Statement by Mr.Alexander Radovitskiy, the representative of the Russian delegation, at the Eighth Session of the UN open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of ICTs 2021-2025
On the Rev 2 of the draft APR:
Distinguished Mr. Chair,
Russia joins the statement made by the representative of Nicaragua on behalf of a group of like-minded States.
Mr.Chair,
Taking into account your request, the Russian delegation has significantly shortened the statement in our national capacity. We would like to draw attention to provisions that require improvement as a priority.
Regarding the elements of the future permanent mechanism (Annex C), the mandate should be concretized, First of all, in terms of setting a clear task of developing new, including legally binding, norms in the field of international information security. In paragraph 9, we also urge to abandon the term “framework of responsible behavior”, which is too vague in this context.
We are surprised by the inclusion of provisions dealing with the role of NGOs in Annex C, despite the fact that the body of the report provides that discussion on this topic will be postponed until next year. Moreover, the language used is in many respects unacceptable to us. We cannot agree with the call to “improve” the existing OEWG modalities of interaction with NGOs, since what we have now is the result of an extremely difficult compromise. For the same reason, we ask you to correct paragraph 59 in the body of the report, namely to replace the verb “enhance”.
For the rest of the report. We regret that a request by a number of States to postpone the discussion of the “checklist” for implementation of voluntary norms of behaviour has been ignored. At the same time, we welcome the emphasis laid on the purely voluntary nature of the checklist. In this regard, we insist on incorporating in the draft report the task of developing, in the next annual cycle of the OEWG, a Chair’s document summarizing proposals on the development of new norms. This is necessary in order to correct the serious imbalance between the implementation and elaboration of new rules of behaviour, as many delegations have indicated this week.
In the section on international law, we insist on mentioning the proposal of a group of countries on the Concept of a Convention on Ensuring International Information Security, which was mentioned in last year's report and, accordingly, is part of the agreed “language”. We are also seriously concerned about attempts to introduce non-consensus elements regarding international humanitarian law into the text.
In the section on confidence-building measures, we call on not only to work on clarifying the parameters of the global PoCs Directory building upon the inputs by States, but also to submit the results of these efforts for approval by States (paragraph 47). In addition, we insist on restoring in the text the reference to the main function of the PoCs Directory – facilitating coordination and communication between the competent agencies of States in case of computer attacks/incidents (paragraph 42b)).
We continue to insist on removing the unjustified link between the very appropriate initiative of launching a global online portal and the implementation of the rules of behaviour. We request you to clearly state in the draft report that we are dealing with creating a website, not some kind of “tool for coordination and cooperation between States.”
We consider it unacceptable to mention issues of peace and security in the context of the topic of combating ransomware.
Mr. Chair,
I would like to assure you that my delegation is ready for engaging is committed to constructive approach towards reaching consensus. We believe that the above-mentioned concerns can be addressed through surged edits that do not demand a radical revision of the text.
Thank you for attention.
