05.04 Martin Hurt

Ants Siim ja Jakov Saltõkov: Kokkuvõte Martin Hurda loengust

Teisipäeval, 5. aprillil käis Rahvusvaheliste Suhete Ringile loengut pidamas Rahvusvahelise Kaitseuuringute Keskuse teadur Martin Hurt, kes rääkis teemal "Euroopa riikide kaitsevõime ja sellealane koostöö".

Rahvusvahelise Kaitseuuringute keskuse teadur Martin Hurt lubas keskenduda oma ettekandes järgnevatel teemadele: Euroopa Liit vs ülejäänud maailm ja Euroopa koostöövormid militaarvaldkonnas. Hurt pole viimastel aastatel tegelenud Euroopa kaitsekoostööga, seega rääkis ta sellest, mis tal mõne aasta tagusest ajast meeles oli.

Euroopa Liidul on maailma suurim SKP. EL on maailma suurim importija-eksportija – seega palju huvisid maailmas. EL, kus on ca 450 miljonit elanikku, toodab ligikaudu veerandi maailma SKP-st. Ca 18% terve maailma kaitsekulutustest teeb EL. Varem oli tema osakaal siiski suurem: külma sõja järel tõmmati sõjaväe osas koomale, keskenduti majandusele, haridusele jne. 2007. aastaks oli seis selline: 2,7% maailma riikide SKP-st kulus riigikaitsele, NATO liikmetel keskmiselt 2,8%, NATO Euroopa liikmetel keskmiselt 1,7%, USA kaitsekulutused olid suured - 4,9% SKT-st. EL-i liikmed NATO-s kulutasid SKP-st ainult 1,5% sõjandusele. Euroopa riigid ei taha reeglina sõjandusesse eriti panustada (näiteks Saksamaa on väga patsifistlik). Ka Jaapani kaitsekulutused on väga väikesed (Jaapani sõjaväe nimi on „Japanese Self-Defence Forces“ – eriline nimi, mis viitab rahumeelsusele, ajaloolised põhjused selleks on üldiselt teada). Siiski osalevad jaapanlased tsiviiljõududega Afganistani missioonil.

USA ja Aasia sõjalised kulutused on viimastel aastatel kõige rohkem kasvanud. Nagu juba öeldud, Euroopa investeerib enda ressursse mujale. 2/5 suhe Euroopa/USA (kaitsekulutuste suuruse vahekord), SKP suhtes 1/3 (ehk siis USA kaitsekulutuste osakaal SKP-st on võrreldes Euroopa Liiduga 3 korda suurem). Tõsiasi on, et Euroopa kaitsevägedes teenib rohkem inimesi kui USA armees. Põhjuseks on Euroopa riikide suveräänsusvajadus, tahetakse teatavat sõltumatust. Teiseks põhjuseks on see, et Euroopas on tööturg reguleeritud – nö võimatu (või väga raske) on inimestest lahti saada (kinnipandud väeosa hingekiri püsib isegi väeosa praktilisel likvideerimisel, seega väeosa pole, aga ametimehed on – Portugalis juhtus midagi sarnast). USA varustab oma sõdureid moodsa ning kalli varustusega ja panustab vähestele, sõdurite kvaliteet on võrreldes Euroopa sõduritega kõrgem (ühte isikusse investeeritakse Ameerikas rohkem vahendeid).

Koostööformaatidest viimase 60 aasta jooksul: NATO – 28 liikmesriiki. EL – 27 liikmesriiki, samuti teatav koostöö. Regionaalne koostöö – Põhja-Euroopa koostöö on tihedam kui lõunal reeglina, samas põgenike küsimus paneb lõuna riigid koostööd tegema. Veel üks oluline koostööformaat: territoriaalsed suhted (nt Prantsuse-Saksa pärast II maailmasõda – neil on isegi tänapäeval ühisüksuseid). Bilateraalne koostöö on oluline – annab konkreetsuse.

Alates 2003. aastast on EL-il oma sõjaline strateegia järgnev: 60 päeva jooksul 50-60 tuhande mehe suunamine vähemalt aastaks vajalikku kohta. Selle väljatöötamisele avaldas mõju ka Balkanil toimunud sõjad 90ndatel, milles toimunud jõledusi oleks kiirem reageering suutnud kindlasti vähendada. EL on siiski rohkem lepitaja funktsioonis. Elevandiluurannikul toimuv on tegelikult palju verisem konflikt kui Liibüa oma, sinna EL-i riigid tõenäoliselt ei kipuks, sest puuduvad huvid – pole naftat jne. Kurioosum - serblased said Gaddaffilt toetust omal ajal, seetõttu on serblastel facebookis sait Gadaffi toetamiseks (u 60 000 liiget). Soome ja Rootsi nt saavad kriisikolletes oma headust näidata ja rahumeelsed välja paista (lepitavad, kutsuvad mõõdukusele jne). EL-is puudub kollektiivkaitse (samas on nö kriisiabi kohustus) kohustus erinevalt NATO-st. NATO liikmesriigid eelistavad reeglina hoida oma üksuseid NATO käsutuses mitte EL-i.

