik vaade, kus koostöö ja institutsioonide abiga saab saavutada seda olukorda, kus kellelegi ei jääks tühjad käed.

Veel üks mõtestamisviis oleks vaadata maailma kui malelaud vs võrgustike maailma. Viimane on kindlasti tänapäevasem teoreetilisem lähenemine, kus rõhutatakse, et võrgustikud ja seosed riikide, organisatsioonide, inimeste vahel on muutunud tihedamaks kui kunagi varem. Kõige selle mõjutamiseks kasutatakse võimu, kuid kuidas seda võimu kasutatakse on kahe koolkonna jaoks erinev. Realismi kohaselt on võrgustikud (gaasi, internet) jms) miski, mida peab kontrollima, liberaalse lähenemise kohaselt peab oskama end võrgustike positsioneerida ning pigem läbi veenmise ja normide loomise kaudu oskama oma võimu rakendada.

Milline on väikeriikide positsioon või roll? Realismi järgi ei ole see roosiline pilt – selle järgi pigem vaadeldakse väikeriike kui midagi, mida peaks pookima suurte kõrvale. Liberaalne vaade üritab luua ka neile võrdset platvormi ja võimalusi süsteemis.

Kuidas mõõta võimu? Kellel on võim? Sõjaline jõud on tüüpiline, millega järjekorda panna riike. Majanduslikud näitajad kasutatakse ka palju (GDP). Kuid numbrid on staatilised. Murranguhetked on harva rahumeelsed. Sõjalise jõu kasutamine on kasvanud viimastel aastatel, mitte ainult suurriigid vaid ka väiksemad riigid panustavad oma sõjalisse võimekusse. Autoritaarsus on tõusu teel, liberaalse maalimakorra järgi, mida rohkem demokraatlike riike maailmas, seda vähem konflikte, kuid selle järgi on justkui rohkem.

Viimastel aastatel on tagasituleku teinud realistlik geopoliitika – kokkulepetest mitte kinni pidamine, vastastikune sõltuvus, sõjalise jõu kasutamine. Viimastel aastastel Euroopas on hakatud seda ümber mõtestama, mida need mõisted tähendavad. Nt EU-RU vastastikune sõltuvus. Kui vaadelda EU suhtumist Ukrainas, siis need ei sobi sinna alla, need on endiselt pigem liberaalsed. EU pole ka olnud eriliselt oluline selles konfliktis, initsiatiiv on olnud pea alati Venemaa käes. Diplomaatiline mõõde on läinud seal pigem hoopis USA ja Venemaa vahele ja EU on hoopis kõrvale jäänud. 2014 on murranguline hetk, pärast Krimmi annekteerimist hakkas tööle kohe diplomaatiline suhtlus lahenduste leidmiseks – kiired sanktsioonid, otsiti diplomaatilist suhtluskanalit. Venemaa oleks juba algusfaasis näinud põhilise partnerina USA-d. Ukraina näitel on näha, kuidas Venemaa üritab kehtestada ennast suurriigina, kui USA-ga võrdsena. Kui USA oleks võtnud juhtrolli kohe alguses Ukrainas, äkki poleks  läinud olukord nii hulluks kui ta läks.

EU strateegia. Rõhutatakse võrgustike kasvanud tähtsust, kuidas neid peab  arendama ja nendele panustama. EU näeb võimu hajumist kui normaalset asja ja arenguna, mida nähakse hea asjana. EU näeb maailma, kus regionaalsed varad on tähtsamaks muutunud ja globaalne vara ei ole enam nii tähtis ja päevakorras. Regionaalsed erinevused on tänapäeval paratamatud, kuid neid peab pidama kindlasti silmas. EU toetab regionalismi ilminguid, juhul kui need toimuvad vabatahtlikult. Euraasia liit – Venemaa on palju panustanud sinna. Kogu Euraasia integratsiooni projekt ongi  jõuliselt tagant survestatud just Venemaa poolt.

