By Nicholas Julian
Since the conception of a commercialized internet in the early 1990s, technology has undertaken a rapid, exponential growth towards an advanced future. Whether it be progress in the medical realm, faster methods of transportation and communication, or the newest way states in the international community converse with one another, it is nearly impossible to ignore the implications that technology and the internet have on today’s society. However, a growth in users of the world wide web paired with the newfound way of communication being faster than ever before also comes great risk. As seen on multiple occasions from black-hat hackers from around the globe, the issue of cybersecurity is not nationally bounded, but rather the entirety of the world and its infrastructure is bound by it. In example, many large credit card institutions, political databases, and more have made the switch to cyber-based operations for the sake of efficiency and even safety. Because of this, it would realistically only take a handful of these black-hat hackers to penetrate the defenses of an entire nation, crippling it in the process. Because of the powerful offensive and defensive capabilities of cyberspace, many of the states in the international community have begun to ramp up their repertoire of cyber defense capabilities. In a sense, many of the competitive aspects of developing the fastest methods to conduct affairs have led the world stage into a neo-Cold War style technological race. Whether it be over the development of 5G capabilities, interfering in state’s political elections, or carrying out acts of cyber espionage to damage the sphere of influence within a country, all players involved should be deeply worried of the vast negative consequences cyber confrontation may bring. The main issue that should be focused on for the time being is the relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China regarding everything that has occurred between them. Shown from a pattern in previous administrations in the United States, there is bountiful amounts of cyber-crime that goes on between the two states. Regardless, it should be noted that all governments are afraid of crime and terrorism, whether it be on a physical or cyber front, and because of this should attempt to combat cyber attacks together in the future. When it comes down to the two largest superpowers of the world today, a large inquiry is whether there is room for collaboration between the United States and China within the cyber realm. In the future of relations between these two titan-like states, the path that history has crafted and what the future may bring will determine if there will be collaboration towards a better cyberspace to come, or instead a confrontation that could have massive negative repercussions.
The topic of cybersecurity between the states is much more contemporary than most of the other issues that lay rampant in the history between the United States and China. However, the exponential advancement of technology and the increasing reliance that society bears upon the internet make it out to be a unique case. As the matter of building up defenses within the cyber realm continue an upwards trajectory, so do concerns about them. Cyber-attacks and intrusive software set forth by other computers have been around since Bob Thomas, a researcher at BBN Technologies in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thomas wrote a code containing a self-replicating program that once it had breached the archaic style of computers, would display a message. Though it was not by any means intended to be malicious, what he discovered was the ease in which computers were able to be manipulated and taken advantage of. Little did he know at the time, this discovery would pave the way for malware, spyware, and various other forms of cyber espionage in the near future.[1] Following the early 2000s, computers were becoming more advanced and people were beginning to use simplistic programs such as AIM Messenger and various other tools. While people were beginning to become reliant on the internet as a method of communication, the relationship between the United States and China was becoming strained. This was the result of an increasing amount of cyber espionage issues from both nations. This in turn led to the two states becoming the two largest perpetrators of cyber espionage attacks. The difference between the states lies in the fact that China often carries out cyber attacks to interfere with business interests and various commercial affairs such as stealing trade secrets, intellectual properties for new technologies, and other information to benefit themselves commercially. Conversely, the United States is often accused by China of dominating the internet with its influence and using their position in the cyberspace world to seek out advantageous situations and their own gathering of intelligence.[2] The reports of how much has been stolen by both is unclear, which is a result of media bias paired with national governments likely not fully disclosing sensitive information such as that. However, what is in plain sight is that there are blatant abuses of technological systems that are mutually acknowledged between both nations. As a response to the numerous allegations brought forth by both states, the United States and the People’s Republic formed an agreement in 2015 known as the ‘2015 U.S.-China Cybersecurity Agreement,’ during the Obama administration. President Obama and President Xi had created this agreement in hopes that it would bilaterally prevent economically motivated cyber attacks between the two states, easing tensions in the process. This agreement had come at a time in which tensions were high, specifically after the 2013 leak showing the United States hacking into Chinese and Hong Kong government infrastructural organizations. Some of these organizations included universities, businesses, and even civilian populations.[3] These malicious acts by the United States caused upheaval in the Chinese government, and rightfully so. However, many Americans would likely agree with these measures in order to affirm that there is a free flow of information on the internet. This is because the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion is held so dearly by many of those in the United States. If internet and cyberspace regulation were to limit what users can access in a place such as the United States, it would be met with harsh contention. However, in China people have come to terms with what they are allowed to intake. Of course, there are outliers within both states, but this is the general trend that has been observed regarding information sharing. One of the most notable reasons for China’s negative viewpoint towards social media and other American influences is because of the turmoil that networking platforms led to in the Middle-East. Therefore, China has decided to control political rhetoric and the spread of specific information to avoid a social uproar from the people.[4] As this lay in the past of information technology, it is also pertinent to maintain a high level of understanding regarding the current political climate towards cyberspace. As renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan stated, one must know the past before they can understand the present. With the constant growth of these technologies, understanding the present is now more important than ever, let alone being able to project the future as well.
To receive a better grasp on the state of affairs between the United States and China regarding cyberspace, one should take a step back to first look at how the international community is handling the exponential growth of technology. Currently, the international community is beginning to come to terms with cyberspace becoming the fifth realm of operation, in addition to the pre-existing air, space, land, and sea. The U.S. National Security Agency’s confidential information leaked in 2013 by Edward Snowden revealed the United States’ abuse of cybersecurity on a domestic and international front. As a result, fifteen countries agreed on the need for international law to set clear rules, norms, and definitions regarding the cyber realm. To date, over forty states in the international community have cyber capabilities militaristically, and twelve of which withhold offensive cyber potential. Even with this information, the international community still has not come together to formulate the standard definition of cybersecurity, despite new technology and information sharing techniques growing exponentially every year.[5] Because the number of states with cybersecurity capabilities is growing at an exponential rate such as this, it should be alarming to the global community. For those with said capabilities, because computational devices are working in cohesion with physical military projects, technology is now on a course to develop more efficiently than before. This is because states will begin to pour more funding and resources into creating the best tools and technology available to them. This will not only be a tool for their governments, but for their civilian populations as well. For those without said capabilities, it is alarming to see that these states are also developing offensive cyber systems at such a rapid rate. An extremely destructive computer virus or black-hat hacker may be able to destroy the infrastructural equivalent of a physical attack, whether it be by crippling financial institutions within a nation or destroying confidential political databases. Black-hat hackers could potentially be used by states for their extensive knowledge regarding computer networks and for breaking through many security protocols. As opposed to white-hat hackers who use their computational prowess for finding security flaws within systems, it is the black-hat hackers who exploit them. Primarily, the motivation behind these computer specialists is for financial gain or other acts of cyber espionage.[6] Attacks from these types of well-versed hackers, those that specialize in the theft of data, can prove to be extremely effective against nations such as China and the United States. This is not only because of the populations of both places, but also because of the affluence and level of importance the potential victims may be within the two states. The costs that may result from an act of cyber-espionage could prove to be insurmountable when carried out on a massive scale. With this, states in the international community have begun to band together in blocs like those during the Cold War era. In example, China, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan have created a joint agreement to submit an international written code for information assurance between the states.[7] While the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom have banded together to create the ‘Five Eyes,’ Community. Their main purpose is like that of the former’s, to create a higher level of shared information technology.[8] Beneficially for the United States and their allies, the current world leader in cyber policy and operations is Israel, who have since 2002 created goals to secure their portion of the international cyber realm. Israel has created measures to defend their computational systems, and to find a strong balance between public and private cybersecurity. In doing so, they have successfully implemented research and development, education, and international cooperation for their cybersecurity policies.[9] Sooner rather than later, these cybersecurity ties may become a significant factor in becoming allies and enemies with a nation. Just as they do in the general political sphere, the two different cyber-alliance groups operate rather differently, and it is quite clear to see that the reason behind it comes down to their core belief systems as states in the international community. For example, Russia and China being strictly monitored and censored within the social realm have shown that stricter governing of the internet and its tools can lead to the reduction of a potential attack. Also, they do not have a citizen population that is as heavily reliant on social media as places such as the United States. With that, it is interesting to see not only the social, but the political and historical backgrounds these cyber giants have if they were to be pitted against each other.