Pärast Iraagi missiooni Eestil USA sõduritega ühisoperatsiooni pole, u 85-90% kaitseväelastest on meil siiski NATO all. Eestlaste ja brittide koostöö pole väga hea olnud, eelistaksime olla Afganistaanis USA all (ümbermäng pole eriti hea, põhjendus, et britid on halvemad ei ole piisav ja kõlab halvasti) ja seeläbi osaleda ka NATO operatsioonis. Prantslased on USA suhtes skeptilised, Saksamaa patsifistlik, Britanniaga oleks hea koostööd teha, seega mingid plussid on nendega koos tegutsemisel. Eesti sõjaväelastele meeldiks tõenäoliselt koostöö prantslastega, britid ei meeldi eestlastele nii palju.

Euroopa Liit viib läbi operatsiooni „Atalanta“, see on mõeldud Somaalia sarve piirkonna veeteede avamiseks ning sealse konflikti mahendamiseks - sellised ettevõtmised EL-ile meeldivad (seotud majandusega, mitte etnokonflitidega jne). On sõlmitud ka Berliini lepe, mille sisu lühidalt on järgnev: kui NATO otsustab mingi asjaga mitte tegeleda, siis EL saaks sarnaste õigustega ülesande üle võtta.

NATO-l on seirevõime ja staap, millele saab üksusi külge pookida. Euroopa Liidu sõjaline koostöö hakkas ilmnema pärast külma sõja lõppu, 2004. asutati EDA (European Defence Agency), mille eesmärgiks on arendada välja sõjavõimeid, üldine koostöö, varustusalane koostöö, kaitsetööstuse tugevdamine. Teaduse ja tehnika alast koostööd initsieerib USA. Eesmärgiks on panna Euroopa tehnoloogiasse rohkem panustama.

Ida-Euroopas on kaitsetööstustehnika välja arenenud just külma sõja aegadest. NSVL viis aga 1990. aastatel oma vana sõjatehnika Baltimaadest välja. Eestis ei säilitatud vana vene kaaderväge, uut personali koolitati välja nullist. Samas vanema põlvkonna eesti ohvitserid, kes teenisid NLiidu armees on seda rikutumad, mida kõrgemal positsioonil nad asuvad. Selle põhjuseks on kahjuks Eesti Kaitseväe stiil ja kultuur, mis on endiselt autoritaarne nagu ka 15 aastat tagasi. Saadame oma noored välismaale moodsat sõjatehnikat õppima, tulles tagasi Eestisse on nad silmitsi olukorra ees, kus vanade vaadetega ülemus jääb ikka ülemuseks.

Miks me ütleme jätkuvalt kategooriliselt ei poolmuidu kaubale – nagu kasutatud tankidele. Oleme olukorras kus meil on läbi mõtlemata, mida me nende tankidega peale hakkame. Peaaegu tasuta tanke on võimalik saada igast maailma nurgast, konks on aga selles, et sellega kaasas käiv tehnika nagu sillatehnika, õhutõrje on üsna kallis. Eelkõige on vaja koolitada personali, kuna ei saa ju osta uusimat tanki, kui seda keegi juhtida ei oska. Samas võiks väljaõppe eesmärgi raames liisida 5-10 tanki või soomukit. Aastal 2009 nägi Eesti 10-aastane arengukava tanke nimekirja lõpus, olulisemad on luurevõime, juhtimisvõime arendamine. Siinkohal peab Eesti mõistma, selleks et edukalt vastu panna „rahuvalvaja üksusele“ (Venemaa Vene-Gruusia sõjas) pole tarvis lääne uusimat tehnikat. Afganistani sõjas on eestlaste kasutatav tehnika meie enda oma, mida oleme sisse ostnud, mitte tasuta saanud.

