Last May, the new cybersecurity strategy for Belgium was validated by the National Security Council.
“Cybersecurity has become a geopolitical issue for Belgium as for all countries in the world. What do we know about these new conflicts? »
International conflicts have evolved enormously during this century. Not only have the actors multiplied and diversified, but the forms that these conflicts can take are also unprecedented. Until a few years ago, wars and international conflicts opposed States in maritime, air, land or sidereal spaces. Today, a new space of confrontation has appeared: cyberspace.
Cyberspace and its particularities
Cyberspace consists of a collection of devices connected and interconnected via the Internet. It therefore also includes an immense flow of data as well as a network of humans capable of maintaining it, developing it and using it.[1].
This new space has very particular properties. For starters, it allows threats to spread at unprecedented speed and scale. Then, it makes it complicated to attribute acts to people with certainty. Furthermore, due to its material particularity, this space is crossed by several national jurisdictions and the international standards relating to it are, for their part, still rare. This is particularly due to technological innovations and the reconfiguration of networks which produce constant evolution in the sector. Finally, the low cost and accessibility of these technologies offer a leading role to private actors within cyberspace.
However, the consequences and victims of attacks in this space are no less real. Cyberattacks attack different targets: governments, cities, hospitals, businesses, or even citizens. What takes place in cyberspace therefore has very real repercussions on international diplomacy, the geopolitics of conflicts, as well as our daily lives.
Cybersecurity, cyberdefense and state sovereignty
In the 2000s, States presented in their speeches the idea that cyberspace is a territory, like land, sea, air or space, to be conquered and controlled. States then seek to impose their presence in cyberspace in order to preserve their sovereignty. Society's great dependence on the digital world makes it all the more vulnerable to cyberattacks and the impact of these attacks all the more significant.
National security and territorial defense are undermined by the threat of cyberattacks. The ability to sabotage so-called vital infrastructure is one of the first threats felt by States. The issue around communications is also extremely important, through the disruption of communication channels or even the manipulation of information. Not to mention the threat of an ideological war on social networks allowing public opinion to be influenced anonymously. We think in particular of the Cambridge-Analytica scandal (see box) which questions the role of GAFA in state politics.
| The Cambridge Analytica scandal refers to the way Facebook uses the personal data of its users. Cambridge-Analytica is a company that uses personal data with the aim of influencing voting intentions. |
The advent of cyberspace was therefore not the advent of a neutral territory free of borders as some wanted to believe. The revelations of Edward Snowden, Operation Stuxnet, the SolarWinds affair (see boxes) or more recently the intensification of cyberattacks against the United States following the election of Joe Biden, are increasing the tension between the great powers (mainly the United States, Russia and China). These are all examples which confirm that cyberspace has become the new terrain for strategies of domination between powers.
| Operation Stuxnet, in 2010, is often considered as the first act of cyberwar, this implies that it is an act of war, thus the victim country grants itself the right to respond in any form whatsoever. either. Many states announced the development of their offensive capabilities. Stuxnet is the name of a computer virus developed by the NSA (American security agency) with the support of Israel, which aimed to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure. |
| The SolarWinds affair, in 2020, is considered the most significant cyberespionage attack of this decade. Spyware has succeeded in infiltrating American centers of power and, by ricochet effect, many other companies and administrations both in Europe and in Asia. Without being openly claimed, clashes in the form of cyberattacks are still underway today between the United States and Russia following the Solarwinds affair.[2]. |
There strategy of the European Union, adopted in 2020, aims to strengthen coordination and cooperation with cyber defense capabilities[3]. The members of the European Union have decided to collaborate closely on cyber defense and cybersecurity in order to increase their responsiveness and their capacity to update in this area.
Cybersecurity and cyberdefense are therefore currently major challenges for States. While the difference between the terms cybersecurity and cyberdefense may still seem vague, their use tends to vary depending on the context. It nevertheless seems that security is a desired state while defense is a posture. In Belgium, the Department of Defense includes a “cybersecurity” division which works to prevent and prevent potential cyberattacks.
Cyber diplomacy and the Cloud Act
Faced with these new threats, States are developing strategies to ensure their cybersecurity and that of their citizens. At the center of the problem is the manipulation and theft of data passing through our digital tools.
