Bigger than the Pacific Ocean, Cyberspace Can Accommodate China and the US

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 13 December 2016
by Zhigang Yu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jia Liu. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The third U.S.-China High-Level Joint Dialogue on Cybercrime and Related Issues recently took place in Washington, with positive outcomes toward combating cybercrime and cyber-enabled crime and network protection. The two countries agreed it was in both their interests to continue to strengthen cooperation in cybersecurity. The beauty of the network lies in its interconnectedness. Managing and controlling the network at the national level, China and the U.S. have reached a consensus that they need to continue close cooperation in this field.

Although there have been disputes and arguments between China and the U.S. over the years, in areas such as network management mechanisms, cybersecurity and cybercrime, the world has witnessed the convergence of the two countries’ interests in this field along with the necessity to cooperate and how closely one is linked to the other; clearly, these developments are not to be ignored. The U.S. is the creator of the internet, and a main exporter of network technologies, taking the lead in internet development; China is a major consumer of the internet with the world’s largest internet user population – the scale of its network is the envy of many countries. The extent to which the network contributes to Chinese and American economic and social development is unrivaled, and no country has more real interests in cyberspace and a greater need for it than China and the United States. Against this backdrop, the ultimate choice for China and the U.S. is to strengthen network cooperation, especially in areas such as safeguarding network security and combating cybercrime through law enforcement.

The network has already spread like mercury throughout the world, permeating all gaps and seeping into the ground where spilled. But different countries are at various stages of internet development and application, and they face different kinds of cybersecurity issues with different needs and models of network governance, so sometimes disputes and misunderstandings are inevitable. It is not terrible to have misunderstandings and disputes. What is terrible is the lack of a mechanism for discussion and negotiation to resolve differences, which otherwise will lead to exaggerated or even irreconcilable disputes and misunderstanding. China and the U.S. need mechanisms just like the High-Level Joint Dialogues on Cybercrime and Related Issues to explain the purposes of their networks, to express concern for each other’s network, to explore shared network needs, and to effectively manage and control network disputes.

Cyberspace must be shared and jointly governed. If any country attempts to use its temporary technological advantage to trample on the weak, under the law of the jungle, or attempts to treat neighboring countries as dumping grounds and direct disasters their way for self-protection, I’m afraid such countries will eventually get hurt. The network does not have a national boundary. Neither does cybercrime, such as hacker attacks, cyberfraud and cyberterrorism. Any threat to cybersecurity is a danger to the international community. As big network countries, China and the U.S. have more at stake considering the threats and challenges they face. Although both are network giants with tremendous technological capabilities, scale and volume, I’m afraid neither China nor the U.S. can claim that either can thoroughly resolve all cybersecurity issues, especially cross-border cybercrime, on their own. This is where Chinese and American key interests in network cooperation converge. When it comes to cybersecurity and network governance, China and the U.S. will both win if they work together, and both lose if they antagonize each other.

As influential powers, China and the U.S. will motivate their people and other countries and set examples through network cooperation. Domestically in China and the U.S., the motives and reasons for cyberattacks are complicated but real. To combat all kinds of cyberattacks, cooperation between Chinese and U.S. officials, or cooperation at the national level, is viewed as a mechanism for deterring, guiding and restraining, and it can help reduce damages caused by cybercrime. At the international level, it is the obligation and responsibility of powers like China and the U.S. to safeguard a secure cyberspace, to ensure the network’s sustainable development, and to make the network a tool that can improve the well-being of all mankind. Because of the network’s interconnectedness, antagonism in cyberspace spreads further and wider with risks less and less within control. If the international network is full of suspicion and antagonism, then no country alone can sustain a secure network. No country can benefit from a model of cybersecurity governance that is damaging to all.

Whether it’s for both countries’ mutual interests or out of international responsibility, China and the U.S. should strive to continue to deepen cooperation in cybersecurity. The international community urgently needs an international mechanism of cyberspace governance now, and many countries have expressed their views and shared their visions on different occasions. China and the U.S. are fully capable of taking the positive outcomes of their bilateral cybersecurity cooperation to the next level and contributing experience and samples to a model that governs the internet and to a global framework of internet governance.

Therefore, China and the U.S. need to further deepen their cybersecurity cooperation based on the existing mechanism. The U.S.-China High-Level Joint Dialogue on Cybercrime and Related Issues, which took place only recently, is an intergovernmental dialogue mechanism of the highest level and authority on U.S.-China cybersecurity cooperation. This mechanism demonstrates consensus between China and the U.S., as well as their sincerity to cooperate in dealings with cybersecurity. In the future, the two countries will be able to consider other mechanisms with richer content and through more channels and in more flexible forms to complement the mechanism of the U.S.-China High-Level Joint Dialogue on Cybercrime and Related Issues. Examples of new mechanisms include China-U.S. think tank dialogues about the internet and mechanisms for more direct cooperation between relevant cybersecurity law enforcement authorities in China and the United States.