NATO-l oli välja arendatud kooperatiivsed koostööformaadid külma sõja ajal. Sõja puhkedes teadsid sakslased, norralased, hollandlased kindlalt mida teha. Seda kutsutakse vägede planeerimiseks. Külma sõja ajal kui ka tänasel päeval Afganistanis on oluline, et liitlased kasutaksid sama tehnikat, laskemoon ning kütus sobiks kõigi maade sõiduvahenditele. Afganistani sõda on aga kujunenud keerulisemaks kui Iraagis, kuna inimesed ei oska lugeda. Piltlikult öeldes valitseb Afganistani õhuväes olukord, kus personalile tuleb selgeks õpetada kirjutamist ja lugemist. NATO jaoks on reaalne oht Iraani poolt tulenev, kui viimane peaks otsustama hakata tuumapommidega pilduma Kreekat ja Türgit. NATO tähtsus maailmas: peaks olema suuteline osalema 3 suures operatsioonis (nagu Afganistanis) ja 2 väikeses operatsioonis (nt Kosovo) samal ajal. Seda võimekust kahjuks pole. Praegusel ajal on keeruline uut sõda uues kohas alustada, eeldab eelkõige poliitilist tahet. Seetõttu oli ka küsimärk, kes Liibüasse maaväega sisse minna tahab. Ega väga nagu ei tahakski keegi minna, aga pommitada võiks ju ikkagi. Afganistani sõda hakkab aga üle pea kasvama ning vajatakse pausi hingetõmbeks, liitlasväed on mõelnud väljatulekule. Afgaanid ise aga paluvad edasi jääda, kuna vastasel juhul kukub kõik kokku.

Sõjalised varustushanked – praegu ühishange rootslastega, hangime varustust oma kontingendile, kuna seeläbi tuleb tükihind odavam. Rootsis tehaksegi vaid ühishankeid. Euroopas on palju instituute mis uut sõjatehnikat välja nuputab. Peaks aga hoopis tegema tihedamat koostööd riikide vahel, et mitte teha topelt. Eesti puhul on aga probleemiks, et ei osata defineerida, mis laadi sõjaväetehnikat me vajame.

Konspekteerisid Ants Siim ja Jakov Saltõkov

On 28th November, the guest lecturer in RSR was Marina Kaljurand who gave lecture on “Cyber Security – challenges and potential responses”. She has served as the Ambassador of Estonia to USA, Mexico, Russia, Kazahstan and Israel. She has also been the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia. Currently, she is a Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace.

First time when Marina Kaljurand learned about cyber security was in 2007 when Estonia was under politically motivated cyberattacks. Back then she was an Estonian ambassador to Russia and she had to explain what is happening in Estonia – DDoS-attacks. It was important to talk about this because cyber does not have borders and in this field, cooperation is necessary. She said that states are not allowed to take any illegal actions and according to international law they must stop every illegal action that is transiting their country. It was known back then that cyberattacks came from Russian territory – Estonia had all the legal instruments in place, but the will was missing (there was a cooperation between allies but not with Russia).

In year of Snowden’s disclosure, Kaljurand was posted to the US. She said that the US changed a lot during these times and question of trust was the most important. Estonia was the first country to have a bilateral agreement in cyber security with the US and it was used as a hook to bring Obama to Tallinn (he came later, though). For Estonian diplomats, it is very important to represent our country because usually nobody cares about us and many even do not know (still think that we are part of the USSR). That was the reason we had to find our niche – which is cyber (e-lifestyle, cyber security) – and now it opens the doors and starts the conversations.

Currently there are 84 global bodies dealing with cyber security. Marina Kaljurand is the Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace. At first, they were hesitating to include Russian and Chinese experts but as it is a global commission, they need people from different countries. They also have Jeff Moss and Joseph Nye, also human rights activists, and civil society experts. Commission is a multistakeholder. Governments need to cooperate in order to be successful because there are a lot of actors in cyber area. There is an ideological division in between of how the ICT is seen – one side (especially the West) sees it beneficial (lets do it!) and another (i.e. Russia and China) side sees the use of the ICT as interfering (colour revolutions, influencing internal politics). It is difficult to cooperate between two divisions.

Cyber is not only for IT geeks, there are so many fields – diplomacy, international affairs, law, etc. For Kaljurand, cyber security is about stability, it is an open, secure, stable, and accessible Internet. 65% of people are not online yet, they are to join us and we need to have stable and secure Internet. She said that we have to raise the awareness to countries who have no idea what is happening in cyber field. Thus, although she had no idea what all the 84 bodies are doing, she was happy that there are so many of them who are raising the awareness.

In 2013, it was decided by the UN GGE that international law applies to cyber space. The question is about how (jurisdiction and sovereignty). When is the sovereignty of a state violated (for example, in case of malware or when somebody really dies because of a cyber-attack?) UN is the only global organization, but it is from the 1940s. UN will never agree on everything, thus we need a division of like-minded states who have the same understanding and norms on how to behave in cyber space. For example, norm is that it is not okay to attack financial institutions during the peace time. Every country should be interested in having common norms, but it is not possible to agree because of the ideological divisions. If UN cannot work on that, then a group of likeminded countries can. Other bodies are the EU and NATO and both have its roles, for example, cyber is the 5th domain of operations (in addition to air, space, land, maritime). There is a NATO Centre of Excellence in Tallinn. The aim of cyber stability is to avoid misunderstandings (confidence building is getting people together, OECD is doing an excellent work there).

