Tag Archive for: United Nations

The Pacific cocaine corridor: A Brazilian cartel’s pipeline to Australia

Australia faces an emerging national security threat from Brazilian transnational crime groups. Once a domestic concern, Brazilian organised crime has evolved into a powerful narco-insurgency with transnational reach, making Brazil the world’s second-largest player in the cocaine trade after Colombia.

While Brazilian organised crime previously posed little threat to Australia, this report, The Pacific cocaine corridor: A Brazilian cartel’s pipeline to Australia, examines how Brazil’s expanding role in global cocaine supply, rising criminal network sophistication, and growing demand in Australia’s lucrative cocaine market are increasing the presence of Brazilian organised crime on Australian shores.

The report highlights how Brazil’s Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) has become a major transnational criminal threat, exploiting weaknesses in political, legal, and economic systems. It explores Brazil’s geography and criminal networks with South American cocaine producers and examines the PCC’s global distribution networks, with a focus on how the Pacific is increasingly used to transport drugs destined for Australia. A recent case study demonstrates the prioritisation of the Australian market in these operations.

The report concludes with recommendations for strengthening police cooperation, enhancing financial surveillance, and proactively detecting and disrupting PCC activities. By addressing key enablers of the PCC’s resilience and closing gaps in international information exchange, a coordinated approach will not only mitigate the immediate threat but also bolster Australia’s long-term defences against transnational organised crime.

When China knocks at the door of New Caledonia

China’s covert foreign interference activities in the Pacific are a very important, and yet under-researched, topic. This report uses New Caledonia as the case study to examine China’s hidden front, 隐蔽战线, throughout the wider Pacific.

Successive months of violence and unrest in New Caledonia in 2024, have heightened regional and international awareness of the uncertain future of the territory, and the role of China in that future. The unrest erupted after France pushed through legislation extending voting rights in the territory.

The CCP has engaged in a range of foreign interference activities in New Caledonia over many decades, targeting political and economic elites, and attempting to utilise the ethnic Chinese diaspora and PRC companies as tools of CCP interests. Local elites have at times actively courted China’s assistance, willingly working with CCP front organisations.

Assessing the extent of China’s foreign interference in New Caledonia is a legitimate and necessary inquiry. The debate about China’s interests, intentions and activities in the territory has lacked concrete, publicly available evidence until now. This study aims to help fill that lacuna. The report draws on open-source data collection and analysis in Chinese, French and English. It was also informed by interviews and discussions that took place during my visits to New Caledonia and France in 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2023, as well as conversations in New Zealand.

My research shows that the French Government and New Caledonian authorities are working to manage risks in the China – New Caledonia relationship. Moreover, civil society, the New Caledonian media, many politicians, and Kanak traditional leadership have also had a role in restraining the extent of the CCP’s foreign interference activities in New Caledonia. Few Pacific Island peoples would welcome a relationship of dependency with China or having the Pacific become part of a China-centred order.

The report concludes by recommending that New Caledonia be included in all regional security discussions as an equal partner. New Caledonia needs to rebalance its economy and it needs help with the rebuild from the riots. Supportive partner states should work with France and New Caledonia to facilitate this.

Gender mainstreaming in United Nations peace operations: An unfulfilled promise?

The principle of gender equality is a cornerstone of the United Nations (UN). Centred on equal access to rights, opportunities, resources and decision-making powers irrespective of gender, it’s embedded within the UN Charter and championed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mechanisms such as the inaugural resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agreed to in 2000 by the UN Security Council (UNSC), and the adoption of an additional nine WPS resolutions, further represent the critical intent to achieve this goal. The purpose of such WPS mechanisms is to cultivate gender balance, foster diverse leadership and champion gender equality in a global effort to establish sustainable peace after conflict.

Yet, as we stand on the threshold of the 25th anniversary of UNSC resolution 1325, the UN’s stride towards gender equality for uniformed women in peace operations has been ‘exceedingly slow’. The lofty aspiration of ‘equal opportunity peacekeeping’ through gender mainstreaming policies and practices remains elusive, entangled in a web of misconceptions and entrenched systemic barriers and institutional challenges.
The purpose of this ASPI report is threefold.

First, it examines the blocks to implementation and the effects of gender mainstreaming strategies.
Second, it advances three strategic interventions for the UN system and its global peace and security community:

  • redefining peacekeeping benchmarks for an efficient and effective uniformed component
  • shifting the narrative on peacekeepers’ contributions regardless of gender
  • incorporating feminist voices and practices in the development of policies and practices for the deployment of peacekeepers.

These proposed interventions offer a unique prospect for the final section of this report: encouraging Australian Government departments and agencies that have responsibilities for and commitments to execute the Australian National Action Plan (NAP) on WPS. Those commitments extend to fostering gender equality in both domestic and international WPS endeavours, thereby strengthening Australia’s position as a proactive UN member state.

Deciding the future: the Australian Army and the infantry fighting vehicle

Introduction

The aim of this report is to inform government decision-makers and the public on the ability of Project LAND 400 Phase 3—the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) acquisition—to meet the needs of Australia. I examine a number of factors that provide context for the government’s upcoming decision, whenever that may take place. Those include how IFVs fit into the Australian strategic environment, the ease with which the ADF can deploy them, their vulnerability to threats, and the ongoing utility of armour in the light of lessons unfolding from the ongoing Russian–Ukrainian War.

To set the information into a useful context, this report explains the nature of contemporary land warfare and speculates how the Australian Army is likely to fight in a future conflict. To further assist those making the IFV decision, this report offers a number of scenarios that outline potential operations that the government may direct the ADF to undertake. It also identifies current gaps in ADF capability that will need remediation if the IFV is to achieve its potential, as well as the other opportunities that might not be taken up because of the focus on this investment.

The report’s analysis results in some key questions for decision-makers to consider as they decide on the infantry fighting vehicle acquisition:

  1. Does the government believe that its IFV investment will deliver an appropriate balance of protection, lethality and mobility (both tactical and operational)?
  2. Does the government agree with the requirement for an infantry vehicle with STANAG 4569 Level 6 force protection and equipped with an active protection system?
  3. Is the government confident that the number of the IFVs obtained will generate a deployable and sustainable force that represents a sufficient return on the investment?
  4. Does the government accept that the IFV options under consideration will enable the ADF to offset existing gaps in capability and allow it to conduct operations in a contested maritime environment, including sea and airlift, long-range fires and logistics?
  5. Is the government confident that the Army’s combined arms system is deployable in contested environments, particularly in a maritime scenario?
  6. Does the government believe that the IFV will provide utility in the range of contingencies that the government envisages the ADF will need to meet?
  7. Does the government agree that the IFV will contribute to the requirement that the ADF be able to shape, deter and respond to threats as mandated in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update (DSU)?

The UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace

Guidance on implementation for Member States of ASEAN

Foreword

Global digital growth is continuing to fundamentally transform the lives of people, businesses and institutions, bringing people out of poverty, increasing wider prosperity, welfare and enabling new ways for governments and citizens to engage with each other. It is also creating a more connected world and supporting globalisation with greater access to free markets, democratic systems, prosperity and innovation.

But as we become more reliant on cyberspace, malicious cyber activity has grown in intensity, complexity and severity over recent years, with rising incidents of cybercrime and hostile states targeting critical national infrastructure, democratic institutions, business and media. There is too much at risk to allow cyberspace to become a lawless world and we need to continue to work together to identify the rules of the road in how international law applies to state behaviour in cyberspace just as it does to activities in other domains.

The 11 norms, as part of the UN framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, is a way to help develop those rules of the road and the UK, as part of our outreach, is committed to supporting partners across all continents be better able to both implement the norms but also be better empowered to join in the international debate in the UN.

This ASPI programme has provided an insight into meaningful measures being put in place across ASEAN to deliver the norms, showcasing the region as trailblazing good practice and policies. Sharing and communicating these is in itself a confidence building measure and the examples shared in this report will have an impact across the global debate.

The UK, as a responsible democratic cyber power is proud to have supported this report and we look forward to future activity in the ASEAN region and globally to help shape the future frontiers of an open and stable international order in cyberspace.

– Will Middleton, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, UK

Advances in cyber and critical technology underpin our future prosperity but they also have the potential to harm national and economic security interests and undermine democratic values and principles. The countries that can harness the current wave of innovation while mitigating its risks will gain significant economic, political and security advantages and will be at the forefront of 21st century leadership.

As states increasingly exert power and influence in cyberspace, it is important that there are clear rules in place. In other words, cyberspace is not the Wild West, all countries have agreed that existing international law applies in cyberspace and all countries have endorsed UN norms of responsible state behaviour.

The Plan of Action to Implement the ASEAN Australia Strategic Partnership 2020–2024 details our joint commitment to an open, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful ICT environment. Australia will continue to work closely with our ASEAN partners to deepen understanding and implementation of longstanding agreements of international law and norms in cyberspace.

This report, produced by APSI in partnership with Australia’s Cyber and Critical Technology Cooperation Program and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is the result of a multi-year cyber-capacity building program focused on supporting the effective implementation of UN norms throughout ASEAN.

These 11 norms lay the groundwork for collective expectations for state behaviour in cyberspace. They are the bedrock on which regional and bilateral agreements around state behaviour in cyberspace are built and create a mutually reinforcing set of agreements and expectations.

Australia is grateful for ASPI’s tireless work on this important cyber-capacity building project helping to kickstart the process of understand and actioning the norms and behaviours which are central to an open, free, safe and secure cyberspace.

– Dr Tobias Feakin, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology, Australia

Introduction

This document is the result of a multi-year cyber capacity-building program by ASPI in partnership with the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Cyber and Critical Technology Cooperation Program). Through the project, the partners sought to support member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with the implementation of the United Nations (UN) norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. The content of this publication is primarily based on experiences, inputs and outputs from activities run under this program.

What are norms?

Norms in international affairs are generally defined as ‘a collective expectation for the proper behaviour of actors with a given identity’.

Norms are norms for the following reasons:

  • They are widely shared and agreed among a large group of states; norms exist only because we all believe they exist and apply.
  • They exert a moral attractiveness for states to conform to norms; states prefer to be seen to endorse, follow and promote norms, and to be responsible members of the international community.
  • They assign specific duties and obligations, albeit non-legal, for specific actors; most norms in cyberspace are regulative in character at the national level, as they recommend that states prescribe, prohibit or permit certain activities.
  • They are dynamic; they develop as expectations and opinions in society about what’s responsible and acceptable change over time.
  • People, organisations and states will—from time to time—contest or violate norms; this doesn’t mean that a norm does not exist as long as the norm remains accepted by a large and influential enough community, and the violator is held to account.

