22.11 Ahto Lobjakas

Mart Veliste: Kokkuvõte Ahto Lobjakase loengust

Teisipäeval, 22. novembril 2011 käis Rahvusvaheliste Suhete Ringile loengut pidamas Eesti Välispoliitika Instituudi analüütik ja RSR-i poolt 2011.aasta parimaks välispoliitikast kirjutajaks valitud Anto Lobjakas, kes rääkis teemal „Euroopa allakäik“.

„Euroopa allakäik“ on küll provokatiivne pealkiri antud loengule, kuid pole väga kaugel reaalsusest. Hetkel valitseb olukord, kus kellelgi pole selgust mis võib juhtuda. Nn allakäigu mehaanika on kõigile võõras teema, kuid valitseb üldine halb eelaimdus. Krahh võib olla päevade-nädalate, heal juhul kuude küsimus.

9.detsembri tippkohtumisel arutatakse triljoni euro kokku saamist. Hetkel on meil olukord, kus Itaalia ja Hispaania on juba pankrotis. Nad ei suuda lubada omale laenusid. Raha, mis Hispaanial tuleb juurde maksta, koguneb sinna aeglaselt. Kreekal on hetkel üliõrged laenuintressid. Laenukoorem Itaalias on 120% SKTst, see on suurem kui aastane kogutoodang. Neil on 1.9 triljoni euro suurune riigivõlg. Brüsseli unenäolisest 1st triljonist, mida üritatakse hetkel kokku kraapida, ei piisa enam Euroopa päästmiseks. Sellest ei piisa isegi Itaalia päästmisest, rääkimata siis Prantsusmaast. Krahh arvestatakse sisse kõikide riikide intressidesse, välja arvatud Saksamaa omadesse.

Euro lagunemisel võib mingil hetkel ka Saksamaa muutuda probleemseks. Võimalik, et siis USA võtaks juhtimise üle. Samas pole hetkel vabariiklased ja demokraadid valmis kokku leppima võlakärpe aspektides. 15 triljonit pole turu jaoks probleem - risk on suhteline. Üks poolus peab olema kindel, eurotsoonis on selleks Saksamaa. Intress on tõusnud ka mitte-lõunariikides, näiteks Austrias. Samuti on probleemsed Ida-Euroopa riigid. Ka Soome laenab kallimalt. Soome riigivõlg on hallatavas piirides (20-30 %) . Eestil on see 7 %. Mis iganes on meie rahapoliitika taga, ilmselt kogemata, on lubanud nautida olukorda, kus turgude liikumine ei mõjuta meid. Meil pole võlakirju turgudel, mis on probleemi põhiallikad. Turud, kus on võimalik spekulatiivselt kindlustada võlga ja müüa edasi. Sekundaarsed ja tertsiaarsed järelturud on niivõrd abstraktsed ja keerulised. Poliitilisel sekkumisel pole seal mingit kandepinda.

21. juuli oli esimene Kreeka kriisi-tippkohtumine. Seal võeti vastu Kreeka esimene abipakk. Otsustati ära, et Kreeka saab mingi hulga raha ja osa võlast lõigatakse ära, nn „haircut“. EL liidrid pakkusid erainvestoritele diili. Näite olulisus: plaan valmis ilma Euroopa Komisjonita, millel on kõige rohkem „know-howd“ toimuvast. Süvenenud on lõhe Merkeli, Sarkozy ja Barosso vahel.

Olukord meenutab Lehman Brothersi eelset kokku kukkumist. Mis toimub revidentidega? Revidendid ei saanud aru mis toimub. Jällegi need järelturud, seal tehtud tehingud, väärtus kui mingisugune reaalne aspekt on kaotanud väärtuse. Sama kordub hetkel laenuturgudel. Mehaanika on niivõrd keeruline, et sellest ei saada aru EL pealinnades. Kurvem on, et ei saada aru ka lihtsamast loogikast. „Turud on ette võtnud EL maha kiskumise.“ Turuhind pole mitte midagi muud kui ajahetkes paika pandud ostusoovid ja müügipakkumise. Neid ostusoove ja müügipakkumisi kujundab puhas psühholoogia.