Kaljurand also spoke about Estonia’s e-voting. She used Hack the Pentagon – hackers were asked to hack a system to find vulnerabilities – example and she wants to do the same in Estonia with e-voting. She believes that we have a good system but there is so much criticism from abroad and we need a PR-event - Hack Estonian e-voting. We need international hackers for that. Government is not ready yet but she is still convincing it. We need to face challenges but not to step back. It may happen that people perceive it as negative PR (hackers are hacking Estonia) but we need to explain a lot what are we doing and why. We were lucky to have an ID-crisis in 2017 because we started to feel ourselves too comfortable.

What is the future of UN GGE? Has it failed because in the last meeting the participating countries did not reach a consensus?

Internet of Things, terrorism, international law, norms, confidence building measures, capacity building – GGE is looking these five fields. GGE was supposed to write a report (goal was not to go back from what was agreed two years earlier). Kaljurand does not think that coming years show a will of agreeing on something, she said that coming years will be for educating.

She also said that we need to start asking something for return. For example, if some country wants assistance in e-taxation, then it must make a political statement (international law applies to cyber space or a statement about human rights). If a country is not willing to make a statement, then it should ask for an assistance from some other country.

How to deal with Russia and China?

She has no answer to that. Balkanization of Internet (different countries have different Internets). She does not see that we could find common ground with China or Russia because of the big ideological differences. It may happen that states reach the point where they agree that cyberattacks are not okay. 2007 nobody died, it was just humiliating. All the cyberattacks have been kind of mild but if cyber 9/11 happens then the world would come together, and states would have more will and intentions to agree on some rules. It is a grey zone if you do not have rules. People get to together usually when something bad happens, it has not happened with cyber yet.

Tech-people can do attribution, but it has a political dimension as well, as it depends on the politicians (do they have the courage to say it out or not). She referred to former Minister of Defence Jaak Aaviksoo who said that we did reasonable attribution and our conclusion is that when somebody does everything like a dog then most probably it is a dog. Attribution is a political question and increasingly states should say that they were attacked by this or that country.

You can buy cyber weapons from the black market but it’s too primitive. It will change with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and internet of things, it will be cheaper for terrorists. So far it has not been used. KRATT – Estonian law on AI (obligations, responsibilities). Finland, company who has AI in its board, EE-FIN are competing on who will have the law first.

Why are there so many diplomatic efforts (84)?

She does not know what all of them are doing. On the one side, it is good that so many institutions are discussing cyber security. 2004 or 2007 nobody was discussing cyber but today everybody is discussing it. Her commission tries to look at what others are doing. It is good to have so many even if they duplicate. It is important to discuss and educate people.

Cyber security is connected to open internet. Are the EU and US values the same if something goes south?

US is very vocal about open internet, freedom of the Internet. They are strong supporters of human rights online and open internet. There are differences how countries see intelligence etc but basically, we are on the same side. We may disagree on small things, but we share the same principles and understanding.

Could you elaborate more on EU’s role (EU diplomacy toolbox) concerning cyber security?

Cyber diplomacy toolbox – if something happens how do we react. International law allows retaliation. We have regulations. What are the measures in case of cyberattack against a member state? All the rules apply to cyber security (political statements, sanctions etc). The same as the EU has done in the case of Crimea. In the EU it is easier than in NATO. In NATO, there is no mechanism of what to do in case of an attack.

However, there is a problem with the EU and overregulation - EU is very happy when it can regulate something. EU is not a single market, with cyber it is more complicated, there are more regulations. Some regulations are needed because you need to have some frames. You have to know what is allowed and what is not. It is difficult to find a balance.

How Is the cooperation with industries?

Estonia is cooperating pretty well with the industries. All industries (Microsoft, Facebook) complained that governments were not cooperating enough. Industries have ideas. States will not give away authority on retaliation, attribution etc. It is about attitudes (I know how to do my job!). Governments are starting to understand that they can’t do anything without industries. In the end, they have IT-nerds, governments cannot afford them. Hackers are going to school and teach cyber hygiene to students. Teachers were negative until they started to cooperate with the policemen. She said that hackers despite their image are not bad guys.

How much is Estonia an ideal case? How to implement it to other countries?

Estonia is doing well. Other countries need to find what is suitable to them. They don’t need to copy; every country (state) can find something what is interesting to them. Estonia needs to introduce what we are doing and urge others to find what is interesting to them. You can always do the same thing but with going around the corner.

Konspekteeris Kert Ajamaa