Cyber domain is characterized by governance challenges which continuously shakes its stability and resilience. Cyberspace should be a peaceful and stable platform where all stakeholders pursue their interests in a manner that protects its stability as a global public good. Yet, the opposite is also true because state behavior in cyberspace is increasingly but negatively impacting on inter-state relations.
The domain continues to be used in perpetuating and instigating inter-state diplomatic tensions and conflict. Diplomatic tensions in cyberspace are seen in both wealthy and poorer nations alike. For example, Uganda and Rwanda in 2019 had a one year long diplomatic tension that escalated online as a result of alleged connivance of telecom company staff relaying sensitive intelligence information to their Rwandan counterparts. We have also seen the use of cyber mercenaries as tools of warfare in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Many developed nations increased investments in both cyber offensive and defensive capabilities. These developments caused cyber dilemma, where the actions of one nation’s attempt to boost its capability, encouraged the action of the other states to do the same. Cyber offensive and defensive capabilities in countries such as the United Sates, China, Russia, North Korea, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Iran has greatly been bolstered over the years based on the insecurity dilemma that their counterparts created.
This unhealthy cybersecurity dilemma places the world at the mercy of big powers – in regard to what they can or cannot do based on their cyber capabilities. Any big power rivalry and pursuits of sovereign interests that clashes with the interests of a rival nation state can escalate offline but also in the cyberspace leading to global cyberwarfare and possibility of – a potential cyber ‘apocalypse’.
Today nation states continue to deploy cyber offensive tools to attack each other as they try to achieve their own goals. Moreover, states prioritize regulations of the cyberspace at the expense of freedoms and human rights of citizens. On the other hand, while private sector players especially the big techs are preoccupied with expanding their dominance and reach as well as control of the cyber domain – motivated by need for profit, these same actors are clearly contributing and shaping the governance of the cyberspace in ways that greatly meets their long-term capitalistic goal.
Civil society’s role in cyber and digital policy processes is minimal because they are often sidelined by governments especially for inter-governmental led cyber related processes. More so, rights to privacy including of personal data of users online are trampled upon by states and non-state actors. Digital surveillance actions and strategies that has bearing on human rights of netizens have increased a lot in many countries. Many states today place emphasis on regulations of cyber domain at the expense of the agency and security of individuals and communities within their jurisdiction.
But for the internet to remain a safe and secure platform for engagement, where everyone can trust, and have the confidence, to attain utility derived from it, then the contribution of all actors – including under-represented communities, countries, regions and geographies is more than necessary. This is why even at university and tertiary institutions; students of diplomacy and international relations must have their capacity built in these areas – so that universities can produce a pipeline of youngsters that is able to contribute and meaningfully shape discussions and outcomes around digital and cyber policy processes.
Current discussions around cyber and digital policy processes for instance, always experience least representation from global south countries – of course due to a combination of many factors. But if these countries do not place emphasis on these issues, then some of the outcomes including new cyber treaties, rules, norms or principles of state behavior in cyberspace may not suit their realities and contexts. But even more importantly, where governments are dominating discussions in these processes without civil society input, then human rights respecting approaches is fundamentally ignored and undermined. This is true for the case of the negotiation on new treaty on cybercrime, but also the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG II) in the context of international security.
At individual levels, its argued that students need the basic knowledge to understand how the internet ecosystem functions, but they also require advanced knowledge of the policy issues as well as the cyber diplomacy processes. Building the capacity of students of International Relations on cyber diplomacy, the processes and how they can position themselves to engage, contribute and shape discussions and outcomes of those very processes is more than necessary.
Therefore, building a critical mass of graduate students who are suited not only for the numerous market demands – but as cyberspace governance experts, that are able to effectively contribute to informing and shaping the priorities of African and global south in these multi-stakeholder policy processes is critical. It’s our vision as an organization to invest in building capacity of students of international relations and diplomacy to achieve this goal.
The writer is the Co-Founder, Centre for Multilateral Affairs
