U6L13: Policy Options 1. Call on the United States and China to negotiate: Council members could adopt a resolution calling on the United States and China to enter negotiations over their behavior in the South China Sea and in cyberspace. Negotiations could occur through the offices of the secretary-general or another respected authority. This option would be the easiest to implement, as it bears the least risk of drawing a U.S. or Chinese veto. If successful, negotiations could steer the current clash away from escalation and perhaps facilitate a broader discussion of both countries’ practices in cyberspace. However, although the simplest option, it is also the least likely to have lasting effects. The United States and China could be reluctant to accept the outcome of any international arbitration (indeed, Beijing has ignored prior rulings by the International Court of Justice regarding the South China Sea), and this option does nothing to address the establishment of broader norms in cyberspace. 2. Manage the dispute within the UN Security Council: The Security Council could attempt to address the dispute using its own powers. This option could include several actions. The council could commission a report on how the dispute has been managed with recommendations for how to manage the dispute without escalation. Council members could further adopt a resolution prohibiting certain actions, such as military responses or cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, in an attempt to prevent escalation. Finally, Security Council members could propose sanctions on one or both parties as punishment for their actions and as a deterrent to escalation. Defining what actions are appropriate in the current conflict could prevent escalation and also set a precedent for the negotiation of future cyber norms. However, commissioning a report and recommendations would take significant time, and securing the consent of both the United States and China to place limitations on either country’s actions would be difficult. Imposing any form of sanctions is likely impossible. Council members pursuing this option will need to consider what actions are most likely to allow consensus and whether proposing actions that will force a veto is worthwhile as a tactic to shame one or both parties. 3. Use the dispute to establish broader cyber norms: The Security Council could use this dispute as an opportunity to debate norms of conduct in cyberspace more broadly, including questions regarding what types of targets are appropriate and whether and when kinetic military measures (i.e., those against physical targets) are justified in response to cyberattacks. Given the binding nature of UN Security Council resolutions, a resolution that establishes a strong standard of conduct in cyberspace provides the council with an avenue to deter or punish future attacks. Such a resolution could also establish a committee within the Security Council to address cybersecurity issues as they arise, similar to its counterterrorism committee. However, reaching consensus on an issue as broad as cyber practices will take time, allowing the current dispute at hand to potentially escalate unaddressed. Moreover, given that other UN forums on cyber practices have failed to reach consensus, often largely because of the United States, China, and Russia, the Security Council is not guaranteed to prove more effective. 4. Do Nothing: The Security Council could decide it is unable to take meaningful action on the dispute in light of conflicting interests among council members. In this case, Security Council members could issue a presidential statement expressing concern about the situation but ultimately leave action up to individual countries. If the situation worsens, however, council members could revisit the matter.
which policy is best for China and why
U6L13: China Cybersecurity: According to UN Ambassador Zhang Jun, China believes that “countries not only enjoy shared opportunities and common interests, but also face common challenges and assume shared responsibilities. They are increasingly becoming a community with a shared future through weal and woe. The international community should work together in a joint effort to protect cybersecurity and maintain international peace.” However, he also states that while “we should promote security through the maintenance of peace and prevent cyberspace from becoming a new battlefield, The international community should abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, in particular the principles of sovereign equality, prohibition of the use of force, non-interference in internal affairs, and peaceful settlement of disputes. It is essential to respect the rights of all countries to independently choose the path of internet development and internet management model, and to participate in the governance of cyberspace on an equal footing.” Additionally, while the Chinese hacker group who perpetrated the attack on the US Stock Market has ties to China’s military, they are not sanctioned by the Chinese government. South China Sea: China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea are established in the long course of history and have been consistently upheld by successive Chinese Governments. They are consistent with international law including the Charter of the United Nations and UN Law of the Sea, and shall not be prejudiced under any circumstance by the illegal awards of the South China Sea arbitration. China attaches great importance to the provisions and applicable conditions set forth for the drawing of territorial sea baselines. At the same time, China believes that the long established practice in international law related to continental States’ outlying archipelagos shall be respected. The drawing of territorial sea baselines by China on relevant islands and reefs in the South China Sea conforms to general international law. China has stated they do not believe the United States is qualified to make remarks on the issue of the South China Sea. The US has not joined the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but attempts to judge the convention and interfere arbitrarily. It has no credibility on maritime issues.