Source: Based on Martha Finnemore, Cybersecurity and the concept of norms, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 30 November 2017, pp. 1–2.

The UN norms were first agreed by a UN group of governmental experts in 2015. The group’s report was subsequently endorsed by consensus at the UN General Assembly in 2015 through resolution 70/237. It called on all member states ‘to be guided in their use of ICTs’ by the 2015 report. The focus on the operationalisation and implementation of the UN norms was also front and centre in the 2019–2021 round of UN First Committee negotiations. The report of the OEWG recommended that states ‘further support the implementation and development of norms’. The 2021 UNGGE report offers an additional layer of understanding to help governments with their implementation.

In 2018, the ASEAN leaders expressed a commitment to operationalise the UN norms as a core element in ASEAN’s approach to promoting regional stability in cyberspace. That same year, the ASEAN ministers responsible for cybersecurity subscribed in principle to the norms. At the 2019 ASEAN Ministerial Conference on Cybersecurity, they agreed to establish a working committee to develop a framework for implementation.

Participants reaffirmed the importance of a rules-based cyberspace as an enabler of economic progress and betterment of living standards,and agreed in-principle that international law, voluntary and non-binding norms of State behaviour, and practical confidence building measures are essential for stability and predictability in cyberspace.

– Chairman’s statement of the third ASEAN Ministerial Conference on Cybersecurity, 2018.

In compiling this document, ASPI intends to contribute to the ongoing UN and ASEAN working groups, and offer participants region-specific perspectives based on real and observed examples of good practice. The information was gathered through various regional workshops and training activities that took place between 2019 and 2021, and supplemented with open-source research.

This document consists of two main parts:

  1. An explanation of the norms implementation process.
  2. Practical guidance on implementation with examples from the ASEAN region.

Each government is responsible for its own pathway to implementation and for informing other states of its efforts. Expectations of national and regional implementation will alter as states start to focus on local implementation and as understanding of the norms’ meaning grows.

This document should help kickstart that process of understanding and actioning. It should be considered a living document that supports a gradually maturing regional approach.

This document will help policymakers and state officials answer questions such as:

  • What examples can governments consider to demonstrate their efforts in implementing the UN norms?
  • How can a state demonstrate that it is implementing and following the UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace?
  • Where can a state find advice, assistance and support to advance further implementation efforts?

PART A – THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS EXPLAINED

Part A: the implementation process explained

In this first part of the document, the process for implementation of the UN cyber norms is explained. It starts with a clarification of the concept of international norms, how the cyber norms work and what practical steps make up an implementation effort. Examples of mechanisms and tools to demonstrate implementation efforts are also provided. At the end, we elaborate on the reasons why states would want to make an effort to implement the UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Full text of the UN cyber norms

  1. Consistent with the purposes of the United Nations, including to maintain international peace and security, States should cooperate in developing and applying measures to increase stability and security in the use of ICTs and to prevent ICT practices that are acknowledged to be harmful or that may pose threats to international peace and security;
  2. In case of ICT incidents, States should consider all relevant information, including the larger context of the event, the challenges of attribution in the ICT environment and the nature and extent of the consequences;
  3. States should not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts using ICTs;
  4. States should consider how best to cooperate to exchange information, assist each other, prosecute terrorist and criminal use of ICTs and implement other cooperative measures to address such threats. States may need to consider whether new measures need to be developed in this respect;
  5. States, in ensuring the secure use of ICTs, should respect Human Rights Council resolutions 20/8 and 26/13 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, as well as General Assembly resolutions 68/167 and 69/166 on the right to privacy in the digital age, to guarantee full respect for human rights, including the right to freedom of expression;
  6. A State should not conduct or knowingly support ICT activity contrary to its obligations under international law that intentionally damages critical infrastructure or otherwise impairs the use and operation of critical infrastructure to provide services to the public;
  7. States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;
  8. States should respond to appropriate requests for assistance by another State whose critical infrastructure is subject to malicious ICT acts. States should also respond to appropriate requests to mitigate malicious ICT activity aimed at the critical infrastructure of another State emanating from their territory, taking into account due regard for sovereignty;
  9. States should take reasonable steps to ensure the integrity of the supply chain so that end users can have confidence in the security of ICT products. States should seek to prevent the proliferation of malicious ICT tools and techniques and the use of harmful hidden functions;
  10. States should encourage responsible reporting of ICT vulnerabilities and share associated information on available remedies to such vulnerabilities to limit and possibly eliminate potential threats to ICTs and ICTdependent infrastructure;
  11. States should not conduct or knowingly support activity to harm the information systems of the authorized emergency response teams (sometimes known as computer emergency response teams or cybersecurity incident response teams) of another State. A State should not use authorized emergency response teams to engage in malicious international activity.

What are the UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace?

The UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace (Figure 1) are 11 voluntary and non-binding rules that describe what states should and should not be doing in cyberspace.

Figure 1: The UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace

The content of the 11 norms reflects the expectations that the broader international community has of each state and regional organisation.1 They express a common opinion of what is considered to be responsible behaviour by states. Naturally, this collective opinion of what is responsible and what is irresponsible behaviour develops over time as understanding of cybersecurity deepens, incidents occur, and more governments contribute to the process.

The purposes of the norms as reflected in UNGA Resolution 70/237 are to reduce risks to international peace and security, and to contribute to conflict prevention.2 They have been crafted to deal with state-to-state actions that could potentially carry the highest risks to international peace and security and the welfare of citizens.

Norms in international affairs are political agreements. They do not infringe on a state’s sovereignty or impose legal obligations on states.3 In fact, the norms provide a common basis for a state to design strategic direction, develop capabilities and execute actions in a responsible manner.

The UN norms process

International efforts to establish norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace concentrate around the work of two groups: the UNGGE and the OEWG.

The first UN group of governmental experts convened between 2004 and 2005, and a sixth round of negotiations concluded in 2021. Four rounds concluded with consensus reports, in 2010, 2013, 2015 and 2021. The OEWG was first established in 2019, and a second round has commenced in 2021 for a period of five years.

The UNGGE and OEWG are predominantly intergovernmental negotiation processes with—at times—opportunities for consultations with non-government organisations and civil society. Those consultations have, however, a non-official character.

The UN cyber groups

UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security

2004-05 ֍ 2009-10 ֍ 2012-2013 ֍ 2014-2015 ֍ 2016-17

UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) on Advancing responsible state behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security

2019-21

UN Open-ended working group (UN OEWG) on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security

2019-21 ֍ 2021-25

Member states of ASEAN have been participating in all the meetings of the UNGGE and the OEWG that have convened since 2004. Figure 5 shows ASEAN member states’ participation in the UNGGE and OEWG since 2004. Stars indicate a country’s membership of the UNGGE, and its active participation in the OEWG as determined by written submissions or oral statements.

Figure 5: ASEAN member states’ participation in UN norms processes 2004-2021.

Notes: * Although Brunei has not participated in the UNGGE or the OEWG, it did offer a national views document in 2017; it was the first ASEAN member state to do so. # Although Vietnam did not offer written submissions or made any statements, representatives formally attended OEWG meetings in New York.

In parallel to the UN-facilitated intergovernmental negotiation processes, various multistakeholder and other government-led initiatives have formed too. Examples include:

  • Cyber Tech Accord: a commitment of 150+ companies to work together and follow a set of principles that seeks to protect and empower users and customers
  • Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace: a multistakeholder commitment to work together to reduce risks to the stability of cyberspace and to build up confidence, capacity and trust
  • Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of ICTs: a proposal by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s six member countries for an international code of conduct
  • World Wide Web Foundation Contract for the Web: an internet community-led initiative to advance principles of accessibility, affordability, availability and rights-based principles of respect for human rights and privacy for all in the operations of the internet.

What do norms do?

Norms typically codify existing state practice. The UN norms, as introduced in UNGA Resolution 70/237, set the standards of what the international community considers responsible on the basis of observed behaviour by state actors in the past and currently. With these agreed norms, activities and intentions of states can be subjected to assessments. States can be complimented on their response to an incident, or national practices can be heralded as global good practice. Also, states can be reprimanded if they haven’t done enough to prevent an incident, or if they have used cyber capabilities in an irresponsible manner.

In practice, governments will use international norms, such the UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, in three ways:

  1. To serve as a point of reference to reassure other states of their good intentions and to demonstrate that they are constructive members of the international community.
  2. To serve as a point of reference to guide national cybersecurity policy and national cybersecurity investments.
  3. To serve as a point of reference to hold other actors responsible for behaviour that is not in line with the UN norms for responsible state behaviour.

Governments that embrace the UN norms and can report on their efforts contribute to predictability, trust and confidence in cyberspace.

How do norms work?

The implementation of internationally agreed political agreements is always challenging. As they have been crafted through an intergovernmental negotiation process, their language and terminology can be ambiguous. For that reason and in the absence of an overall blueprint, it is important that states find their own way and form their own view and approach to embracing the UN’s normative framework.

Figure 2: The four components that make up the UN framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

The 11 norms should be seen in their entirety and not as a ‘pick-and-choose’ menu. It is important that governments review their efforts in a comprehensive manner covering aspects that touch on issues of national (cyber)security, security of ICTs as well as on constructive inter-state relations.

Furthermore, governments need to keep in mind that the 11 norms are part of a broader framework that also includes the recognition that international law applies to state conduct in cyberspace, a set of confidence-building measures and a commitment to coordinated capacity building.4 Together, those four components make up the UN framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace (Figure 2).

In general, the more states show commitment to the norms and actively engage in their implementation, the more robust the norms become and the more compelling the call for compliance becomes.

What does the implementation of international norms involve?

States can demonstrate their implementation of international norms of behaviour in various ways (see figure 3). Typically, implementation occurs at three different levels: at the level of political endorsement, national laws and policies, and actions on the ground (Figure 3).