EU globaalstrateegia võeti vastu juuni 2016. Seda valmistati ette mitu aastat, kuid jäi täpselt Brexiti varju, sest avalikustati vahetult peale Brexiti tulemuste välja tulemist. Strateegia ise püüab hõlmata enda all mitmeid valdkondi. EU ise julgeoleku asju otseselt ajada ei saa, sest puudub iseseisev sõjaline võimekus. Kuid NATO all saab ka EU ajada julgeoleku valdkonna asju, sest enamus liikmesriike on ka NATOs ja viimase ning EU-l on tihe koostöö.

Raik usub, et praegused muutused on jäädavad vähemalt mõneks ajaks, sest need on üsna fundamentaalsed ja uued, eriti näiteks raha eraldamine kaitse võimekusele. See on kasulik nii NATO-le, ÜRO-le kui ka Euroopale tervikuna. Seda, kas kunagi on võimalus, et EU-st saab föderatsioon ei tea, sest osad taolised eeldusjooned on olemas (ühispiir, valuuta jne), kuid tähtis asi nagu ühine sõjavägi puudub, kuid seda ideed pooldavad piisavalt vähesed veel, et niipea seda ilmselt ei juhtu. Pigem rõhutakse koostööle ja ühistegevusele, kuid mitte ühistele institutsioonidele nagu politsei ja piirivalve nt.

Veel üks tõusnud teema on hübriidohud EU-s nagu küberohud, propaganda, välisriikide osalus valimistel jne. Euroopa tasandil hakatakse seda strateegiat vaatama ja ümber mõtestama. Seda on aga muidugi raske teha, sest liikmesriigiti nii erinevad arvamused ja hoiakud. Eesti on  pigem nende hulgas, kes soovib näha EU tasemel sellist tegevust ja eriti Venemaa EU-suunaline propaganda jms vastumeetmete leidmine.

Venemaa 2015 strateegia võrdluseks – väga selgelt erinev lähenemine. Selgelt on  välja toodud vaenlased - USA, NATO, EU. Viimasesse suhtumine muutnud ka palju negatiivsemaks viimastel aegadel. Põhisüüdistus USA ja lääne suunal on see, et ei suudetud uuendada euroopa julgeoleku süsteemi peale külma sõda selliselt, et venemaa oleks sinna sisse haaratud. Pole loobunud mõttest, et suurriigil on suurem õigus oma mõjusfäärile ja täna sellele mingi õigus sealsele domineerimisele. On selgelt välja toodud ka see, et nad näevad väga erinvalt EU ja Venemaa suhteid ja võimupositsiooni, kus EU pole nõus andma tunnustust nende mõjusfäärile, mida Venemaa ootab. Vastandumine läänele on ainult suurenenud. Venemaa argument on endiselt, et kõik sõjad ja pinged on ikka põhjustanud lääs, mitte nemad. Lääs pole suutnud sellist olukorda tekitada, kus nende huvidega arvestataks.

USA strateegia – Trumpi strateegia kindlasti erinev Obama omast. Võrreldes Venemaaga vastupidine, Venemaa tegevus on see, mis ohustab üldist rahvusvahelist olukorda ja nemad tekitavad pingeid. Leitakse, et NATO kohaolekult vaja idatiival suurendada. Obama strateegiat on ka seepärast kritiseeritud, et hõlmati enda alla hästi palju valdkondi, kuid väga konkreetseid vastuseid ei tulnud ja eriti sõjalist jõudu puudutavates küsimustes, jäädi liiga pehmeks kohati – ei mindud Ukrainasse, ei Süüriasse. Trumpi oma erinevalt Obamast ja tema liberaalsest lähenemisest on kindlasti Trumpi puhul võimalik täheldada rohkem realistlikke jooni – nähakse nullsumma mängu, kus Hiina ja Venemaa on vastased, kelle tugevnemist peab piirama või ära hoidma. Sõjaline jõud on tähtsustaud võrreldes Obamaga.

