TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
What is behind the spying indictment?
The United States indicted five Chinese military officers on May 19, playing a "thief crying stop thief" farce again.
The fact that the United States, with the world's most advanced cyberspace technology, its high-profile commitment to set up a cyber army, its notorious Prism programs and its long-term wiretapping into Chinese enterprises such as Huawei, should present itself as a victim of cyber attacks, is beyond absurdity.
READ: The United States' Global Surveillance Record
But what is behind the farce is not simple as the Chinese saying "those who are ignorant are the boldest", nor is it simply gangster logic. As I myself have participated for a dozen or so times in the dialogues between China and the United States on cyber security, I am able to see the rationale the United States holds on this issue.
At the end of the last century, the United States took a completely different position on the issue of cyber security than it does today. When Russia submitted the draft resolution "Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security" to the UN in 1998, the United States refused to talk about the issue on international occasions, and was indifferent to international cooperation in cyber security. When it came to October 2006, a 169 "yes" and 1 "no" vote eventually passed the resolution, the "no" vote was cast by the United States. The veto, by a nation that now flaunts its responsibility for cyber security, should never be forgotten.
The United States turned down international cooperation because of its own interest. It has set its eyes on military and economic interests in cyberspace from day one, and has been committed to developing its prowess in cyberspace in order to maintain its dominance in the new century. Thus it comes as no surprise that it would not allow its hands to be tied by letting the resolution pass. And since it was not prepared at that time, it chose to stay silent on the issue.
But when the United States is geared up, it begins to restrain other countries in their development of cyber technology and spearhead the formulation of international rules -- just as it did after it armed itself with nuclear weapons. Were the restrictions intended to prevent other nations from developing cyber attack capabilities, they might as well be counted as a peaceful move. But as a matter of fact, the ultimate aim of the United States is to hype the cyber threat theory and create an unfriendly environment for other nations to develop independent and innovative information technology. For its part, the United States could maintain its own advantage in information technology, infiltrate into other countries' cyberspace, continue to build its cyber army and eventually, impair other nations' capabilities in the new revolution of information.
But strategies like these require a theory to back them up. A distinction was therefore invented by the brain trust to differentiate military and intelligence uses of cyberspace from other uses. Just like conventional military and intelligence operations, any cyber attack that serves military and intelligence uses is deemed by the United States as legitimate; other cyber attacks, however, are attributed to the civilian field and deemed industrial spying or commercial theft activity that are illegal, with the national interest often used as a trump card.
Armed with this theory, the United States has undertaken a wave of actions. In its dialogues with China, the United States has argued that militarization has become an intrinsic demand for cyberspace. But when confronted with accusations such as the Stuxnet virus that attacks Iran's nuclear capabilities and the Prism program that monitors heads of states, Uncle Sam understated it as avoiding regional military conflicts or conducting anti-terrorism activities. Even the NSA's infiltration into Huawei, exposed by the former agency contractor Edward Snowden, was mentioned lightly as looking for evidence of threats against U.S. national security.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said last Monday that China would suspend activities in the China-U.S. Cyber Working Group following the indictment. When the working group was first set up, the United States highlighted its intention to resolve the alleged Chinese industrial espionage. The United States keeps saying that actions would be taken if the bottom line was crossed. And if we look at the assessment reports issued by the U.S. government or Washington-backed companies, we find that all of them follow the theory.
We have seen one action after another taken by the United States -- the Congressional investigation into Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei, the company Mandiant's report on "Chinese cyber espionage units," the Department of Defense's report on "industrial espionage," and FireEye's report "Understanding Nation-State Motives Behind Today's Advanced Cyber Attacks." And now, action has been pushed to the court.
The United States has staged an indictment farce when it is still embroiled in the aftermath of the notorious Prism program. What hangs over our head is the sword of Damocles: we should alert ourselves to the risks in national cyber security. For those on the other side of the Pacific who still harbor a Cold War mentality and bear a grudge against China's achievements, I say to a them a catchphrase that is popular now in China -- "No zuo no die" (if you don't do stupid things, they won't come back to bite you).
The author is from the China Information Security Research Institute.
This article was translated by Zhang Lulu. Its original unabridged version was published in Chinese.