  1. First, political endorsement can be demonstrated, for example, through voting in favour of relevant resolutions at the UN General Assembly, by subscribing to ASEAN leaders’ statements and by (prime) ministerial statements.
  2. Second, states can integrate or internalise norms (explicitly or implicitly) in national legal frameworks, strategies and national policies.
  3. Third, a state can demonstrate implementation by referring to its government practices in the form of its institutional capabilities, doctrine and procedures, and actions. Those practices can offer de facto evidence of a state’s effort to follow norms of responsible behaviour, as they demonstrate an ability and willingness to act.

Implementation of international norms of responsible state behaviour

Figure 3: A framework for the implementation of norms.
Source: The author.

Responsibility for the implementation of the UN norms rests with governments. In practice, however, meaningful implementation will rely on individual governments’ ability and willingness to consult and collaborate with industry, civil society organisations, the internet technical community and academia, and on governments’ ability to ensure a whole-of-government approach.

Meaningful implementation requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders and a whole-of-government approach.

For the purpose of including views, expertise and capabilities of non-government stakeholders, mechanisms such as a national action plan or a national road map are proven methods that help build a national or whole-of-economy approach to cybersecurity.

A National Action Plan is an effective method to form an integrated approach to implementation.

What’s a trajectory for the implementation of norms?

Building a national approach to cybersecurity let alone the implementation of the UN norms is neither straightforward nor instant. Typically, stakeholders go through a step-by-step process of gradually increasing their understanding, maturity and comfort with the topic (see figure 4).

  1. A first step is to build awareness across the government of its international responsibilities. This could be achieved through a dedicated training program or awareness campaign on the UN norms.
  2. This should lay the foundation for a cross-governmental recognition that the government is committed to the UN’s normative approach and is willing to be guided by it in its national and international cybersecurity activities.
  3. What follows could be an assessment of where the country stands in its implementation efforts. Such a baseline assessment could be done by a third party or through a whole-of-government mapping process.

    Figure 4: A step-by-step process towards implementation.
  4. The outcome of the baseline assessment will inform the government of its strengths and areas for improvement.
  5. This could then lead to domestic investments in particular areas of cybersecurity, to requesting assistance from the global cyber capacity-building community, or to offers of expertise to others.
  6. At the end of these steps, one can presume a state to be implementing the UN norms commensurate with its own means and capabilities.

The implementation of norms is a dynamic process that evolves as a country’s maturity in cybersecurity grows over time. At the same time, it’s unlikely that any state will ever reach a state of ‘full implementation’, just as no state will ever be 100% cybersecure.

How can governments demonstrate implementation?

For the purpose of the UN norms (to reduce risks to international peace and security, and to contribute to conflict prevention), it is critical that states demonstrate what they’re doing and what they intend to do. Therefore, documenting and reporting are critical in implementation.

There are several ways for states to make their views, achievements and known capacity shortfalls known.

1. Reporting through the UN Secretary-General

On regular occasions, the UN Secretary-General invites member states to share their views and assessments (see figure 6). Governments can share their ‘general appreciation of the issues of information security; efforts taken at the national level to strengthen information security and promote international cooperation in this field; the content of concepts such as the application of international law; and possible measures that could be taken by the international community to strengthen information security at the global level’.

Figure 6: UN member states’ views and assessments

2. Submissions through UN working groups

As part of the ongoing OEWG process, member states are encouraged to provide written submissions or statements to the working group. The statements are shared by the UN Secretariat to other member states, the chair(s) and non-government stakeholders. States are also encouraged to participate in a UN-facilitated survey of their national efforts and experiences.

3. ASEAN Regional Forum

The ARF’s semi-annual Inter-Sessional Meeting on ICT Security offers participants an opportunity to exchange their views on the regional and global ICT landscape and their efforts and initiatives. For the ARF’s annual security outlook, member countries are asked to submit a contribution that includes a section for ‘cyber/ICT security’.

4. Recognition by third party/ies

A state can engage third-party organisations to perform an external assessment and prepare a report. This could be done through a capacity-building relationship, such as ASPI’s national norms implementation reports (see figure 7). ASEAN member states can also make use of their academic and think-tank organisations such as those represented in ASEAN–ISIS and the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP).

Figure 7: ASPI national norms implementation reports

Why would states make an effort to implement the UN cyber norms?

There are a few reasons why states would make the effort to implement international norms, such as the UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

  1. Cyber resilience. By following the recommendations from the norms and through acts of implementation, States are effectively strengthening their national cybersecurity maturity. Therefore, implementation of the norms is directly contributing to a nation’s ability to protect against malicious cyber activity, reduce exposure to risks and vulnerabilities in ICTs, and respond to malicious ICT activity.
  2. International credibility. Most states want to be, and be seen as, responsible members of the international community. Showing demonstrable support for norms of responsible behaviour adds to a country’s international and regional credibility. Domestically, the implementation of international norms helps governments provide direction to their national cybersecurity policy and developments.
  3. Contribute to norm-setting. The effective demonstration of implementation allows states to shape the common opinion of what is and what is not considered responsible behaviour of states and ensure that international expectations align with the local and regional context.
  4. Reassurance, accountability and transparency. In a situation in which a large enough group of states can show demonstrable implementation of the UN norms, each within its own means and capabilities and within its national and regional context, a global environment is created in which states can be reassured of each other’s willingness and ability to prevent unnecessary tensions and unintended conflict. Altogether, this adds to the accountability and transparency of state activities in cyberspace.

PART B – PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION, WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE ASEAN REGION

To read part B, please download the full report here.

ASPI’s Bart Hogeveen provides a brief overview of the project.


Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge contributions by officials and participants working with the governments of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Our particular appreciation goes to:

  • the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of ICT, Office of the President and the National Security Council, the Philippines
  • the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Badan Siber dan Sandi Negara, Indonesia
  • the Ministry of Information and Communications, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Diplomatic Academy Vietnam, Vietnam
  • the National Cybersecurity Agency, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and CyberSecurity Malaysia, Malaysia

In addition, the author is indebted to contributions from Dr Fitriani, Ms Farlina Said, Dr Moonyati Yetid, Mr Eugene Tan, Mr Ben Ang and the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise and support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and their embassies and high commissions in Southeast Asia.

This publication is the output of a project funded by the UK Government and the Australian Government (Cyber and Critical Technology Cooperation Program). More information can be found at https://www.aspi.org.au/cybernorms. The views expressed in this work are not necessarily those of the UK or Australian governments or of the participating governments. The author is responsible for its content, any views expressed or mistakes.

What is ASPI?

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was formed in 2001 as an independent, non‑partisan think tank. Its core aim is to provide the Australian Government with fresh ideas on Australia’s defence, security and strategic policy choices. ASPI is responsible for informing the public on a range of strategic issues, generating new thinking for government and harnessing strategic thinking internationally.

ASPI International Cyber Policy Centre

ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre (ICPC) is a leading voice in global debates on cyber, emerging and critical technologies and issues related to information and foreign interference and focuses on the impacts those issues have on broader strategic policy. The centre has a growing mixture of expertise and skills and teams of researchers who concentrate on policy, technical analysis, information operations and disinformation, critical and emerging technologies, cyber capacity building, satellite analysis, surveillance and China-related issues. The ICPC informs public debate in the Indo-Pacific region and supports public policy development by producing original, empirical, data-driven research. The ICPC enriches regional debates by collaborating with research institutes from around the world and by bringing leading global experts to Australia, including through fellowships. To develop capability in Australia and across the Indo-Pacific region, the ICPC has a capacity-building team that conducts workshops, training programs and large-scale exercises for the public and private sectors.

Important disclaimer

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in relation to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering any form of professional or other advice or services. No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional.

© The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited 2022

This publication is subject to copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, micro-copying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publisher. Notwithstanding the above, educational institutions (including schools, independent colleges, universities and TAFEs) are granted permission to make copies of copyrighted works strictly for educational purposes without explicit permission from ASPI and free of charge.

First published February 2022.

Funding support for this publication was provided by the UK and Australian governments.

  1. UN General Assembly, Group of Government Experts on Developments in the field of ICTs in the context of international security, A/70/174, 22 July 2015, paragraph 10. ↩︎
  2. UN General Assembly, Group of Government Experts on Advancing responsible state behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security, A/76/135, 14 July 2021, paragraph 15; UN General Assembly, Open-ended working group on developments in the field of ICTs in the context of international security, A/75/816, 18 March 2021, paragraph 24. ↩︎
  3. UN General Assembly, Group of Government Experts on Developments in the field of ICTs in the context of international security, A/70/174, 22 July 2015, paragraphs 26-28. ↩︎
  4. It is important to distinguish between ‘norms of responsible state behaviour’ (that is, the UN norms) and what are called ‘norms of international law’. In this document, the term ‘norms’ refers only to the former. ↩︎

Australia’s implementation of women, peace and security: Promoting regional security

Australia’s implementation of women, peace and security examines the benefits of Australia strengthening its implementation of the women, peace and security agenda to bolster its regional stability and national security efforts.

Since its formal establishment by the UN Security Council in October 2000, the women, peace and security agenda has become the central framework through which to advocate for women’s participation across all peace and security decision-making processes, to promote the rights of women and girls in conflict and crisis settings, and for the integration of gender perspectives into conflict prevention, resolution and post-conflict rebuilding efforts and throughout disaster and crisis responses. The agenda, when implemented holistically, can also complement states’ national security efforts and strategies aimed at promoting regional stability. 

The report highlights that while Australia has a positive story to tell particularly about its mainstreaming of the agenda across the Australian Defence Force, within international operations of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and in its aid program. There are, however, significant inconsistencies and resourcing gaps in how Australia approaches the implementation of its commitments on the women, peace and security agenda.

Evolution of the protection of civilians in UN peacekeeping

This year marks twenty years since the Security Council added the ‘protection of civilians in armed conflict’ to its agenda and authorised the first UN peacekeeping mission to explicitly protect civilians. Yet efforts to carry forward that mandate in the field over the last two decades have been mixed. While there is consensus among the member states within the UN that peacekeeping missions should protect, there remain different views among the various stakeholders on the limits and expectations of peacekeepers when it comes to implementing this mandate. And the consequences for the civilians on the ground—which expect protection from the UN—can be dire.

The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has called upon member states ‘to find consensus around the language and implications of peacekeeping tasks’ on the protection of civilians. This Special Report includes contributions from leading experts in the field examining some of the contemporary challenges facing UN peacekeeping missions and the actions that can be taken by member states to strengthen consensus on some issues of contention, including the role of the Security Council, managing host state consent, addressing performance and accountability, and identifying the potential limits of UN peacekeeping.