While the United States and China have formulated their own different organizations that align with their respective cybersecurity interests, the international community can also suffer rather than succeed when these two states allegedly use their cyber espionage capacities. Though both states will deny the existence of these two different programs, they have both been highlighted by the international community as being firmly believed to belong to China and the United States. The first program was deployed by the United States and the Israeli governments in 2010, but the research and development likely began in 2005. The program itself is referred to as Stuxnet, and it is an extremely malicious computer worm that exposes vulnerabilities within computers specifically tied to the enrichment of uranium. Thus, this worm was launched against Iranian centrifuges that were used to produce the enriched uranium, which then power nuclear devices such as missiles and reactors. This resulted in the centrifuges spinning far too quickly and ultimately destroying them.[10] This was not only a gross intrusion of international sovereignty carried out by the United States and Israel, but it showed the true militaristic capabilities that cyber espionage can have. What is especially interesting about the Stuxnet case is the fact that something as seemingly minuscule as a centrifuge software was able to be targeted, latched onto, and then destroyed just as the software had intended. As this type of technology had begun to be developed in 2005, it puts into perspective the complexity of cyber espionage tactics that both states may be withholding. Looking at China, they have compiled quite a list of cyber espionage crimes against the international community. The United States based internet security firm Mandiant has identified several different Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) that were carried out by the People’s Republic of China. Various other nations such as the Russian Federation were involved in a handful as well. The report has stated that as of 2013, there is enough evidence that shows China is aware of the espionage conducted by these different cyber espionage groups. APT1 is the name given to the activity conducted by many of the members within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Unit 61398. The report had shown that from 2006 until 2013, APT1 had compromised and stole hundreds of terabytes worth of information from over 141 companies. It also has shown that approximately 87% of the victims of APT1 are based within English speaking countries. The largest target of the attacks was the United States, which 115 of the companies hacked are based in.[11] While this level of cyber espionage goes against the 2015 U.S.-China Cybersecurity Agreement, it had not been signed yet. It can be theorized that much of the reason behind the United States’ clear goals of establishing economic protection from the agreement can be derived from not only APT1, but the countless other threats that the Chinese government has put into use. With an organized attack the size of APT1 in use, it should be noted that the technology prowess needed points to the conclusion that there is upwards of a couple hundred different operators ready to deliver these threats. Because of the grandiose scale of the United States and China, not to mention the Russian Federation as well, these sorts of cyber espionage acts are almost to be expected at this point. It appears these types of acts have become normalized and as a result, much discussion but no action occurs. While both states have received condemnation resulting from their actions in violating foreign states cyber sovereignties, it returns to the need for an internationally defined term for cyber security. If this can be defined, along with an international treaty to halt the spread of cyber espionage, then the international community will end up in a much better place as the result.
The difference in strategies and methods in which the United States and China develop and theorize cybersecurity related issues is one which should be made of note. However, they both have one thing in common towards the growth of their technologies. The United States’ policy towards this is to maintain peace in the cyber realm through a method of using strength. China also shares this same stance and has even created new methods and training for their military forces to be ready in the case of cyber attacks or espionage. Following 2013 and the Snowden leaks, China began to crack down hard on cybersecurity endeavors. Because many of China’s greatest adversaries hold advanced technologies within their nations, they began the race for growth at somewhat of a disadvantage. It is for this reason that Chinese colonels suggested that they research ways in which they can match up to their enemies in the fight for cyber dominance in the international community.[12] This began China’s fast expansion towards being one of the world powers on technological fronts. From 2014 to 2016, China had drafted and released different cybersecurity laws for various clauses that were developed throughout the years. In 2014, they created the Central Internet Security and Informatization Leading Group to maintain security over the internet. This group has utter control over online activities and monitors all information on the internet within China to ensure there is no breaching of security. Similarly, in 2016 China had passed the Cyber Security Law, which focused on the security of the internet in China and extended the government’s permission to view any information being shared more than they already were.[13] If one views the various approaches China has had towards cybersecurity through the years, it is very clear to see that they are first tightening their grasp around the citizen population, then they may begin to focus on a more offensive measure of cyber-related infrastructure. This is quite reflective of China’s policies in the past towards other issues as well, and with it China becomes a region where information sharing of sensitive content is strictly prohibited, which could cause more harm than good if done incorrectly. They have also increased the number of their training bases to focus on cyber infrastructure. However, a major fear that China has is the reliance that the Chinese citizens and government have on United States designed technology. Though their technology has become increasingly more advanced, the reliance remains.[14] The United States, as one of the first states in the international community to recognize cybersecurity as an important matter has developed quite rapidly since the Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations. Following the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the Bush administration was to re-evaluate the role of securing key infrastructures in the United States. This was the first time that cybersecurity became a vital role in ensuring the safety of the United States, and the report was published in the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.[15] The Obama Administration, once in effect, made a statement that cybersecurity and the safety of technology in the United States is a priority that should be paramount to their government. During his administration the Cyber Space Policy Review analyzed pre-existing systems for the cyber realm and attempted to formulate better defenses. Likewise, the International Strategy for Cyberspace attempted to create a unified platform for the global community within cyberspace.[16] As seen from this, the Obama administration was much more hands-on with their approach to cybersecurity and was able to realize the positive and negative benefits that may come with it. It could be theorized that this is because technology was not as prevalent and widespread during the Bush administration. It was during the Obama administration that United States also reached a cyber-alliance high point with the Russian Federation. This is because of the Joint Statement signed by President Obama and Vladimir Putin, which outline cooperative measures for the protection of critical information systems, thus reducing the threat of cyber-attacks. However, following the Ukrainian crisis, all the effort that was put forth had went for naught, and since then all attempts to revitalize this agreement have failed.[17] The current President Donald Trump has his own set of ideals regarding the state of cybersecurity and America as well. As is prevalent in most of his motives and policies, he believes in putting the United States before all else, and because of this has viewed the nations not within the Five Eyes Community to be enemies of the United States. These being mainly China, Russia, and North Korea for their increasingly opposed view of the Trump administration. However, because of the status technology now holds being greater than ever, much can be lost during his time in office. However, if the United States can maintain a relatively strong stance towards China, defending national interests and being able to hedge them in Asia just as Obama did, the U.S. will likely experience few consequences. This strong stance will prove to be more difficult than anticipated, however. With the race for 5G technologies developing rapidly in both the United States and China, the state that obtains it first will have an upper hand in the position of the two technology giants.
Now that it is understood just how pertinent it is to maintain peaceful cyber relations on not only a domestic, but international front, one must return to the 2015 U.S.-China Cybersecurity Agreement. Because this agreement involves two of the world’s leading economies and states, it is a necessity to view it from a critical perspective, seeing what went right and what went wrong. Following this, viewing what can be improved upon if the states were to reach a newer, more comprehensive agreement. In 2014, the United States Department of Justice had indicted five Chinese Army officials for illicitly obtaining and sharing United States trade secrets with members of the economic sphere in China. This was one of the first signals to the People’s Republic that the United States was becoming increasingly more exasperated with China for their acts of cybercrimes. Following the arrest and indictment of the Chinese army members in the United States, Chinese scholars and media referred to this as a retaliation to save-face for the 2013 leaks by Edward Snowden. Later that same year, the National Security Agency reported that there was an absolute egregious amount of cyberattacks carried out by China against the United States over a short time span, and hundreds of them were successful.[18] Because of the reciprocal actions that the two states wagered against each other, it was clear to see that tensions were becoming high. Both China and the United States are two nations with strong patriotism. Because of this, any action they perceive to be an attack against them or their population results in sometimes insurmountable retaliation. However, because of national sovereignty, which ensures they cannot infiltrate a state illegally, they are often left to staying within their borders. Resulting from this, the indicted soldiers, the CFO of Huawei, and many more cannot return to their homeland because of the standards of international law. Where that line becomes blurry is when one discusses the issues of cybersecurity. This is because as stated prior, there has never been a true definition crafted by the international community for the term cybersecurity. Resulting from the continuous confrontation that was seen between China and the United States, then-President Barack Obama invited Xi Jinping for a state-sponsored visit, with the primary topic being cyber espionage. This specific form of cyber espionage was economically driven, as the United States wanted to ensure its corporations were safe from intellectual property theft. Eventually, the two parties came to reach an agreement, which was founded upon increased communication and cooperation between the two. The also confirmed that neither would willingly conduct theft of intellectual property on each other. Finally, they agreed to identify, create, and put forth the proper norms of inter-state behavior for cyberspace in the international community.[19] Many critics are skeptical as to exactly how much the states truly abide by their end of the deal, but nevertheless it has been one of the most revolutionary deals for cybersecurity. The agreement actualizes the ideal that definitions and norms must be created to ensure that no state can abuse their role in the international community as a cyber-power. It also forced the states to realize that spying and conducting cyber economic espionage between each other will create more contention, and because of this they should work towards collaborating on the matter to dispel any potential upcoming cyber-attackers. When the agreement was reached, the two states were in a state of disarray over exactly how much was going on between them within the cyber realm. However, they were still able to form a solution that is mutually beneficial between them. At the time, some did believe that it would make them become more aligned with each other, thus the states will likely refrain from practicing cyber espionage within the near future. However, just as there is collaboration between the two regarding cyber-related issues, there is also more severe negative accusations being discussed within the international community today. This has the potential to lead the U.S. and the People’s Republic down a dark, confrontation filled path.
The relationship between China and the United States has grown increasingly tense in recent years. As noted, the cyber-oriented attacks that have allegedly been deployed by the United States and China against themselves and various other states are extremely pertinent. It is also important to view their relationship through a less militaristic, more legally and governmentally strategic lens. While some may view it as natural competition between states that are on top of the world marketplace, others may not view it the same way. Critics of the relationship between China and the United States currently view it as one that has pushed the boundaries of each other for far too long. They believe that if something is not done soon it will result in the states becoming complete adversaries with each other. When it comes to the matter of cybersecurity, many of these people who acknowledge the importance of the relationship being strong saw the agreement as a beacon of hope. They saw it as something that may provide a guideline to crafting a better future for not only the world powers, but the entire international community as well. Unfortunately, the agreement did not last long as both sides have committed acts that range from aggravating to illegal against each other when it comes to the cyber realm. Within two years after the 2015 U.S.-China Cybersecurity Agreement was signed, the issue of Chinese intellectual property theft had not decreased, but rather it has taken on another form. Hacking groups within the People’s Republic begun targeting their own populations. Instead of focusing on the intellectual property theft of companies within the United States, they are now homing in on a form of governmental espionage. Because the 2015 treaty defined terms to not willingly conduct theft of intellectual property on each other, by a technicality the governmental data falls outside of the agreement’s clauses. The hackers within China used their breach to infiltrate U.S. companies as well, such as both Google and Intel.[20] The Chinese methods of hacking these United States firms and governmental resources have not gone unnoticed in the West. The repercussions vary based on the administration that is in office, and because of the strongman and sporadic nature of Donald Trump, the consequences that China may face also vary in extremity. The latest action that has been carried out by the United States regarding the cyber realm is the banning of Huawei technologies. Huawei is a telecommunications giant within China, and because of this the United States feels the race for 5G technologies paired with their backing by the Chinese government leaves room for speculation. From a critical standpoint, it almost seems as if the United States has begun their own, new-age form of a propaganda war concerning Huawei in their attempts to demonize the corporation to their allies. Though many within the Five Eyes cyber agreement have expressed concern regarding Huawei’s ability to commit possible espionage via their technologies, the American perspective has fallen on deaf ears within Southeast Asia.[21] This is mainly over the skepticism faced towards the American perspective regarding this. Many believe it is because Huawei and China are currently the world leaders in 5G technology, meaning that the United States may do whatever they can to stunt the growth of it. Not only has America carried out the banning of the technologies but is also working with the Canadian government in the situation pertaining the detention of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. Many in China view this as an aggravated attack against the technology giant and the government of China as well, but the United States has since held firm in assuring that she was detained legally and will be given a fair trial. In fact, it is not improper to hold Wanzhou under United States’ sanction laws, as they have done a large amount of business with each other in the past. This business was ultimately halted when the United States discovered that technology that originated in the United States was being outsourced to Iran, which is illegal without a permit in American business law. Law commentators in the United States have debated the true reasons as to why she was detained and the magnitude of misinformation about her arrest. First, she was not arrested for the prior mentioned violation of U.S.-Iran sanctions, but rather because of bank fraud. Meng, unlike many Western prisoners in China, has received legally-sound due process for the extradition proceeding. Lastly, it is situations such as these that are exactly what the United States needs to advance their policies in China and vice versa.[22] With that, it is clear to see that there are both micro and macro aggressions that take place between the two states. The legal case for Huawei’s CFO is currently ongoing, but the outcome is looking rather grim for Meng Wanzhou, especially is Canada accepts the extradition to the United States. The response from the media and the Chinese public has been an immense amount of discontent and disdain. In the West many have viewed this as poor public relations strategies deployed by both Canada and the United States to inform the general public as to why she was detained. In the East it is a different story, as the Chinese likely view it as a personal attack against one of their competitive technological giants. While these aggravations may seem like they are the work of adversarial states, it should be noted that the two states are reciprocal regarding certain cybersecurity related matters. It is more often the work of the top-two world powers seeing just how far they may be able to push the boundaries of the other state. China and the United States should not be looking for what boundaries to push against each other in the future, but rather try to amend issues that have been brought about in the past. If possible, perhaps a revitalization of the 2015 agreement could be not only wanted, but necessary to ensure that there are no illicit activities taking place between the states. If the proper steps and precautions are taken within the future, then a secure path may be in store for the international communities’ cyber realm.
Soon enough cybersecurity and the relationships that states have with each other in the cyber realm may be considered the paramount relationship between them. As seen, the cyber relationship that has been newly crafted between China and the United States has certainly had some polarizing events already. However, what matters is what the two states will make of these events, and where their relationship will go from there. The future is never binary, there are always more than two paths and events that may occur. Viewing the trajectory of the relationship between them in the cyber realm, one may be able to come up with a solution in which the two states could abide by to form a better relationship. Though optimistic, perhaps a first step they could take would be acknowledging the breaches in security that they have committed against each other. If this can be accomplished by formulating a new treaty that bars them from using cyber espionage altogether, that could be a great starting point towards garnering a better relationship. Having two strongman politicians in the helm of both states, Trump and Xi, creating a positive relationship is something that is mutually beneficial for the both of them. What they should try to avoid under all circumstances is solving the tensions by creating two autarkic states with independent state policies. If this were to occur, then not only would the economy, alliances, and political endeavors suffer between the United States and China, but rather the world community. They are too intertwined with each other, not to mention they are also the economic powerhouses of the entire world. In a sense, this would be reminiscent of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) during the Cold War. What CoCom had set out to achieve is the controlling of the economy in which the United States refused to buy and export technology to the Soviet Union and vice versa. During the Cold War this was not a major issue, because the technology within the Soviet Union was not yet comparable to the United States. However, technology is a massive strength that both states share amongst each other.[23] If the United States and China were to stop the trade and utilization of each other’s technologies, as the U.S. is attempting to do with Huawei, there is no telling the repercussions that this may have. If the United States were to release a statement saying that Huawei’s technologies and intellectual properties are not trustworthy, on the converse who is to say that any technology the United States creates is? Eventually this could lead to an embargo of technology against each other, thus escalating tensions even more than they already were. This would be a thoughtless move by both sides, as it is relatively clear to see that last thing that the states need is further disputes between the two. This brings up a key point in the relationship between the two states, and that is that there must be a commitment to the mutual engagement and assurance of each other. Without said commitment, there is little constraints that prevent the United States and China from delving into even deeper conflict with each other. If the response to the situation is assuming nothing can be done to successfully keep that competitive relationship between the two, it will result in an international community where states will end up living on one of two sides. There will be a deep divide between the two, and it would likely result in only be able to purchase American goods in the United States and Chinese goods in China. As mentioned, if tensions begin to build and there is no reason to stop it because of lack of commitment, then the opposing blocs will devolve into a new age Cold War. No state that currently has a stake in cybersecurity would likely ever want this, so there must be measures taken to ensure that they can work together and maintain relations between them. If nothing is accomplished soon, then the international community may soon feel the results of a technological Berlin Wall between the United States and China.[24] It should be noted that the states should not have to stoop down to any level or sacrifice an egregious amount of national interests, but to come to terms with a mutually assured agreement would be beneficial for everyone. This does not mean that there will be no forms of skepticism, as even with an agreement both China and the United States would be wary about the relationships that technology corporations have with their state governments. It is this form of skepticism, however, that is both healthy and natural within the relationship between the world’s strongest and second strongest economies. Not only does it bring about economic competition, but also drives the commitment that the nations have with each other, thus encouraging them to maintain a steady flow of business.
When the internet and cyber realm were nothing more to states than binary, nobody could have foreseen the rapid growth that technology has underwent towards an extremely advanced, interconnected future. There are the positives that everyone can see, such as connecting people faster than ever, medical advancements for those who need it, and creating healthy competition between states to become technological powerhouses. However, when it comes to international efforts to commit cyber espionage via stealing intellectual property of several states, destroying nuclear centrifuges by way of computer virus, or the downright banning of a states lone cyber giant, tensions can certainly rise as a result. The fact is cybersecurity and those that perpetuate cyber attacks are not nationally bounded, but rather the world and its accompanying infrastructure is bound by it. More than ever before, people all around the globe are attached to their devices, and entrust in them their credit card, personal, and family’s information often inadvertently. Because large credit institutions and personal databases in the global community have made the switch from paper to cyber-based operations for the sake of efficiency, it makes things much riskier than before. Seen from the acts of cyber espionage such as APT1, it only takes a handful of these black-hat hackers to penetrate and cripple the defenses of these institutions and corporations. In a seemingly Cold War-style of furthering their cyber prowess, many of the states in the international community have turned to forming alliances such as the Five Eyes. This has led the world to the new-age form of a Space Race, and if this continues in a regulated manner between states where they acknowledge the differences between them, then there will be no need for a new metaphorical Berlin Wall to form. The scale of damages from states utilizing cyber-crimes is relatively large, as seen from a computer worm crippling an entire nuclear facility. All players within the international community should not only acknowledge this, but also decide to act upon it and take the steps necessary to ensure there is no state acting out of order. The scale of the United States and China make it one of the largest issues of contention in the international race for cybersecurity, especially with the currently geopolitical roles that both states play. As noted, the cyber-crimes committed amongst the two of them are clearly flagrant, and some may be able to be considered acts of cyber-warfare. To stop the spread and misuse of technologies, the states should look towards a path of collaboration, especially a potential revitalization of the 2015 U.S.-China Cybersecurity Agreement alongside deepening the commitment for mutual engagement the states have with each other. If collaboration can become a reality between the two titan-like states, then the entire international community will benefit. However, if the future of the states contains acts of maleficent confrontation, then no state will win. In the ever-growing strategic game of the international cyber-race, there are not winners nor losers, rather just collaborators and conspirators. If the two world powers can set a positive example for lesser states by becoming collaborators, then the norm will cause those who create disturbances in that balance to become outcasts, paving the way for a peaceful future ahead.
Nicholas Julian is a senior at Syracuse University in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He majors in International Relations and History and minors in Chinese Studies and Chinese Language.
Footnotes
[1] Dalakov, G. (2014). History of the First Computer Virus.
[2] Brown, G., Yung, C. D. (2017, January 19). Evaluating the US-China Cybersecurity Agreement, Part 1: The US Approach to Cyberspace. The Diplomat.
[3] Louie, C. (2017, September 8). U.S.-China Cybersecurity Cooperation. Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies.
[4] Brown and Yung, 2017.
[5] Greiman, 2015, as cited in Bailey, D. (2019, March 7). Cybersecurity between Enemies and Allies. Modern Diplomacy.
[6] Norton Antivirus Software. (2019).
[7] Greiman, 2015, as cited in Bailey, 2019.
[8] Walsh, 2015, as cited in Bailey, 2019.
[9] Adamsky, 2017, as cited in Bailey, 2019.
[10] Fruhlinger, J. (2017, August 22). What is Stuxnet, who created it and how does it work? CSO Online.
[11] Mandiant Consulting Services (2013). APT1: Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units.