Investorid valmistuvad kõige halvemaks. Selle peatamiseks on vaja midagi ette võtta. ESEFi üritatakse raha saada välisinvestoritelt. Retoorika on umbes järgnev: „Meil on probleem, eksistentsiaalne, kukume kokku – tooge raha, lubame et maksame teie kaotustes esimesed 30% kinni.“ Antud loogika on võikalt äärispidine. See pole investeering. Meilgi üritati Kreeka toetuspaketi vastuvõtmist kujutada kui investeeringut. Reaalsuses see raha ei tule tagasi või siis heal juhul alles 50 aasta pärast. Vahel tundub olevat nii, et kui poliitikud saavad kokku, siis nende keskmine intelligents kahaneb. Keegi võiks seda lähemalt uurida!

Euro kokkukukkumine on EL lõpp. Kreeka kokkukukkumise oleks üle elanud kogu süsteem, eks ta valus oleks olnud ikka. Itaalial on vaja rohkem kui triljonit, et peatada turu rünnakut. Hispaania on ka löögi all, Prantsusmaa võlakirjade intressid kasvavad.

Mis oleksid lahendused?

Vaadates, mis toimub Kreekas pole Läti-sarnane lahendus (sisemine devalvatsioon, kõikide palkade langetamine 30%) vastuvõetav. Püütakse lahendada tehnokraatidega (Brüsseli ja Berliini idee). Sisemise devalvatsiooni ja karmi poliitika mõjud pole üldse kindlad. Kui nii edasi läheb, on demokraatia Lõuna-Euroopas ohus.

Kui Prantsusmaa kukub välja, kaob mõte eurol ja Euroopa Liidul. Mõte on algusest peale olnud siduda kokku Prantsusmaa ja Saksamaa. Kõigel, mis EL toimub (integratsioon) on tohutu ajalooline süvis. Ei ole prantsuse ega saksa filosoofi, kes poleks viimasel 300 aastal mõelnud Euroopale (kui teda ei kisuks kokku konfliktid ja sõjad, kuidas saada sellest üle, maailmasõjad). Meil tuleb aru saada, kui oluline on Euroopa projekt – ta on vajalik, et kontinent oleks seotud ühte kimpu ja sõda oleks võimatu.

Kokku kukkudes muutub euro Saksamaale mõtetuks üleöö. Austria, Saksamaa, Eesti ja Hollandi kokkutulemine pärast euro kukkumist on linnuaul Seewaldis. Sellel puudub igasugune point Saksamaa jaoks. Mõte ongi Prantsusmaaga koos tegutsemine.

Reaalne on pidurdamine, bürokraatlik inerts. Kui euro laguneb, siis kohe Euroopa Liit ei kuku. Brüssel ja ametnikud (45 000 inimest) ei kao kuhugi. Kriitilist massi neist ei saaks, hajuksid moslemite merre. 53% inimestest Belgias on sündinud väljaspool Belgiat. Mida see inerts võib tähendada. Eestil oleks aega kuskil 5-10 aastat mõelda. Nii pea kui kaob euro, Schengen lüüakse ümber, massid hakkaksid liikuma. Kreekas on hetkel kõige väärtuslikum kaup saksa keele kursused.. Eesti jaoks võib probleemiks saada hoopis merepiir, Soome või Läti – mitte ida. Isikute liikumise vajadus.

Eesti olukord

Hetkel oleme isemajandavad. Oleme liiga väikesed, et autarkiana kesta. Õnneks on meil Rootsi pangad. Pangad otsustasid vähendada laenueurosid, tõmmata kokku positsioone, eriti Ida- Euroopas, st tõmmatakse siit raha välja.

Kahekiiruseline Euroopa - Saksamaa ja Prantsusmaa mõtlevad sellest. Eurotsoon lahutatud muust Euroopa Liidust? Esimene eurotsoon paneks eest ära, teised jäävad tagatulesid vaatama. Meile sinna esimesse kuulumist garanteeritud ei ole. Meie majandus on väga teises faasis kui Saksamaa oma. Saksamaa hakkab rohkem vaatama seda, mis toimub idas.

Riigijuhtide poliitilised võimalused kriisi lahendamiseks ja majanduslikud vajadused ei kohtu mitte kuidagi. Kaks täiesti erinevat territooriumi. Viimase 20-50 aasta jooksul on olnud kriisis riigid, kes on tahtnud minna kaugemale. Selles kriisis ei ole ühtegi vedurite gruppi väljaarvatud „külgkorviga ratas“. EL ajaloos esmakordne olukord. Puuduvad riigid, kes näeksid kriisis võimalust kasu saada.

Konspekteeris Mart Veliste

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