Hiinal aga polegi taolist avalikku julgeolekustrateegiat. Võib lugeda välja midagi avalikest kõnedest ja väljaütlemistest. Väga omamoodi on pigem, Venemaaga ühine eesmärk oleks tasakaalustada USA võimu ja jõudu, hegemooniat. Hiina näeb ennast sinna kõrvale võrdväärsena. Hiinas küll aga pole sellist vastandumiselementi nagu Venemaal. Retoorika sarnaneb pigem EUga, ühised normid ja koostöövormid. Läbi selle üritatakse kindlustada majandusarengut ja olukorda. Mingil määral esineb vastandumist, kuid mitte sellisel agressiivsel moel. Üleüldine tegevus ongi tasakaalukam ja kindlasti rahulikum võrreldes Venemaaga.

 

 

On 28th November, the guest lecturer in RSR was Marina Kaljurand who gave lecture on “Cyber Security – challenges and potential responses”. She has served as the Ambassador of Estonia to USA, Mexico, Russia, Kazahstan and Israel. She has also been the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia. Currently, she is a Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace.

First time when Marina Kaljurand learned about cyber security was in 2007 when Estonia was under politically motivated cyberattacks. Back then she was an Estonian ambassador to Russia and she had to explain what is happening in Estonia – DDoS-attacks. It was important to talk about this because cyber does not have borders and in this field, cooperation is necessary. She said that states are not allowed to take any illegal actions and according to international law they must stop every illegal action that is transiting their country. It was known back then that cyberattacks came from Russian territory – Estonia had all the legal instruments in place, but the will was missing (there was a cooperation between allies but not with Russia).

In year of Snowden’s disclosure, Kaljurand was posted to the US. She said that the US changed a lot during these times and question of trust was the most important. Estonia was the first country to have a bilateral agreement in cyber security with the US and it was used as a hook to bring Obama to Tallinn (he came later, though). For Estonian diplomats, it is very important to represent our country because usually nobody cares about us and many even do not know (still think that we are part of the USSR). That was the reason we had to find our niche – which is cyber (e-lifestyle, cyber security) – and now it opens the doors and starts the conversations.

Currently there are 84 global bodies dealing with cyber security. Marina Kaljurand is the Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace. At first, they were hesitating to include Russian and Chinese experts but as it is a global commission, they need people from different countries. They also have Jeff Moss and Joseph Nye, also human rights activists, and civil society experts. Commission is a multistakeholder. Governments need to cooperate in order to be successful because there are a lot of actors in cyber area. There is an ideological division in between of how the ICT is seen – one side (especially the West) sees it beneficial (lets do it!) and another (i.e. Russia and China) side sees the use of the ICT as interfering (colour revolutions, influencing internal politics). It is difficult to cooperate between two divisions.

Cyber is not only for IT geeks, there are so many fields – diplomacy, international affairs, law, etc. For Kaljurand, cyber security is about stability, it is an open, secure, stable, and accessible Internet. 65% of people are not online yet, they are to join us and we need to have stable and secure Internet. She said that we have to raise the awareness to countries who have no idea what is happening in cyber field. Thus, although she had no idea what all the 84 bodies are doing, she was happy that there are so many of them who are raising the awareness.

In 2013, it was decided by the UN GGE that international law applies to cyber space. The question is about how (jurisdiction and sovereignty). When is the sovereignty of a state violated (for example, in case of malware or when somebody really dies because of a cyber-attack?) UN is the only global organization, but it is from the 1940s. UN will never agree on everything, thus we need a division of like-minded states who have the same understanding and norms on how to behave in cyber space. For example, norm is that it is not okay to attack financial institutions during the peace time. Every country should be interested in having common norms, but it is not possible to agree because of the ideological divisions. If UN cannot work on that, then a group of likeminded countries can. Other bodies are the EU and NATO and both have its roles, for example, cyber is the 5th domain of operations (in addition to air, space, land, maritime). There is a NATO Centre of Excellence in Tallinn. The aim of cyber stability is to avoid misunderstandings (confidence building is getting people together, OECD is doing an excellent work there).

Kaljurand also spoke about Estonia’s e-voting. She used Hack the Pentagon – hackers were asked to hack a system to find vulnerabilities – example and she wants to do the same in Estonia with e-voting. She believes that we have a good system but there is so much criticism from abroad and we need a PR-event - Hack Estonian e-voting. We need international hackers for that. Government is not ready yet but she is still convincing it. We need to face challenges but not to step back. It may happen that people perceive it as negative PR (hackers are hacking Estonia) but we need to explain a lot what are we doing and why. We were lucky to have an ID-crisis in 2017 because we started to feel ourselves too comfortable.