In 2018, the United States implemented the Cloud Act – “Claryifing Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act”, a federal law aimed at regulating the use and access to electronic data and evidence[4]. This law allows the American government to access data stored on servers, even abroad, without obligation to notify the country or the person concerned. Criticized for its extraterritoriality, this American law finds its European counterpart with the draft e-evidence regulation. The European Union has also created an EU Cybersecurity Agency, with the acronym ENISA, echoing the American CISA – “Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency”. As we can notice, the regulations which regulate access to data within cyberspace are still very recent and inspire each other without there being an international standard making it possible to avoid conflicts linked to the feeling of interference.
Since 2020, the European Union's cybersecurity strategy has consisted of three prerogatives: strengthening its capacity to protect against computer threats, establishing a secure environment thanks to quantum encryption and guaranteeing access to data for judicial and repressive[5].
And cybersecurity in Belgium?
With its new 2.0 strategy, Belgium goes beyond the prerogatives of the European Union and develops its strategy into six objectives: strengthening the digital environment and increasing user confidence·trice·s in the latter; arm those and those responsible for network administration; protect organizations of vital interest against all cyber threats; respond to the cyber threat; improve public, private and academic collaborations; maintain a clear international commitment. It is interesting to note that digital resilience is, in this strategy, not at all synonymous with digital sobriety.
The different actors involved in this new strategy are numerous and multiple: Federal Police, Public Prosecutor's Office, State Security, Defense, Belgian Institute of Postal and Communication Services, Federal Public Service Economy, etc.[6] Indeed, collaboration between services is essential in establishing effective cybersecurity and it is also with this in mind that the Belgian cybersecurity center was created. This center aims to facilitate collaboration between the various public and private services concerned (Defence, the federal police, intelligence but also internet service provider companies).
Today, the Belgian State identifies four groups of threat actors: hacktivism[7], terrorism, cybercrime and, foreign military services[8]. Recently, Belgium faced a large-scale attack affecting the Belgian national access provider “Belnet” revealing the vulnerability of our infrastructure and the two hundred administrations linked to it. If different hypotheses are put forward concerning the objective of this attack, no certainty is yet given as to the identity of the author of the attack. The conclusion, following this cyberattack, was to promote an increase in state investment in cybersecurity.
Necessary regulation of cyberspace
Faced with the observation of the perpetual acceleration of our society due to digital transformation, the role of the State in regulating this acceleration and its consequences seems essential. The State's investments in the fight against cyberattacks are increasing, which is why the population must be informed of these new issues.
Several questions arise: between security and vulnerability, how can we avoid surveillance of everyone, everywhere and all the time, through the connected objects that are multiplying in our daily lives (watch, television, telephone, tablet, etc.)? Between political interference and influence of citizens, are social networks platforms dedicated to the freedom of expression of citizens of the world or instruments of power and influence in the hands of GAFAM? Between ecology and dependence, will we be ready to change our standards of living and opt for sobriety?
We can now question the strategy employed. The objective of these investments is to achieve resilience allowing us to be less vulnerable to cyberattacks, which are increasingly numerous, more complex and more dangerous. Is it the best strategy to invest in ever more technologies to provide for the perpetual acceleration of this system or would it be more interesting to consider alternatives to this digital technology which makes us vulnerable?
Could we imagine, in parallel with cybersecurity, that one of the missions of the State would be to reduce our dependence on this technology rather than advocating “all digital”? Advocating this digital sobriety seems to be a good support which will facilitate the work of cybersecurity agents and which would be more sustainable in the long term, regarding ecology.
Beyond this search for digital sobriety, it seems obvious that international regulation is necessary and expected in order to reduce the risks of international conflicts linked to the feeling of interference and the escalation of suspicion.
Mila Gati.
[1] Douzet Frédéric, “Geopolitics to understand cyberspace”, Hérodote, 2014, n°152-153.
[2] France Inter, radio show, “The world after”, June 3, 2021.
[3] FEB, Belgian Business Federation
[4] Brincourt Laura, “The Cloud Act, three years later: revealing the need to define our sovereignty in the digital space, Diploweb, May 16, 2021.
[5] Center for Cybersecurity in Belgium, “Cybersecurity strategy – Belgium 2.0 – 2021-2025”, May 2021.
[6] Same.
[7] Hacktivism is a set of deliberate actions whose objective is to promote a political or ideological agenda.
[8] Same.