In cooperating with respect to law enforcement and cybersecurity, China and the U.S., as big network countries, not only share mutual interests but also face indiscriminate threats. By working together, both will benefit and win; by antagonizing each other, both will lose and suffer damage. As an ancient Chinese poem says, “The ocean is wide enough to let all fish swim, and the sky is high enough to let all birds fly.” Just as the Pacific Ocean is big enough to accommodate both China and the U.S., cyberspace is immense enough to accommodate all the interests and dreams of mankind, including those of the Chinese and American people.

The author is vice president of China University of Political Science and Law.


于志刚:网络大过太平洋,足以容纳中美

  第三次中美打击网络犯罪及相关事项高级别联合对话日前在华盛顿举行,会议在打击针对和利用网络实施的犯罪、网络保护等方面取得一系列成果,双方一致认为继续加强网络安全领域合作符合双方共同利益。网络魅力在于互联互通,作为管控网络的国家组织体,中美有必要坚持在网络领域的深度合作,这已成为共识。

  尽管这些年来中美双方在网络管理机制、网络安全和网络犯罪等领域有分歧也有争吵,但双方在网络领域的利益趋同性、合作必要性、联系紧密性更是有目共睹、无法回避。美国是国际互联网发明国、网络技术主要输出国,引领着国际互联网发展潮流;中国是互联网主要使用国,有着世界上最庞大的互联网人口,中国网络的规模效应让许多国家艳羡。无论网络对两国经济社会发展的助力和提升程度,还是两国在网络空间的巨大现实利益和需求,其他国家都难与中美两国比拟。在此背景下,加强网络领域合作,尤其是维护网络安全、依法打击网络犯罪等方面合作是中美两国必然选择。

  网络已经以水银泻地之势席卷全球,但世界各国互联网的发展阶段和应用水平、面临的网络安全形势以及网络治理的需求和模式都有不同,因此在网络治理中的分歧和误会在所难免。有多大误会和分歧都不可怕,可怕的是缺乏协商解决机制,以至分歧、误会被放大甚至不可调和。中美两国正是需要通过打击网络犯罪及相关事项高级别联合对话这样的机制,阐述各自网络意图、表达彼此网络关切、挖掘共同网络需求、有效管控网络分歧。

  网络空间必须共享共治,任何国家企图以短暂技术优势享受“丛林法则”下的弱肉强食,或指望以邻为壑、祸水他引,恐怕最终免不了反受其噬。网络无国界,黑客攻击、网络诈骗、网络恐怖主义等网络犯罪行为也无国界。网络安全威胁是全球公害,作为网络大国的中美两国在所受威胁和挑战方面更是首当其冲。虽然同为网络巨人,但以中美这样的网络技术能力和网络规模体量,恐怕也都不敢轻言能以一己之力彻底解决网络安全问题,尤其是跨国网络犯罪问题。这就是中美两国进行网络合作的重要利益契合点。在网络安全治理方面,中美两国合作则两利,对抗必两损。

  作为世界上有影响力的大国,中美两国在网络领域的合作对于两国人民和世界其他国家都有强烈的带动和示范效应。在国内层面,中美之间来自各方面的网络攻击行为动机、原因复杂但客观存在。中美官方或国家层面的合作对各方面网络攻击行为来说可谓一种威慑、引导和约束机制,有助减少网络犯罪造成的损害。在国际层面,维护网络安全、保障网络可持续发展,让网络真正成为造福全人类的工具,是中美两个大国应尽的国际义务和责任。互联互通的特性使网络领域的对抗波及范围更广、风险更不可控。如果国际网络环境充斥着猜疑和对抗,那么将无任何国家能实现单方面的网络安全,没有任何国家能从网络安全治理的“互害模式”中获利。

  无论是从两国共同利益出发,还是从两国国际责任出发,中美都应将网络安全合作坚持下去,推向深处。当前,国际社会对于网络空间的国际治理机制有着迫切需求,许多国家都在不同场合表达自己的观点和愿景。中美两国完全有能力将双边网络安全合作的成果进行升华,为国际互联网治理模式和互联网全球治理体系贡献经验和样本。

  因此,中美网络安全合作还应在当前已有机制的基础上进一步向纵深扩展。刚刚举行的中美打击网络犯罪及相关事项高级别联合对话是中美在网络安全合作领域中级别最高也最权威的政府间对话机制,这项机制的建立体现了中美双方开展网络安全合作的共识和诚意。今后,两国还可考虑建立内容更丰富、渠道更多元、形式更灵活的其他机制,以作为中美打击网络犯罪及相关事项高级别联合对话机制的补充。例如中美网络智库对话、中美相关网络执法机构更直接的合作机制等。

  同为网络大国的中美两国在网络安全执法合作领域既具有共同利益也面临着无差别威胁,双方合作则会互惠共赢,对抗则会两败俱伤。中国古诗有云:海阔凭鱼跃,天高任鸟飞。太平洋足够大,足够容纳下中美两国;网络空间也足够广阔,足以容纳包括中美两国人民在内全人类的利益和梦想。
(作者是中国政法大学副校长)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Topics

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Germany: Peace Report 2025: No Common Ground with Trump

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Germany: Friedrich Merz’s Visit to Trump Succeeded because It Didn’t Fail