What is the future of UN GGE? Has it failed because in the last meeting the participating countries did not reach a consensus?

Internet of Things, terrorism, international law, norms, confidence building measures, capacity building – GGE is looking these five fields. GGE was supposed to write a report (goal was not to go back from what was agreed two years earlier). Kaljurand does not think that coming years show a will of agreeing on something, she said that coming years will be for educating.

She also said that we need to start asking something for return. For example, if some country wants assistance in e-taxation, then it must make a political statement (international law applies to cyber space or a statement about human rights). If a country is not willing to make a statement, then it should ask for an assistance from some other country.

How to deal with Russia and China?

She has no answer to that. Balkanization of Internet (different countries have different Internets). She does not see that we could find common ground with China or Russia because of the big ideological differences. It may happen that states reach the point where they agree that cyberattacks are not okay. 2007 nobody died, it was just humiliating. All the cyberattacks have been kind of mild but if cyber 9/11 happens then the world would come together, and states would have more will and intentions to agree on some rules. It is a grey zone if you do not have rules. People get to together usually when something bad happens, it has not happened with cyber yet.

Tech-people can do attribution, but it has a political dimension as well, as it depends on the politicians (do they have the courage to say it out or not). She referred to former Minister of Defence Jaak Aaviksoo who said that we did reasonable attribution and our conclusion is that when somebody does everything like a dog then most probably it is a dog. Attribution is a political question and increasingly states should say that they were attacked by this or that country.

You can buy cyber weapons from the black market but it’s too primitive. It will change with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and internet of things, it will be cheaper for terrorists. So far it has not been used. KRATT – Estonian law on AI (obligations, responsibilities). Finland, company who has AI in its board, EE-FIN are competing on who will have the law first.

Why are there so many diplomatic efforts (84)?

She does not know what all of them are doing. On the one side, it is good that so many institutions are discussing cyber security. 2004 or 2007 nobody was discussing cyber but today everybody is discussing it. Her commission tries to look at what others are doing. It is good to have so many even if they duplicate. It is important to discuss and educate people.

Cyber security is connected to open internet. Are the EU and US values the same if something goes south?

US is very vocal about open internet, freedom of the Internet. They are strong supporters of human rights online and open internet. There are differences how countries see intelligence etc but basically, we are on the same side. We may disagree on small things, but we share the same principles and understanding.

Could you elaborate more on EU’s role (EU diplomacy toolbox) concerning cyber security?

Cyber diplomacy toolbox – if something happens how do we react. International law allows retaliation. We have regulations. What are the measures in case of cyberattack against a member state? All the rules apply to cyber security (political statements, sanctions etc). The same as the EU has done in the case of Crimea. In the EU it is easier than in NATO. In NATO, there is no mechanism of what to do in case of an attack.

However, there is a problem with the EU and overregulation - EU is very happy when it can regulate something. EU is not a single market, with cyber it is more complicated, there are more regulations. Some regulations are needed because you need to have some frames. You have to know what is allowed and what is not. It is difficult to find a balance.

How Is the cooperation with industries?

Estonia is cooperating pretty well with the industries. All industries (Microsoft, Facebook) complained that governments were not cooperating enough. Industries have ideas. States will not give away authority on retaliation, attribution etc. It is about attitudes (I know how to do my job!). Governments are starting to understand that they can’t do anything without industries. In the end, they have IT-nerds, governments cannot afford them. Hackers are going to school and teach cyber hygiene to students. Teachers were negative until they started to cooperate with the policemen. She said that hackers despite their image are not bad guys.

How much is Estonia an ideal case? How to implement it to other countries?

Estonia is doing well. Other countries need to find what is suitable to them. They don’t need to copy; every country (state) can find something what is interesting to them. Estonia needs to introduce what we are doing and urge others to find what is interesting to them. You can always do the same thing but with going around the corner.

Konspekteeris Kert Ajamaa