Additionally, the report explores the evolution in discussions taking place over the last decade, identifying some of the highlights and findings emerging from a series of ten workshops co-hosted by the Permanent Missions of Australia and Uruguay to the United Nations as one example of member state engagement on the issue.

With contributions from Richard Gowan, Aditi Gorur, Victoria K Holt and Lisa Sharland, this new report by ASPI’s International Program draws together analysis on the challenges faced by UN peacekeeping missions in their efforts to protect civilians over the last two decades, while offering some reflections on a way forward.

People Smugglers Globally 2017

The global drivers for the irregular movement of people, from human security to economics, are growing, not dissipating.

In 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported that there were 65.6 million ‘forcibly displaced people worldwide’, 22.5 million refugees and 10 million stateless people.

Globally, there are some 767 million people living below the poverty line. In Africa alone, there are some 200 million people ‘aged between 15–24 and this will likely double by 2045’. While these figures are startling, the fact that in 2016 only 189,300 refugees were resettled highlights the scale of the likely demand for irregular migration.

Much has been said and published on irregular migration from the perspective of the migrant. In the process, it has become politically expedient to homogenise perceptions of people smugglers.

This new ASPI report focuses on people-smuggling syndicates globally.

The report provides a concise analysis of the various people-smuggling syndicates operating in the globe’s people smuggling hot-spots. This authoritative report provides a concise analysis of each people smuggling hot-spot, with accompanying policy recommendations for interventions.

Elections at the UN: Australia’s approach

Australia is expected to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council for the first time on Monday 16 October in New York.

It’s a significant candidacy—we have the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the work of the pre-eminent inter-governmental body overseeing the protection and promotion of global human rights and, in doing so, also promote our own interests and build influence as a global player.

The candidacy presents a timely opportunity to consider the value of serving on UN inter-governmental bodies and Australia’s rationale and approach in putting itself forward as a candidate on a regular basis.

This new ASPI paper by Sally Weston examines the electoral process to serve on UN organs and bodies.

It explores the opportunities for representation and what it often takes to ensure that candidacies are successful in an inherently competitive field.

It also examines the benefits of Australian representation in UN bodies and organs and provides recommendations for Australia to sustain its UN engagement by strategically presenting candidacies to the UN membership.

Revising the UN Peacekeeping Mandate in South Sudan: Maintaining Focus on the Protection of Civilians

Civil war has raged in South Sudan for two years. Horrific atrocities continue to be committed against the civilian population by both primary parties to the conflict as the United Nations mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) has struggled to protect civilians within and beyond its protection of civilians (POC) sites.

This report by the Stimson Center and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute examines the challenges UNMISS has faced in its efforts to protect civilians from physical violence despite the priority and focus of the revised mandate that was adopted following the outbreak of civil war in December 2013.

This report offers recommendations for stakeholders to consider as part of the upcoming mandate review that will take place in December 2015, as well as lessons for future reviews.

Tag Archive for: United Nations

How world order changes

After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, and almost a year before the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, US President George H W Bush proclaimed a ‘new world order’. Now, just two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, has declared that ‘the international order is undergoing changes of a magnitude not seen since 1945.’ But what is ‘world order’, and how is it maintained or disrupted?

In everyday language, order refers to a stable arrangement of items, functions, or relations. Thus, in domestic affairs, we speak of an ‘orderly society’ and its government. But in international affairs, there is no overarching government. With arrangements among states always subject to change, the world is, in a sense, ‘anarchic’.

Anarchy is not the same as chaos, though. Order is a matter of degree: it varies over time. In domestic affairs, a stable polity can persist despite a degree of ungoverned violence. After all, organised and unorganised violent crime remain a fact of life in most countries. But when violence reaches too high a level, it is seen as an indication of a failed state. Somalia may have a common language and ethnicity, but it has long been a site of battling clans; the ‘national’ government in Mogadishu has little authority outside the capital.

The German sociologist Max Weber famously defined the modern state as a political institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But our understanding of legitimate authority rests on ideas and norms that can change. Thus, a legitimate order stems from judgments about the strength of norms, as well as simple descriptions about the amount and nature of violence within a state.

When it comes to world order, we can measure changes in the distribution of power and resources, as well as in adherence to the norms that establish legitimacy. We can also measure the frequency and intensity of violent conflict.

A stable distribution of power among states often involves wars that clarify a perceived balance of power. But views about the legitimacy of war have evolved over time. For example, in 18th-century Europe, when Prussia’s King Frederick the Great wanted to take the province of Silesia from neighboring Austria, he simply took it. But after World War II, states created the United Nations, which defined only wars of self-defense as legitimate (unless otherwise authorised by the Security Council).

To be sure, when Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and occupied its territory, he claimed that he was acting in self-defense against the eastward expansion of NATO. But most UN members voted to condemn his behavior, and those that did not—such as China, North Korea, and Iran—share his interest in counterbalancing American power.

While states can lodge complaints against others in international courts, these tribunals have no capacity to enforce their decisions. Similarly, while the UN Security Council can authorise states to enforce collective security, it has rarely done so. The five permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) each wield a veto, and they have not wanted to risk a major war. The veto functions like a fuse or circuit-breaker in an electrical system: it is better to have the lights go out than to have the house burn down.

Moreover, a world order may become stronger or weaker because of technological changes that alter the distribution of military and economic power; domestic social and political changes that alter a major state’s foreign policy; or transnational forces like ideas or revolutionary movements, which can spread beyond governments’ control and alter public perceptions of the prevailing order’s legitimacy.

For example, after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the European wars of religion, the principle of state sovereignty became enshrined in the normative world order. But in addition to changes in the principles of legitimacy are changes in the distribution of power resources. By the time of World War I, the US had become the world’s largest economy, allowing it to determine the outcome of the war by intervening militarily. Although US President Woodrow Wilson tried to change the normative order with his League of Nations, US domestic politics pushed the country toward isolationism, which allowed the Axis powers to attempt to impose their own order in the 1930s.

After World War II, the US accounted for half of the world economy, but its military power was balanced by the Soviet Union’s, and the UN’s normative power was weak. With the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the US enjoyed a brief unipolar moment, only to overextend itself in the Middle East while permitting the financial mismanagement that culminated in the 2008 financial crisis. Believing the US was in decline, Russia and China changed their own policies. Putin ordered an invasion of neighboring Georgia, and China replaced Deng Xiaoping’s cautious foreign policy with a more assertive approach. Meanwhile, China’s robust economic growth allowed it to close the power gap with America.

Relative to China, American power did decline; but its share of the world economy has remained at around 25 percent. As long as the US maintained strong alliances with Japan and Europe, they would represent more than half the world economy, compared to a mere 20 percent for China and Russia.

Will the Trump administration maintain this unique source of America’s continued power, or is Kallas right that we are at a turning point? The years 1945, 1991, and 2008 were also turning points. If future historians add 2025 to the list, it will be a result of US policy—a self-inflicted wound—rather than any inevitable secular development.

The world can still keep Trump in check

US President Donald Trump has shown a callous disregard for the checks and balances that have long protected American democracy. As the self-described ‘king’ makes a momentous power grab, much of the world watches anxiously, aware that his administration’s growing illegality and corruption is eroding not only the US Constitution but what remains of the post-1945 international order. A return to great-power spheres of interest looks increasingly likely.

But foreign governments, businesses and civil-society groups have more power than they think in the face of a revisionist United States. They can take five steps to create external checks and balances on the Trump administration and on anti-democratic forces more broadly. Anti-democratic forces around the world cast a long shadow, but with a boost of courage and the strength of solidarity, pro-democracy coalitions can come together to fight for the light.

The first step is to unite and make as much noise as possible. Would-be autocrats depend on divide-and-rule tactics, maximising fear by convincing individuals and governments that they alone are on the chopping block. Imagine if all governments in the Americas (with a few exceptions, such as Argentina) denounced Trump’s designs on the Panama Canal and Canada, loudly and repeatedly, and refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Indeed, they could collectively rename it the Gulf of the Americas.

Another option is for all the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and European Union governments to issue a joint statement repudiating Trump’s claim that Ukraine started the war with Russia, instead insisting on the truth: Russia violated Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s 57 members could collectively introduce a censure resolution in the United Nations General Assembly condemning any suggestion of expelling all Palestinians from Gaza, as Trump casually suggested last month, while reaffirming a collective commitment to a Palestinian state.

It may prove even more consequential if European countries (EU members plus Switzerland, Britain and Norway) joined strategic partners such as Canada, Japan, South Korea and Australia in outlining the global chaos that Trump will unleash if he tries to take Greenland by force, thereby legitimising war as a foreign-policy tool. These denunciations should be issued repeatedly in all appropriate international forums.

The second step is to push back hard on Trump’s provocations, escalating to absurdity. If the US raises tariffs from 100 percent to 200 percent, governments should announce that they are raising them to 400 percent. This is a game of chicken, not a negotiation. The US may be the world’s largest economy, with a GDP of nearly US$28 trillion, but the combined economies of the EU member states, Britain, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Australia are 25 percent larger, totalling nearly US$35 trillion. Instead of coming to the White House with hat in hand and flattery at the ready, hoping to get an exemption from the coming trade wars, world leaders would be better off presenting a united front.

Third, use law to counter Trump’s lawlessness. The rule of law is not simply a code of conduct approved by duly constituted authorities. It is an entire system designed to channel dispute away from the battlefield and into the courts, to replace armed combat with legal jousting before an impartial referee. To the extent that the Trump administration ignores or rejects national and international law, foreign governments, businesses and civil-society groups should use their own courts to make their case and enforce their rights.

Lawfare could be especially useful for fighting corruption and economic malfeasance. When the actions of US officials violate cross-border contracts or give illegal advantage in international business deals, local prosecutors should apply their national law. This could help create a ‘zone of law’ for global commerce. But under no circumstances should they engage in vendettas or politically motivated prosecutions.

The fourth step other countries must take is to create a thriving domestic tech sector. This requires time, but few things are more important over the longer term. Governments and citizens should have options other than US or Chinese tech, particularly in the AI phase of the digital revolution. Moreover, as the EU well knows, competing with the existing tech giants requires the removal of trade barriers and the integration of capital markets, both important steps toward enhancing regional power on the global stage.

