{"id":9221,"date":"2013-09-12T13:55:43","date_gmt":"2013-09-12T03:55:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=9221"},"modified":"2013-09-13T15:18:52","modified_gmt":"2013-09-13T05:18:52","slug":"polarised-cyber-perspectives-in-the-asia-pacific-what-is-the-arf-to-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/polarised-cyber-perspectives-in-the-asia-pacific-what-is-the-arf-to-do\/","title":{"rendered":"Polarised cyber perspectives in the Asia-Pacific: what’s the ARF to do?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post will be the first of a three-part series based on my participation in an ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), hosted jointly by the Chinese and Malaysian Governments in Beijing.\u00a0The intriguing title of the workshop was \u2018Measures to Enhance Cyber Security\u2014Legal and Cultural Aspects\u2019. I\u2019ll come back to why that\u2019s so interesting in my third post, as it appears that the cultural aspect of the debate has caused a great deal of heated discussion amongst state representatives.\u00a0But more of that later. My first two pieces will give a flavour of the thoughts I put forward in my address to the ARF.<\/p>\n

In my first post on The Strategist<\/i><\/a> I looked at the divisions that exist between the various states that are contesting cyberspace and suggested that there was a divided road ahead in terms of how cyberspace is governed in the years to come. Broadly speaking, the Western liberal democratic states of US, Australia, Canada, UK and Western Europe are on one side of the debate, and the roughly aligned Chinese, Russians and a collection of former Soviet states are on the other. But the picture in the Asia\u2013Pacific region isn\u2019t as clear cut and it\u2019s far from easy to determine exactly where nations align or compete.<\/p>\n

In recent years, the region has seen tremendous economic growth, with several states identifying Information Communication Technology (ICT) growth as an integral part of their socioeconomic development. The cyber domain is clearly an enabling mechanism that has allowed the Asian economies to grow so rapidly. Asian societies have wholeheartedly adopted the internet and it has become an important avenue of political and social expression.<\/p>\n

Governments across the region struggle to balance the rapid growth of ICT with their concerns over social stability, national security, and cultural values. These tensions manifest themselves differently according to each state\u2019s context. The region is home to some of the least connected countries, alongside burgeoning ICT markets such as China and South Korea, which have rapidly become highly connected nations. The degree of information control across the region varies as well, with some of the world\u2019s strictest regimes of information control on one end and relatively unfettered communication environments on the other. The continued growth of internet connectivity in Asia, particularly in the mobile realm, has occurred alongside a growth in the ability of states to monitor and control the flow of information; as connectivity grows, so does the legal, regulatory, and technical capacity for states to monitor it.<\/p>\n

With so many different political, economic and national security concerns playing out across the region, this can bring potential competition which is being played out in the cyber domain. Be it cybercrime, or cyber espionage, the Asia\u2013Pacific is becoming a focal point for this competition.<\/p>\n

The international community has tried various ways to create a cyberspace that\u2019s palatable to all parties. Leaving aside the suggestions by the Chinese, Russians and their allies that international legally binding agreements are required to solve these issues, there are other areas that\u2019ve been highlighted as the most logical pathway forward. These include steps short of binding agreements such as building international norms which encourage responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, confidence building measures (CBMs), transparency measures, and capacity building.<\/p>\n

Frequently these measures are viewed in a disconnected manner as though they\u2019re unrelated, rather than being part of a process which achieves the same goal. I\u2019ve proposed that they be seen in the ’round’ as helpful steps in encouraging responsible norms of behaviour in cyberspace. Once viewed as different but mutually reinforcing\u00a0steps on the long path to creating ubiquitous norms, then it\u2019s possible to see how they all fit together. Norms should be seen as a continuous process of engagement and dialogue rather than a discrete activity, and while the coexistence of different behaviours should be expected (including violations of agreed approaches in some instances), this process nonetheless has a number of virtues:<\/p>\n