[12] Colarik, A., Janczewski, L. (2012). Establishing Cyber Warfare Doctrine. The University of Auckland.
[13] Iasiello, E. (2017). China’s Cyber Initiatives Counter International Pressure. Journal of Strategic Security.
[14] Bey, M. (2018, February 7). The Coming Tech War with China. Forbes.com.
[15] Karasev, P. (2018, November 22). New U.S. Cybersecurity Strategies. Modern Diplomacy.
[16] Karasev, 2018.
[17] Karasev, 2018.
[18] Brown and Yung, 2017.
[19] Brown and Yung, 2017.
[20] Greenberg, A. (2017, October 13). China tests the limits of its U.S. hacking truce. Wired.com.
[21] Soo, Z. (2019, April 20). How Huawei beat America’s anti-China 5G propaganda war in Southeast Asia, years before it even began. South China Morning Post.
[22] Ku, J. (2018, December 12). The Detention of Huawei’s CFO is Legally Justified. Why Doesn’t the U.S. Say So? Lawfare.
[23] James Steinberg (Former United States Deputy Secretary of State), personal communication with author, March 22, 2019.
[24] Steinberg, 2019.
Bibliography
Bailey, D. “Cybersecurity between Enemies and Allies,” Modern Diplomacy, March 7, 2019. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2019/03/07/cybersecurity-between-enemies-and-allies/
Bey, M. “The Coming Tech War with China,” Forbes.com, February 7, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2018/02/07/the-coming-tech-war-with-china/
Brown, G., Yung, C. D. “Evaluating the US-China Cybersecurity Agreement, Part 1: The US Approach to Cyberspace,” The Diplomat, January 19, 2017. https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/evaluating-the-us-china-cybersecurity-agreement-part-1-the-us-approach-to-cyberspace/
Colarik, A., Janczewski, L. “Establishing Cyber Warfare Doctrine,” The University of Auckland, 2012. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol5/iss1/7/
Dalakov, G. “History of the First Computer Virus,” 2014. https://history-computer.com/Internet/Maturing/Thomas.html
Ebert, H., Maurer, T. “Cyber Security,” Oxford Bibliographies, 2017. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0196.xml?
Fruhlinger, J. “What is Stuxnet, who created it and how does it work?” CSO Online, August 22, 2017. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3218104/what-is-stuxnet-who-created-it-and-how-does-it-work.html
Greenberg, A. “China tests the limits of its U.S. hacking truce,” Wired.com, October 13, 2017. https://www.wired.com/story/china-tests-limits-of-us-hacking-truce/#
Iasiello, E. “China’s Cyber Initiatives Counter International Pressure,” Journal of Strategic Security, 2017. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol10/iss1/2/
Louie, C. “U.S.-China Cybersecurity Cooperation,” Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. September 8, 2017. https://jsis.washington.edu/news/u-s-china-cybersecurity-cooperation/
Karasev, P. “New U.S. Cybersecurity Strategies,” Modern Diplomacy, November 22, 2018. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/11/22/new-u-s-cybersecurity-strategies/
Ku, J. “The Detention of Huawei’s CFO is Legally Justified. Why Doesn’t the U.S. Say So?” Lawfare, December 12, 2018. https://www.lawfareblog.com/detention-huaweis-cfo-legally-justified-why-doesnt-us-say-so
Maloney, L. “Cyber Warfare: Competing National Perspectives.” Modern Diplomacy, March 11, 2019. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2019/03/11/cyber-warfare-competing-national-perspectives/
Mandiant Consulting Services, “APT1: Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units,” 2013. https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/services/pdfs/mandiant-apt1-report.pdf
Murray, W. “Edward Snowden’s NSA surveillance revelations strain China-U.S. relations,” The Guardian, June 13, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/13/snowden-revelations-nsa-china-relations
Norton Antivirus Software, 2019. https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-what-is-the-difference-between-black-white-and-grey-hat-hackers.html
Soo, Z. “How Huawei beat America’s anti-China 5G propaganda war in Southeast Asia, years before it even began,” South China Morning Post, April 22, 2019. https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/3006935/how-huawei-beat-americas-anti-china-5g-propaganda-war-southeast-asia-years-it