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
The United States indicted five Chinese military officers on May 19, playing a "thief crying stop thief" farce again.
The fact that the United States, with the world's most advanced cyberspace technology, its high-profile commitment to set up a cyber army, its notorious Prism programs and its long-term wiretapping into Chinese enterprises such as Huawei, should present itself as a victim of cyber attacks, is beyond absurdity.
READ: The United States' Global Surveillance Record
But what is behind the farce is not simple as the Chinese saying "those who are ignorant are the boldest", nor is it simply gangster logic. As I myself have participated for a dozen or so times in the dialogues between China and the United States on cyber security, I am able to see the rationale the United States holds on this issue.
At the end of the last century, the United States took a completely different position on the issue of cyber security than it does today. When Russia submitted the draft resolution "Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security" to the UN in 1998, the United States refused to talk about the issue on international occasions, and was indifferent to international cooperation in cyber security. When it came to October 2006, a 169 "yes" and 1 "no" vote eventually passed the resolution, the "no" vote was cast by the United States. The veto, by a nation that now flaunts its responsibility for cyber security, should never be forgotten.
The United States turned down international cooperation because of its own interest. It has set its eyes on military and economic interests in cyberspace from day one, and has been committed to developing its prowess in cyberspace in order to maintain its dominance in the new century. Thus it comes as no surprise that it would not allow its hands to be tied by letting the resolution pass. And since it was not prepared at that time, it chose to stay silent on the issue.
But when the United States is geared up, it begins to restrain other countries in their development of cyber technology and spearhead the formulation of international rules -- just as it did after it armed itself with nuclear weapons. Were the restrictions intended to prevent other nations from developing cyber attack capabilities, they might as well be counted as a peaceful move. But as a matter of fact, the ultimate aim of the United States is to hype the cyber threat theory and create an unfriendly environment for other nations to develop independent and innovative information technology. For its part, the United States could maintain its own advantage in information technology, infiltrate into other countries' cyberspace, continue to build its cyber army and eventually, impair other nations' capabilities in the new revolution of information.
But strategies like these require a theory to back them up. A distinction was therefore invented by the brain trust to differentiate military and intelligence uses of cyberspace from other uses. Just like conventional military and intelligence operations, any cyber attack that serves military and intelligence uses is deemed by the United States as legitimate; other cyber attacks, however, are attributed to the civilian field and deemed industrial spying or commercial theft activity that are illegal, with the national interest often used as a trump card.
Armed with this theory, the United States has undertaken a wave of actions. In its dialogues with China, the United States has argued that militarization has become an intrinsic demand for cyberspace. But when confronted with accusations such as the Stuxnet virus that attacks Iran's nuclear capabilities and the Prism program that monitors heads of states, Uncle Sam understated it as avoiding regional military conflicts or conducting anti-terrorism activities. Even the NSA's infiltration into Huawei, exposed by the former agency contractor Edward Snowden, was mentioned lightly as looking for evidence of threats against U.S. national security.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said last Monday that China would suspend activities in the China-U.S. Cyber Working Group following the indictment. When the working group was first set up, the United States highlighted its intention to resolve the alleged Chinese industrial espionage. The United States keeps saying that actions would be taken if the bottom line was crossed. And if we look at the assessment reports issued by the U.S. government or Washington-backed companies, we find that all of them follow the theory.
We have seen one action after another taken by the United States -- the Congressional investigation into Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei, the company Mandiant's report on "Chinese cyber espionage units," the Department of Defense's report on "industrial espionage," and FireEye's report "Understanding Nation-State Motives Behind Today's Advanced Cyber Attacks." And now, action has been pushed to the court.
The United States has staged an indictment farce when it is still embroiled in the aftermath of the notorious Prism program. What hangs over our head is the sword of Damocles: we should alert ourselves to the risks in national cyber security. For those on the other side of the Pacific who still harbor a Cold War mentality and bear a grudge against China's achievements, I say to a them a catchphrase that is popular now in China -- "No zuo no die" (if you don't do stupid things, they won't come back to bite you).
The author is from the China Information Security Research Institute.
This article was translated by Zhang Lulu. Its original unabridged version was published in Chinese.
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
Last edited:
