11.10 Eero Medijainen

Jaan-Kristjan Unt: Kokkuvõte Eero Medijaineni loengust

Teisipäeval, 11. oktoobril 2011 käis Rahvusvaheliste Suhete Ringile loengut pidamas ajaloolane Eero Medijainen, kes rääkis teemal „Tunnustamise probleemid ja Baltikum“.

Lektor juhatas loengu sisse küsimusega, mitu riiki on Palestiinat tunnustanud ning tõi välja, et enamik riike on Palestiinat tunnustanud, aga Eesti nende hulka ei kuulu; samas on näiteks Kosovo puhul lugu vastupidine. Seega näib, nagu ei eksisteeriks ühtset tunnustamise printsiipi ja tekib küsimus: mis on väärtuspõhine diplomaatia ning millistele väärtustele põhineb siis Eesti diplomaatia. Esineja tõi välja ka selle, et näiteks Taiwani tunnustavad de jure vähesed riigid, kuid enamus sellegipoolest jätkab Taiwaniga suhtlemist.

Seoses Balti riikide tunnustamisega 20. sajandil on olnud palju probleeme ning eriarvamusi. Kas riigi ja valitsuse tunnustamisel on vahe? Rahvustevahelise õiguse vallas eksisteerib 2 teooriat: esimene näeb ette, et riik saab tekkida vaid tunnustuse põhjal; teine aga, et riik peab eelnevalt loodud olema, et seda tunnustada saaks. Baltikumi puhul anti tunnustus riikidele. Kerkib küsimus, kas tunnustus on kahepoolne akt. I maailmasõja järel tahtsid Baltikumi riigid, et neid tunnustataks Pariisi rahukonverentsil, kuivõrd kollektiivne tunnustus annab riigile teatud staatuse. Algul taotleti tunnustust sõjanõukogult. 1918. aastal tunnustasid liitlased Eestit de facto – seejuures mitte kollektiivselt. See aga oli suureks pettumuseks, kuivõrd olulisem on siiski de jure tunnustus Seejärel loodeti konverentsidele. Ametlikult aga Balti riike Pariisi rahukonverentsil ei tunnustatud (Balti riigid ei mahtunud ühegi 3 riikide kategooria alla – poolametlikult mainiti vaid Soomet). Ametlikult, de jure tunnustustasid liitlased Eestit alles 1921. aastal ning ka siis tuli tunnustus ühekaupa, mitte kollektiivselt (nagu loodeti).

Esimesena tunnustas Eestit de jure Nõukogude Venemaa. Kas aga tunnustuseta riigi tunnustus on midagi väärt? Kui nimetada seda esimeseks tunnustuseks ning Eesti iseseisvuse nurgakiviks, muudaks see olukorra kahtlaseks, kuna seeläbi mittetunnustatud riik looks õigust teise riigi jaoks. Siiski oli Vene Föderatsioon tunnustanud enne ka Soome ja Poola iseseisvumist ja kuivõrd Soome oli juba 1919. aastal saanud ametlikke tunnustusi (ehk Soome ja Vene Föderatsiooni vahel eksisteeris ametlik tunnustus), legitimeerib see ka Tartu rahu. Järgmisena tunnustaski Eestit Soome 1920. aastal (Soome tunnustus oli vajalik, et lääneriigid saaksid samuti Eestit tunnustada).

1921. aastaks oli aga Eestit, Lätit ja Leedut juba ühe tervikuna nägema hakatud (arvatavasti ameeriklaste eestvedamisel). Euroopa riigid oleksid valmis olnud tunnustama Lätit ja Eestit, Leedut aga tema sel ajal veel lahtiste piiriküsimuste tõttu mitte. Seega lepiti ameeriklaste nägemusega. Sellest ajast võib rääkida ka ühtsest Baltikumist. Ameerika tunnustas Balti riike alles 1922. aasta juunis. On räägitud ka mittetunnustamisest kui suunast poliitikas. Näiteks kui Etioopia vallutati Itaalia poolt 1936. aastal ja enamik riike tunnustas Etioopia annekteerimist 1938. aastal, siis 1940. aastal võeti tunnustus tagasi. Ka Eesti tunnustas Etioopia annekteerimist ning sei jõudnud seda ka 1940. aastal tagasi võtta (mistõttu siin jällegi kerkib esile väärtuspõhise diplomaatia küsimus).

1919. aastal allus Landeswehr ametlikult Berliini kaitseministeeriumile. Juriidiliselt sõdisid Eesti ja Läti väed järelikult Saksamaaga. Läti sõlmis hiljem rahulepingu, Eesti pole seda aga kunagi teinud. Kui räägitakse Saksa okupatsioonist, siis kas Eesti ja Saksamaa sõdisid? Eesti Saksamaale aga sõda ei kuulutanud – kas seega lepiti okupatsiooniga? Eesti tunnustas ka Austria okupeerimist ning kui Tšehhoslovakkia likvideeriti ja loodi Slovakkia, siis Eesti tunnustas ka seda. USA näiteks juhtunut ei tunnustanud, seega oleks ju ta võinud tunnustada Eesti okupeerimist. Eesti oli Slovakkia ja Tšehhi eraldumise ajaks juba iseseisvunud – kas Eesti tunnustas või taastunnustas Slovakkia iseseisvumist (viimane oleks olnud solvav Tšehhi suhtes). Kas Tšehhoslovakkia on tunnustanud Eesti annekteerimist (sel juhul ei saaks Tšehhoslovakkiale mingeid etteheiteid teha, kuna ka Eesti on esimese annekteerimist tunnustanud).

Hollandit tunnustas Eesti 1921. aastal. Holland algselt N. Liitu ei tunnustanud ning tegi seda alles 1942. aastal. Samas ei olnud siis juttu Balti riikidest. Tekib küsimus, kas Holland tunnustas N. Liidu 1939. või 1940. aasta piire ning kas tunnustati Balti riikide annekteerimist (1942. oli Baltikum Saksa vägede okupatsiooni all).

Sumner Welles’i deklaratsiooniga mõistis Ameerika 23. juulil 1940. aastal hukka jõuga toimunud territoriaalsed muudatused. Seda on Eesti iseseisvuse koha pealt peetud üheks tähtsaimaks dokumendiks. Samas on tegemist kahtlase dokumendiga, kuna agressorile on vaid vihjatud kui „üks suurem naaberriik.“ Kui Ameerika ei tunnustanud 1938. aastal Poola annekteerimist, öeldi see aga otse välja. Samamoodi on olnud kõrgelt hinnatud ka Atlandi harta, mis aga ei ole kunagi olnud riikidevaheline leping vaid pigem dokument, mis väljendas lääneriikide suhtumist. Kuna aga see pole siduv leping, ei saa selle mittetäitmist esitada süüdistusena.

Konspekteeris Jaan-Kristjan Unt

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