Lastly, the Trump administration has made clear its disdain for multilateral institutions, having rejected the UN’s sustainable development goals and questioning whether UN agencies’ projects ‘reinforce US sovereignty by limiting reliance on international organizations or global governance structures.’ Other countries—especially rising middle powers—should seize this moment to take over these institutions and make them their own.

It is time, for example, to give up on the UN Security Council. The permanent members will never agree to reform it and will continue to veto resolutions affecting their own interests, as the UN’s founders expected. Russia’s veto in the Security Council means that the General Assembly has already become the primary forum for addressing issues regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Rising middle powers such as India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia should seize the opportunity of great-power deadlock or collusion to align global institutions with the actual configuration of power in the world. They should insist on equal representation and promote decision-making based on weighted majority rule, which would give every country a genuine voice. The EU would have much to gain by supporting such reforms, but even if it does not, an international system designed by the victors of World War II must either change or sink into irrelevance.

These are radical moves. But the leader of the world’s most powerful country is implementing a radical agenda. The US system of checks and balances is the primary means of protecting democracy. The world can help.

The battle for the internet

Democracies and authoritarian states are battling over the future of the internet in a little-known UN process.

The United Nations is conducting a 20-year review of its World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a landmark series of meetings that, among other achievements, formally established today’s multistakeholder model of internet governance. This model ensures the internet remains open, global and not controlled by any single entity.

This model is now at the centre of a fierce geopolitical struggle. Authoritarian countries are pushing for a multilateral governance approach—one that shifts control of the internet firmly into the hands of governments. This shift would legitimise crackdowns on dissent, expand online surveillance, enable internet shutdowns, weaken human rights, and accelerate the global spread of digital authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, the WSIS+20 review comes as this approach to internet and digital governance is increasingly popular. In recent years China and Russia have made significant inroads in the UN in advancing their interests for greater state control over the internet and digital governance. In 2024, the UN Cybercrime Treaty granted governments new powers over online activity, sparking concerns it could facilitate digital surveillance and legitimise restrictions on human rights and freedoms, while the UN Global Digital Compact also shifted toward a larger state role in digital governance issues.

These developments set a troubling precedent as WSIS+20 unfolds, raising the question of whether the internet remains free and open, or whether the UN will legitimise digital authoritarianism on a global scale.

What is WSIS?

WSIS, held in two phases in 2003 and 2005, was a landmark UN summit that brought the international community together to ‘build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society.’ It established 11 action lines to use information communication technologies for global development and tasked various UN agencies with overseeing their implementation.

In 2005, WSIS’s Tunis Agenda formally established the multistakeholder model of internet governance that had emerged since the internet was created, emphasising the inclusion of governments, civil society, technical experts, academia and the private sector. This recognised that the internet is a network of networks, with multiple stakeholders facilitating its operation. This model—by design—also prevented any single entity, particularly states, exerting undue control or influence over the internet’s architecture. Among WSIS’s achievements was the creation of the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a platform where governments, civil society, the private sector, technical experts and academia could engage and collaborate on internet governance issues.

Two decades later, the 2025 WSIS+20 review will revisit established principles and assess progress against the WSIS action lines. The review will consider the extension of WSIS’s mandate, the future of the IGF (whose mandate also expires in 2025) and, potentially, the expansion of WSIS’s mandate to cover emerging technologies such as AI.

The review process has multiple components. UN agencies are conducting reviews of their respective WSIS action lines. The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development is coordinating input from stakeholders and preparing a report to be released in April. This report will inform negotiations at the UN General Assembly, culminating in a resolution to be presented for adoption by the UN in December. Throughout the year, events such as June’s IGF in Norway (the last before the forum’s mandate expires) and July’s WSIS+20 High-Level Event in Geneva will also provide important opportunities for the multistakeholder community to provide input into the review process before intergovernmental negotiations ramp up.

WSIS and geopolitical competition

With digital technologies playing an ever-growing role in the modern world, the WSIS+20 review is an opportunity to shape the future of the internet and ensure it remains open, inclusive and development-oriented. The aims and ideals of WSIS have never been so important. However, WSIS has become a complicated geopolitical battleground because of its central role in the multistakeholder model of internet governance.

For years, countries such as China and Russia have pushed for a multilateral approach, arguing that internet and broader digital governance should be controlled by states rather than through the multistakeholder model.

Some criticism of the multistakeholder system is warranted. While the model has fostered an open and innovative internet for decades, it has been dominated by Western governments and major corporations, leaving many countries—particularly in the Global South—feeling sidelined in discussions. Its fragmented and complex processes can be difficult and expensive to navigate, limiting meaningful participation. As digital challenges such as AI governance grow more urgent, many countries also see a need for stronger state engagement to protect national sovereignty and counter the unchecked power of Big Tech. Even democracies, historically the strongest proponents of the multistakeholder model, are increasingly drawn to multilateral approaches to rein in tech giants and address digital challenges more effectively.

China and Russia have skilfully and strategically used these criticisms to advance their own agendas, framing multilateralism as a more inclusive and equitable alternative to the multistakeholder model.

However, their push for multilateral governance ultimately serves to entrench authoritarian control over the internet. Both nations promote ‘cyber sovereignty’ or ‘internet sovereignty’ concepts, arguing that states should have absolute control over their domestic internet governance and effectively justifying their digital authoritarian practices.

While their push for increased multilateral cooperation may appear constructive on the surface—multilateral cooperation is normally a good thing—it aims to concentrate power in forums where only nation-states have voting authority, effectively sidelining civil society and other stakeholders. This has serious implications for global human rights and freedoms.

Over the past year, authoritarian states have made significant strides in advancing this multilateral vision within the UN system through processes such as the Global Digital Compact and the Cybercrime Treaty. WSIS+20 is an opportunity for them to consolidate these gains and fundamentally reshape global digital governance in their interests.

What authoritarians want

Authoritarians’ approach to WSIS will likely focus on four broad strategic areas.

First, they will likely push for new initiatives or for inclusion of language that strengthens multilateral cooperation and action, aiming to concentrate power in forums where only nation-states have voting authority, effectively sidelining other stakeholders. This could include attempts to position WSIS as implementing the Global Digital Compact (GDC)—a nation-state negotiated framework—or trying to subordinate WSIS under this framework, despite WSIS’s independent mandate. This could also include attempts to strengthen the newly established UN Office of Emerging and Digital Technologies, an outcome of the GDC. The office has faced controversy over a lack of transparency about its mandate and its potential to not only further centralise internet governance within the UN in New York, but to centre it within the UN secretariat.

Second, they will likely target the IGF. While preventing its extension seems unlikely, authoritarian governments may work to shift its functions to other UN bodies where only states have voting power—a move China has long advocated for. Alternatively, they may seek to weaken the IGF’s effectiveness by maintaining voluntary funding or creating competing multilateral mechanisms that duplicate its functions.

Third, they will likely push to extend WSIS’s mandate to include emerging technologies, particularly through initiatives that emphasise multilateral involvement. This would create opportunities to shape the governance of AI, data, biotechnology and other emerging fields across multiple disparate forums, making it difficult to track developments and coordinate responses.

Fourth, authoritarian states, particularly China, will likely capitalise on WSIS+20’s development-focused agenda. China has promoted the right to development to justify its prioritisation of state-led economic growth over other universal human rights and freedoms, serving as a strategic tool to strengthen China’s domestic authoritarian model in the name of economic progress. WSIS+20’s emphasis on development, and the urgent need to close the global digital divide, creates a risk that this concept could spread to global digital governance. This would provide a framework for other governments to adopt digital authoritarian practices under the guise of national development priorities.

The central role of the Global South in the review process makes this more concerning. China wields considerable influence through this group, including via the G77+China group, which represents 134 of the 193 UN member states—a majority of UN votes if they negotiate or vote as a bloc, as they did in last year’s GDC negotiations.

The structural elements of the WSIS+20 review further tilt the process in favour of authoritarian interests. The outcome document will be presented for adoption by the UN General Assembly’s Second Committee. Beijing has historically wielded significant influence in this forum, increasing the risk that WSIS+20 shifts toward a state-centric model at the expense of the multistakeholder model.

WSIS isn’t happening in a vacuum

While the WSIS+20 review may seem like an abstract UN process, it’s unfolding in a rapidly changing internet and digital landscape.

The internet is becoming less open and less global as national governments—including democracies—assert greater control over digital spaces. Global internet freedom is in decline, with China and Russia advancing their state-centric visions for digital governance—not only within the UN but also through influential groups like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Meanwhile, China is exporting its digital authoritarian model worldwide via the Digital Silk Road, embedding rules and technologies that entrench state control.

This shift isn’t just happening at a normative or policy level. Technical standards—long an area of geopolitical competition—are beginning to split. The technical foundations of the global internet are also beginning to fracture. For instance, China’s proposed IPv6+ initiative introduces protocols that enable greater state control over internet traffic, raising concerns about its potential global adoption through the spread of Chinese technology.

The internet’s physical infrastructure is also splintering. Subsea cables, telecommunications networks and satellite systems are increasingly fragmented along geopolitical divides. Efforts to decouple technology supply chains—including critical minerals, semiconductors, and advanced chips—are further deepening these divisions.

Conclusion

WSIS+20 is not just another review.  It is a crossroads for the future of the internet.

For democracies, WSIS represents the last major opportunity to defend the multistakeholder model of internet governance. Democracies must lead efforts to improve the multistakeholder model, making it more inclusive and responsive to the needs and interests of the Global South with clear ideas about how to harness digital technologies for development. WSIS is an opportunity to genuinely collaborate with these nations to evolve the system and address developmental challenges, all while countering the narratives promoted by authoritarian regimes.

Multistakeholder bodies, such as ICANN, as well as the technical community and civil society, mobilised ahead of the GDC negotiations last year to push back on attempts to erode the open and global internet and shape discussions on how the multistakeholder model could evolve. They are likewise approaching WSIS with the gravity it deserves. Democracies must do the same.

If democracies fail to approach WSIS with the magnitude it deserves, 2025 may well mark the end of the open global internet. The battle for the internet is not just about digital governance- it’s the frontline of the broader struggle over the global order.

Authoritarian states recognise this. It’s time democracies did too.

To regulate cyber behaviour, listen to Indo-Pacific voices

The international community must broaden its understanding of responsible cyber behaviour by incorporating diverse perspectives from the Indo-Pacific, a region critical to the future of global cyber governance.

As the mandate of the United Nations Open-Ended Working Group on the security and use of information and communications technologies ends in July 2025, the world must reflect on what it means to be a responsible state actor in cyberspace. Over two decades, the UN has developed a framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, which includes the acceptance that international law applies to state conduct in cyberspace and a commitment to observe a set of norms.

The framework, designed to address the weaponisation of cyberspace, narrowly focuses on high-stakes security concerns. While its emphasis on international peace and security is essential, this high threshold often sidelines domestic responsibilities and the challenges that developing and emerging economies face.

By amplifying the voices of mature cyber nations, it overlooks regions where the concept of responsible cyber behaviour is less expressed but no less important. As cyberspace is a cornerstone of economic, social, political, and military activities globally, we must expand the framework to address both domestic and international dimensions of cyber norms.

A report issued today and co-edited by ASPI and the Royal United Services Institute highlights this gap by examining how seven Indo-Pacific countries—Cambodia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and Taiwan—perceive responsibility in cyberspace. We investigate how governments and societies interpret this responsibility, going beyond their expectations of other states to see how they demonstrate their responsibility internally.

Our findings reveal a lack of common understanding and implementation of the UN’s cyber norms across the region. While commitments to responsible state behaviour are formally acknowledged at the UN level, domestic policies and regulations are inconsistent. For many Indo-Pacific countries, responsible cyber behaviour is mainly understood in terms of ensuring state sovereignty and territorial non-interference through cyber means. Governments are also mainly guided by national security concerns. This information is often shrouded in secrecy, complicating oversight and accountability.

Economics also shapes regional cyber policies. For most Indo-Pacific countries, socio-economic development, digitalisation and connectivity are top priorities. Given their limited sovereign cyber and digital capabilities, they view responsible behaviour as the ability to freely choose strategic partners and attract investments, technical support and capacity-building initiatives. This pragmatic approach underscores the need to reconcile international commitments with domestic priorities such as combating cybercrime, achieving data sovereignty, and ensuring affordable and reliable connectivity.

However, pursuit of these priorities often results in over-regulation and reliance on surveillance technologies and restrictive policies to counter cyber threats. Many Indo-Pacific countries struggle to balance protection of critical infrastructure and the information environment with promotion of open and inclusive digital spaces. Our report highlights the need for clear guidelines on the purchase, sale and use of dual-use technologies. While some countries adhere to international frameworks, others lack robust safeguards, exposing cyber vulnerabilities.

The Indo-Pacific’s diverse perspectives on responsible cyber behaviour emphasise the importance of domestic expertise. Governments must nurture talent within both public and private sectors and ensure access to international platforms that foster collaboration and knowledge-sharing. Otherwise, the region risks being left behind in shaping global cyber governance. Furthermore, many Indo-Pacific stakeholders argue that the UN framework’s emphasis on international norms must be complemented by actionable standards addressing states’ internal responsibilities, such as securing their networks and fostering resilient digital ecosystems.

International discussions on cybersecurity are increasingly polarised, with major powers vying for influence over Indo-Pacific countries to shape regional norms. In this context, we must ensure that the perspectives of emerging economies are not overshadowed by the interests of major powers. Ignoring these viewpoints is not only a poor diplomatic strategy—risking the alienation of regional actors and complicating negotiations—but also undermines international efforts to address shared challenges. Incorporating these voices into the framework would create a more inclusive and representative system that fosters equity, trust and long-term cooperation, ultimately strengthening global cybersecurity.

To achieve this, international and regional institutions must prioritise capacity-building and technical assistance tailored to the needs of Indo-Pacific countries. This includes creating platforms that allow these states to share experiences and shape global discourse on cyber norms. An example of such a platform is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, through which member states have come to develop a norms checklist. It also requires the international community to recognise the interconnectedness of domestic and international cyber responsibilities. By grounding discussions in the specific contexts and priorities of the Indo-Pacific, the framework can evolve into a truly global standard that bridges the gap between developed and developing nations.

As the UN Open-ended Working Group mandate’s deadline approaches, we must reshape the framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. The Indo-Pacific’s challenges and perspectives can help strengthen the framework’s relevance and effectiveness. By incorporating diverse regional viewpoints, the international community can build a more equitable and resilient cyberspace that serves the interests of all states, not just the most powerful. This is not merely a matter of inclusion; it is a matter of global cyber stability and security.

The way forward in Syria

The collapse of Syria’s Assad regime—with President Bashar al-Assad not even informing his closest associates before fleeing to Moscow—has left regional and international players scrambling to stabilise the country.

Of course, there have been numerous attempts to restore stability to Syria ever since the start of its civil war in 2011, after Assad brutally repressed peaceful Arab Spring demonstrations. Despite the many failures, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously in December 2015, remains the cornerstone of international diplomatic efforts to resolve the Syrian conflict. It provides a clear roadmap for a Syrian-led political transition under a new constitution, with UN-supervised elections and measures to ensure inclusive governance.

True, there has been little progress on any of these fronts. The Constitutional Committee, the body charged with implementing Resolution 2254, exemplifies both the potential and the limitations of the UN process. Comprising representatives of the Assad regime, the opposition, and civil society, it was supposed to draft a new constitution that could serve as the foundation for a political settlement. But the committee has achieved little of substance after numerous rounds of meetings in Geneva, owing to obstruction by the regime’s delegation.

The regime faced no consequences for derailing the process, because the UN Security Council itself was deeply divided. Russia’s status as a permanent, veto-wielding member allowed it to shield Assad from more forceful international action, and its 2015 military intervention saved his regime and fundamentally altered the balance of power on the ground. While UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen tried to break the impasse by enticing the regime with the prospect of sanctions relief, such proposals had no effect.

Now, suddenly, everything is different. While the first foreign dignitary to travel to Damascus after the fall of the regime was Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin, the second (from what we know) was Pedersen. Moreover, many governments say they are in contact with the lead rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and its interim government. The fact that the United States, the United Kingdom, and others still officially designate HTS as a terrorist organisation has not been an issue.

Although much is up in the air, the 2015 UN roadmap remains the best option for ensuring inclusive governance, which is a precondition for stability in Syria. The question, however, is whether all domestic and regional players will go along with the process.

Israel has not hesitated to advance its forces beyond the Golan Heights, throwing out an arrangement that had prevailed since the 1973 Yom Kippur War (when even the minimal gains that it made in the area inflamed passions across the Arab world). It has also been carrying out preemptive air strikes against what is left of Syria’s military hardware and weapons facilities.

For Turkey, the biggest question is whether it can accept a Syrian governance framework that includes the Kurds. The Turkish government’s priority is to marginalise any elements associated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which it regards as a terrorist group (as do the US and the European Union). Ideally, a new settlement in Syria could even help to defuse the Kurdish issue in Turkey itself.

One obvious risk is that remnants of the Islamic State (ISIS) will exploit the new uncertainty to strengthen their own position. But both HTS and various Kurdish groups have fought ISIS for years, and they will now be even more determined to resist it. A key strength of the UN process is the absence of favourable alternatives; were it to collapse, the outcome would be catastrophic for all concerned. The victorious rebels’ focus on building and maintaining state institutions shows that they are well aware of the dangers.

To succeed, the process must be carried out by Syrians for Syrians, but with external assistance. The humanitarian situation is dreadful and requires immediate attention. The EU and the US should make it clear to all relevant actors that they are ready to lift the economic sanctions on Syria in support of a political transition.

The stakes are especially high for Europe, whose politics are still haunted by the 2015 refugee crisis. Repeating that episode would be a nightmare. And Turkey, of course, has a vital interest in stability on its border. It has long hosted millions of Syrian refugees whom it would love to return home, and many are now expressing a readiness to go.

The process that lies ahead will be long and complicated, though. Syrian governance has never been a simple affair. If any of the key players starts pursuing their own agenda unilaterally, conditions could deteriorate rapidly. Nonetheless, the UN process represents the best way forward, giving the organisation a chance to show the world that it remains indispensable for situations such as these.

UN looks to rectify the past in its Pact for the Future

International cooperation tends to be hardest when it is needed most. On 22 and 23 September, world leaders convened in New York for the United Nations Summit of the Future, which member states called for in 2020 on the UN’s 75th anniversary. The meeting’s agenda was as ambitious as its name suggests, aiming to forge consensus on peace and security, development, new technologies and the protection of future generations.

Member states agree on one point: the multilateral system that was established in 1945 needs significant upgrades to confront today’s global crises. They are keenly aware of the UN’s inability to stop or even slow the wars in Sudan, Central Africa, Gaza, Ukraine, and a dozen other conflict zones. They acknowledge their failure to prepare the world for the next pandemic, even after witnessing the devastation of Covid-19. They recognise the need for rapid, serious action to address a sovereign-debt crisis, an intensifying climate crisis and the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and gene editing.

Unfortunately, agreement on the need to fix the system does not extend to how. More than a year of grinding negotiations over the Pact for the Future—the summit’s outcome document—concluded dramatically on Sunday morning as Russia protested adoption of the final document, only to be overruled. Later that day, Argentina denounced the pact as a ‘totalitarian agenda’. In reality, the document largely repeats previously agreed, abstract language. But amid the lofty words, there are signs of trends that could reshape global politics and help build the foundations for an international system that is capable of meeting current and future challenges.

After experiencing two world wars and facing the risk of nuclear escalation, the UN’s architects designed a multilateral system that would enable a handful of great powers to steer the world toward peace and advance their own interests. But this kind of global governance is not fit for today’s world, and especially not for the roughly four billion people under the age of 30. Even in the face of continuing conflict on multiple continents, war is no longer the only item on the global agenda. Pandemics, climate change, poverty, mass migration and technological catastrophes all require effective and inclusive international action.

Moreover, a much wider range of countries have enough power to influence world affairs. The rise of China has captured the most attention, but it is far from the only country shaping the global agenda: Barbados has pushed for reform of the international financial system, and the United Arab Emirates has sought to reconfigure regional relations. Brazil will host the G20 this year and a make-or-break UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) next year.

Surprisingly, the Pact for the Future recognises this increasing multipolarity with concrete, albeit incremental, progress on one of the UN’s thorniest problems: reforming the Security Council. After decades of false starts, member states are moving the process forward by agreeing to greater representation on the council for ‘developing countries and small- and medium-sized states’. The pact also commits member states to discuss limits on the ‘scope and use’ of the veto wielded by the Security Council’s five permanent members, resolves to treat the representation of African countries as a ‘special case’, and endorses an active role for the General Assembly when the Security Council fails to act.

Another trend reflected in the negotiations is the important role that companies, NGOs, cities and other actors are playing in addressing global challenges, forming networks that complement national governments. From climate change to AI and misinformation, non-state entities are increasingly shaping the outcomes that matter most to people. The Pact for the Future pledges to ‘strengthen partnerships’ across the ‘whole of society,’ including local and regional governments, the private sector, academic and scientific communities, religious groups and indigenous peoples. The Global Digital Compact, agreed as an appendix to the pact, identifies the private sector, researchers and civil society as ‘essential’ for achieving its goals and commits to multi-stakeholder cooperation.

Lastly, the summit embraced a shift toward longer-term governance. Climate change, pension schemes, infrastructure investment and other ‘long problems’ have causes and consequences that unfold over many generations. In the Declaration on Future Generations, a second appendix to the pact, countries affirm their commitment to ‘safeguard the needs and interests of future generations,’ echoing the first line of the 1945 UN Charter, in which their predecessors pledged to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.’

These grand statements are grounded in specific actions taken by national governments intent on extending the horizon of decision-making. In 2015, Wales was the first government to establish a Commissioner for Future Generations. This month, the European Commission appointed a Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness. South Korea has also recently moved in this direction, with its Constitutional Court ordering the government to set more ambitious climate targets to protect future generations. To the extent that the declaration catalyses more change, it could eventually be seen as a transformative force, much like the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

In his 2021 Our Common Agenda report, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres foresaw a ‘future of perpetual crises, or a breakthrough to a better, more sustainable, peaceful future for our people and planet.’ The Pact for the Future is not the breakthrough that many had hoped for, but it begins to outline the contours of a new system that could rectify the shortcomings of the old one.

Unlocking AI’s potential for all through global collaboration

Like the steam engine and electricity, artificial intelligence is a transformative, foundational technology. If developed to its full potential, AI can create opportunities for people around the world, enable businesses, power economic growth, advance science and help humanity make significant strides toward achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

But realising AI’s potential requires addressing the risks, complexities and inequities that currently limit access to its benefits. First, we must rethink our approaches to global cooperation and governance. Nowadays, too many countries are left out of key policy discussions. Notably, as we show in a new report, a sample of major non-UN international AI governance efforts found that only seven countries had participated in every one, while 118 countries—primarily in the Global South—had not been included. The international community can and must do better.

Over the past year, we have co-chaired the UN secretary-general’s High-level Advisory Body on AI, a group of 39 individuals from government, civil society, the private sector and academia representing a wide range of regions, genders, age groups and disciplines. Together, we developed a set of principles and recommendations for international AI governance, aiming to ensure that the technology serves the public interest by grounding it in human rights and international law. To engage diverse perspectives and voices, we involved more than 2000 participants from every region, consulted more than 1000 experts, reviewed 250 written submissions and held more than 100 virtual discussions.

As we explain in our report, we believe this moment presents a unique opportunity for the international community to lay the foundation to harness the potential from AI, to address key governance shortcomings and capacity gaps in its development, deployment, and use, and to enable a more equitable AI ecosystem. To this end, our report offers seven concrete recommendations for fostering global cooperation, closing governance gaps, and creating new mechanisms to enable all countries to benefit from advances in the technology.

AI’s technical and social trajectory remains the subject of fierce debate, even among experts. This makes sense, given that AI is still in its early stages with its capabilities, applications, and uses evolving rapidly. But uncertainty should not lead to inaction. Instead, it underscores the need for adaptable guardrails that can evolve with the technology and our understanding of it.

Governance efforts must therefore be rooted in both technical expertise and global perspectives. With this in mind, our first recommendation is to establish a truly international scientific panel on AI, bringing together experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds.

This panel would work with global organisations and initiatives to collect, analyse and promote research, and would publish an annual report on AI-related capabilities, opportunities, risks and uncertainties. By highlighting areas of agreement and identifying topics that require further study, the report could enhance transparency and inform policy debates and decision-making. The panel could also conduct focused investigations into specific issues, such as how AI could be used to discover new materials or treat neglected diseases.

In addition to knowledge-sharing, many countries need better access to essential AI resources like computational power, inclusive and representative training datasets, skilled talent and a global data framework. To this end, we recommend establishing a global AI fund to support data sharing, build digital infrastructure, nurture local AI ecosystems and foster entrepreneurship.

We also propose creating an AI capacity development network to expand global access to talent and expertise and make progress toward the SDGs. To ensure standardisation, regulatory alignment and coordinated approaches to ethics and safety, we recommend establishing an AI standards exchange and an inclusive policy forum for discussions about AI governance. These initiatives would build on the work of UN agencies and other international efforts, promoting interoperability and cross-border collaboration.

Effective coordination will be vital. To achieve this, we propose establishing a small, agile AI office reporting directly to the UN secretary-general. This office would act as a central hub, connecting and integrating various institutional initiatives. By linking efforts led by regional organisations and other stakeholders, it could reduce the costs of cooperation and streamline collective action.

Putting these institutional structures in place can pave the way for a more inclusive approach to AI governance. This is crucial to preventing the emergence of an AI divide, as well as expanding global access to education and health care while unlocking the full potential of emerging technologies.

While it is critical to guard against AI’s potential harms and misuses, it is just as important to seize the opportunities the technology creates to achieve the SDGs, drive scientific breakthroughs, and fuel economic growth. Realising these benefits will require building trust, improving communication, and expanding capacity across many sectors—areas where the UN is uniquely positioned to facilitate cooperation. We hope our report triggers an urgent global conversation about how AI can help create a more sustainable and inclusive future for all.

Time for more action on women, peace and security

Today, no doubt, there’ll be morning teas with cupcakes in each of the nation’s security agencies to mark International Women’s Day. But how will any of that improve the situation for women, peace and security? The first UN Security Council WPS resolution was passed nearly 25 years ago, and the secretary general has expressed his extreme concern at the backsliding of the agenda. Australia waited years to release of its second National Action Plan (NAP) outlining how all relevant government agencies would implement the now 10 Security Council Resolutions on this topic.

Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2021-2031 includes implementing responsibilities for Defence, Home Affairs and the AFP. Coordination responsibility for the NAP lies with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Each department is supposed to have its own implementation plan but, as a whole, they are expected to provide a progress report every two years. We still have not seen a single progress report on the NAP and there have been major omissions in implementation.

The four key outcomes of the NAP are to:

  1. Support women and girls’ meaningful participation and needs in conflict prevention and peace processes.
  2. Reduce sexual and gender-based violence.
  3. Support resilience, crisis response, and security, law and justice sector efforts to meet the needs and rights of all women and girls.
  4. Demonstrate leadership and accountability for the Women, Peace and Security agenda.

While there are some strengths to the model of having each department develop its own implementation plan that sits under the NAP, there are also pitfalls. For example, it can mean that the implementation plans can fall further and further away from the intent and issues identified within the resolutions, and that those responsible for implementing the departmental policy then also have less of an understanding of the original resolutions.

Each of the resolutions references the Beijing Platform for Action, the outcome document of the Fourth World Conference for Women held in Beijing in 1995, which continues to be the most progressive document on women’s rights internationally. That document was firmly anti-militarist and called for a reduction in military spending and in the arms trade. That’s why there’s a gender provision in the Arms Trade Treaty which is supposed to prevent the trade in conventional weapons to end users who are responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity,  genocide, or gender-based violence. Australia’s ongoing arms trading in the Middle East should not be allowed under those circumstances.

Resolution 1325 was unique in its recognition that women have unique experiences of conflict and instability, and the Security Council obliged the international community to respond accordingly to bring about effective peace and security. Throughout our region and beyond war widows have remained a prescient issue in peace and security discourse, including in Nepal. In Afghanistan, compensation to families of civilians who died in NATO operations was important to counterinsurgency efforts. But Australia has still not provided the widow of slain Afghan Ali Jan any compensation for the death of her husband, despite the Brereton Report recommending this compensation be provided without being linked to any court proceedings.

One of the principles of the NAP is taking a human rights-based approach to international peace and security. This is the first time the Department of Home Affairs has been included in the NAP. In the most recent machinery of government, Home Affairs lost several parts of the organisation that had implementation responsibility for women, peace and security. However, it has not lost responsibility for immigration.

Human rights defenders have been removed from the groups to be processed with priority for visas from Afghanistan, even though their situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated significantly since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021. Organisations like Azadi-e Zan and Rural Action for Refugees have been unable to maintain earlier contact with the government about visa pathways for women’s rights defenders needing to flee for their lives.

The Security Council resolutions also reinforce the obligations of UN Member States to end impunity for conflict related sexual violence by investigating and prosecuting individuals within their jurisdiction. They reference the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as well as the Geneva Conventions.

Australia’s NAP focusses heavily on supporting justice for conflict related sexual violence. But Australian alleged to have committed gendered crimes against Yazidis in Syria and Iraq have not been prosecuted despite the community’s desire for justice. Australia has a strong legislative framework. When sexual violence is perpetrated as part of an armed conflict, it is a war crime.  When that violence is widespread or systemic, it is a crime against humanity. When it is used to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial or religious group it is genocide.

Sexual violence has been incorporated into Australia’s criminal code as a war crime, crime against humanity and genocide in Division 268. It has also been integrated into Division 270 under the provisions on human trafficking. Each of these provisions has universal jurisdictions and comes with a sentence of 25 years to life depending on the specifics. But instead of implementing this legislation and supporting justice for survivors of conflict related sexual violence, the Australian Government has been implementing policies that stand in the way of prosecution and support for victims of violence perpetrated by Australians who fought with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

This International Women’s Day, we need to see actions not words. Australia’s security agencies need to do more to implement the UN Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, and finally report on our second NAP.

Time for more action on women, peace and security

Today, no doubt, there’ll be morning teas with cupcakes in each of the nation’s security agencies to mark International Women’s Day. But how will any of that improve the situation for women, peace and security? The first UN Security Council WPS resolution was passed nearly 25 years ago, and the secretary general has expressed his extreme concern at the backsliding of the agenda. Australia waited years to release of its second National Action Plan (NAP) outlining how all relevant government agencies would implement the now 10 Security Council Resolutions on this topic.

Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2021-2031 includes implementing responsibilities for Defence, Home Affairs and the AFP. Coordination responsibility for the NAP lies with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Each department is supposed to have its own implementation plan but, as a whole, they are expected to provide a progress report every two years. We still have not seen a single progress report on the NAP and there have been major omissions in implementation.

The four key outcomes of the NAP are to:

  1. Support women and girls’ meaningful participation and needs in conflict prevention and peace processes.
  2. Reduce sexual and gender-based violence.
  3. Support resilience, crisis response, and security, law and justice sector efforts to meet the needs and rights of all women and girls.
  4. Demonstrate leadership and accountability for the Women, Peace and Security agenda.

While there are some strengths to the model of having each department develop its own implementation plan that sits under the NAP, there are also pitfalls. For example, it can mean that the implementation plans can fall further and further away from the intent and issues identified within the resolutions, and that those responsible for implementing the departmental policy then also have less of an understanding of the original resolutions.

Each of the resolutions references the Beijing Platform for Action, the outcome document of the Fourth World Conference for Women held in Beijing in 1995, which continues to be the most progressive document on women’s rights internationally. That document was firmly anti-militarist and called for a reduction in military spending and in the arms trade. That’s why there’s a gender provision in the Arms Trade Treaty which is supposed to prevent the trade in conventional weapons to end users who are responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity,  genocide, or gender-based violence. Australia’s ongoing arms trading in the Middle East should not be allowed under those circumstances.

Resolution 1325 was unique in its recognition that women have unique experiences of conflict and instability, and the Security Council obliged the international community to respond accordingly to bring about effective peace and security. Throughout our region and beyond war widows have remained a prescient issue in peace and security discourse, including in Nepal. In Afghanistan, compensation to families of civilians who died in NATO operations was important to counterinsurgency efforts. But Australia has still not provided the widow of slain Afghan Ali Jan any compensation for the death of her husband, despite the Brereton Report recommending this compensation be provided without being linked to any court proceedings.

One of the principles of the NAP is taking a human rights-based approach to international peace and security. This is the first time the Department of Home Affairs has been included in the NAP. In the most recent machinery of government, Home Affairs lost several parts of the organisation that had implementation responsibility for women, peace and security. However, it has not lost responsibility for immigration.

Human rights defenders have been removed from the groups to be processed with priority for visas from Afghanistan, even though their situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated significantly since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021. Organisations like Azadi-e Zan and Rural Action for Refugees have been unable to maintain earlier contact with the government about visa pathways for women’s rights defenders needing to flee for their lives.

The Security Council resolutions also reinforce the obligations of UN Member States to end impunity for conflict related sexual violence by investigating and prosecuting individuals within their jurisdiction. They reference the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as well as the Geneva Conventions.

Australia’s NAP focusses heavily on supporting justice for conflict related sexual violence. But Australian alleged to have committed gendered crimes against Yazidis in Syria and Iraq have not been prosecuted despite the community’s desire for justice. Australia has a strong legislative framework. When sexual violence is perpetrated as part of an armed conflict, it is a war crime.  When that violence is widespread or systemic, it is a crime against humanity. When it is used to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial or religious group it is genocide.

Sexual violence has been incorporated into Australia’s criminal code as a war crime, crime against humanity and genocide in Division 268. It has also been integrated into Division 270 under the provisions on human trafficking. Each of these provisions has universal jurisdictions and comes with a sentence of 25 years to life depending on the specifics. But instead of implementing this legislation and supporting justice for survivors of conflict related sexual violence, the Australian Government has been implementing policies that stand in the way of prosecution and support for victims of violence perpetrated by Australians who fought with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

This International Women’s Day, we need to see actions not words. Australia’s security agencies need to do more to implement the UN Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, and finally report on our second NAP.

Global institutions struggling to contain tensions

The global institutional architecture designed in the aftermath of World War II to ensure that disaster was never repeated is showing its age.

The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are all struggling to contain geopolitical tensions amid challenges to the long-assumed primacy of a US-led West.

Trade is the most contested area of all, with frictions expected to dominate next week’s meeting of trade ministers from the 164 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The ministerial, which is held every two years, will take place in the United Arab Emirates capital Abu Dhabi, from 26 to 29 February.

The WTO was only established in 1995 with impetus from US President Bill Clinton. It was a time when the process of globalisation appeared to be gathering irreversible momentum and was thought to be to the benefit of the US, as the home to the great majority of the world’s top multinationals.

Australia’s Hawke and Keating administrations were instrumental in getting agriculture added to the WTO remit, with curbs on subsidies, quotas and other policies suppressing world trade in food products.

Before the WTO, trade in manufactured goods had been governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was an international pact struck in 1947, agreeing to limit the use of quotas, tariffs and other trade barriers. It enshrined a principal of non-discrimination: a member state had to extend to all states the most favourable treatment it offered to any single state.

The economic argument for trade liberalisation was that citizens will prosper most if nations focus their efforts on the things they do best while importing goods that are more competitively produced by others.

The political and strategic argument was drawn from the Great Depression of the 1930s which was made worse by tit-for-tat tariff wars.  Trade fell from 11% of global GDP in the late 1920s to 5% by the mid-1930s and did not recover its pre-depression level until the 1970s.

For its first 15 years, the WTO was seen as a great success, although there were always critics on both the left and the right.  Trade reached a historic high of 26% of global GDP on the eve of the 2008 global financial crisis. The share of the world’s population living in extreme poverty fell from 35% in 1995 to 9% by 2018, according to the World Bank, with gains from trade largely responsible.

However, the US has had a profound change of heart.  US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan commented last year: ‘In the name of oversimplified market efficiency, entire supply chains of strategic goods—along with the industries and jobs that made them—moved overseas.’ And ‘the postulate that deep trade liberalisation would help America export goods, not jobs and capacity, was a promise made but not kept.’

At the heart of US disillusionment with trade liberalisation and the WTO is its belief that China, which joined the WTO in 2001, has been unfairly favoured because the organisation does not account for the subsidies inherent in an economy dominated by state-owned corporations and banks.

Moreover, the US resents the ability of countries, particularly China, to self-declare themselves to be developing nations, which entitles them to various concessions in applying world trade rules, such as longer transition periods, softer tariff cuts and permission to continue some export subsidies.

Although China’s per capita annual income has a purchasing power of only US$23,000—about the same as Thailand or Libya—it has been the world’s biggest exporter of goods since 2009 and outstrips the US in exports of high technology goods.

The hardening of US attitudes to trade is not confined to the WTO: there was bipartisan opposition to the US joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which had been an initiative of the Obama administration.

US disenchantment with the WTO began well before the Trump presidency, with the Obama administration chafing at adverse WTO findings over US steel tariffs.

The US has been particularly upset by the WTO’s rejection of US claims, under the Trump administration, that it was imposing tariffs on steel to defend its national security.  The US argues that countries have an absolute right to take whatever action they deem necessary, including tariffs, to defend national security.

The Obama administration started refusing to endorse the nomination of new members to the appeals panel which provided the final adjudication of international trade disputes.

This continued under Trump until the appeals panel was left without a quorum, undermining the WTO’s ability to referee trade disputes.  Whenever the WTO finds against the US, as it has on both steel tariffs and tariffs imposed on Chinese goods, the US lodges an appeal knowing there is no functioning body to hear it.

Next week’s meeting is supposed to discuss a new framework for adjudicating trade disputes, with the WTO members having set a deadline of December this year to have a new dispute settlement process in operation.

With both US Democrats and Republicans now believing the WTO does not benefit the United States, no reform to the WTO ability to resolve trade disputes is likely to be agreed in a US presidential election year.

Should Donald Trump be elected, the US may withdraw from the WTO altogether. As president, Trump had legislation drafted to achieve this but was persuaded to keep it in reserve.

As the biggest beneficiary of the WTO trading system, China has become an enthusiastic multilateralist. It engages in all the WTO committees, supports reinstating the appeals panel and has signed up to an interim voluntary dispute settlement system that is also supported by the EU, Japan and Australia.

China brazenly flouts international trade law when it wishes, as was shown by its discriminatory bans on Australian exports, but generally abides by WTO judgements against it.

The most notable case of the latter was when it dismantled export controls on rare earths after the WTO found in favour of complaints made by the US, the EU and Japan in 2014.  China made moves to resolve Australia’s complaints on barley and wine only after the WTO disputes panel made initial adverse findings.

The European Union, Canada and Japan remain committed to the WTO and have called for reinstatement of the appeals panel, as have over 100 developing nations.

The US change of heart on the benefits of trade liberalisation is the biggest, but far from the only, problem confronting the WTO.

Demands for special treatment by developing nations, particularly India, threaten to derail important agenda items at next week’s meeting, including a ban on subsidies for fishing fleets that contribute to over-fishing or excess capacity.  A moratorium on new taxes on e-commerce that has been in place since 1998, is likely to lapse, with India opposed to its further extension.

A former WTO director and current fellow of the Hinrich Foundation, Keith Rockwell, comments that ‘the divisions run so deep that no serious negotiations will be conducted in Abu Dhabi and no outcomes will emerge’.

Rather than using the WTO, the US preference is to resolve trade disputes bilaterally, without reference to WTO rules. It has done this several times over the last few years with India.

The problem with this approach is that it favours the powerful.  Australia’s experience with China over the last few years shows how that works to the disadvantage of smaller economies.

Tag Archive for: United Nations

Stop the World: Multilateralism, UN reform and the WDSN with Lisa Sharland

In the latest episode of Stop the World, Olivia Nelson sits down with Lisa Sharland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Protecting Civilians and Human Security program at the Stimson Centre. The conversation, which was recorded in July, discusses the United Nations (UN) and how the multilateral system is adapting – or struggling to adapt – to rapid global change. They also discuss the UN’s Summit of the Future which aims to find international consensus on pressing global issues.

The conversation also covers peacekeeping and Australia’s role in it, the challenges that women face in multilateral settings, and how gender equality and women’s security relates to broader national and international security. Finally, as ASPI celebrates the 10th anniversary of the Women in Defence and Security Network (WDSN), Lisa and Olivia explore the evolving presence and contribution of women in Australia’s national security landscape.

Speakers:
Olivia Nelson
⁠⁠Lisa Sharland⁠

Mentioned in this episode:
⁠https://www.stimson.org/2022/strengthening-human-rights-translating-multilateral-commitments-into-action/⁠
https://www.stimson.org/2023/host-country-consent-in-un-peacekeeping/
https://www.stimson.org/2024/the-role-of-air-power-in-un-peacekeeping/