By Julieta H. Heduvan<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This article examines Paraguay\u2019s increasing vulnerability to cyber threats within an international context defined by digitization, technological interdependence, and a reconfiguring global order. By analyzing recent cases of cyber espionage and attacks targeting critical state infrastructure, it argues that national security can no longer be understood solely in territorial terms; the digital domain is now equally central. Cyber capabilities\u2014both defensive and offensive\u2014have become essential components of foreign and defense policy, requiring countries like Paraguay to integrate this dimension into their security strategies and international positioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keywords:<\/strong> Cybersecurity, cyber power, cyber espionage, international relations, Paraguay<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent years have seen a surge in cybersecurity incidents in Paraguay, exposing latent vulnerabilities within the state (Infobae, 2025). In an increasingly digitized and geopolitically tense international system, states face tangible risks related to information theft, espionage, and external interference. This growing digital exposure underscores the need to strengthen cybersecurity capacities as a cornerstone of state sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contemporary debates in international relations suggest that national defense has expanded into a new domain, where information has become as strategically valuable as natural resources or geographic positioning once were. Recent cyber intrusions, such as the Flax Typhoon<\/em> infiltration of Paraguay\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the cyber espionage incident linked to Brazil in the context of the Itaip\u00fa negotiations (\u00daltima Hora, 2024; DW, 2025), illustrate the country\u2019s vulnerability to threats that transcend physical borders. These cases demonstrate that sovereignty is now exercised not only over geographic territory but also across a virtual space that lacks clearly defined boundaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The international system is undergoing a turning point characterized by structural uncertainty and an unresolved hegemonic transition. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.-led liberal order has faced internal erosion and external challenges, alongside China\u2019s sustained rise, creating a highly competitive environment marked by intense power struggles and emerging influence dynamics (Ruiz, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, technology has become a primary resource for accumulating and projecting power, redefining the influence capabilities of global actors. Strategic rivalry remains central to this transformation, with cyberpower emerging as a critical factor in the struggle for hegemony and in shaping the global order. Although definitions vary, Nye (2010, p.3) argues that power is context-dependent, and cyberpower derives from the resources and structures of cyberspace. Consequently, global powers now compete not only for conventional military or economic superiority but also to establish the standards, norms, and architectures that will govern the future digital ecosystem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Traditionally, national security focused on defending physical territory from tangible invasions or military aggression. Sovereignty was defined as exclusive control over space, and threats were visible\u2014enemy troops, aircraft, or ships crossing borders. However, the digital revolution has radically altered this paradigm. Today, borders exist not only materially but also virtually, where sovereignty is constantly challenged by anonymous state and non-state actors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rise of cyberspace introduces an immaterial dimension that blurs conventional boundaries of interstate competition. Influence can now be projected in unprecedented ways: a hacker serving a foreign government can infiltrate critical systems without physically entering the country; criminal groups can destabilize financial institutions from abroad; actors can manipulate public opinion; and sensitive data\u2014from defense strategies to natural resource information\u2014can be extracted without a single shot being fired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several cases highlight the strategic implications of cyber operations. The 2015 attack on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) resulted in the mass leakage of sensitive data from millions of federal employees, including biometric information and security clearance forms, and was ultimately attributed to actors linked to China (Sanger & Hirschfeld Davis, 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, Stuxnet (2010), the first known malware designed to sabotage critical infrastructure, targeted Iran\u2019s nuclear program (BBC, 2015). This incident demonstrated states\u2019 capacity to inflict tangible physical damage through cyber means, positioning cyberspace as a new strategic domain alongside terrestrial, maritime, aerial, and space domains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Latin America, the Snowden revelations (2013) exposed the NSA\u2019s mass surveillance programs, highlighting the espionage of Brazil, including the state company Petrobras and communications of then-president Dilma Rousseff (Brasil de Fato, 2024). These disclosures intensified diplomatic tensions and underscored the urgent need for international frameworks regulating digital surveillance, with a focus on human rights, privacy, and civil liberties (Santoro & Borges, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cyber dynamics complement and, at times, redefine traditional forms of power. International Relations theory has had to adapt to cyberspace as a strategic domain, though debates persist regarding its recognition as a battlefield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Realist perspectives struggle to categorize cyberspace as a domain equivalent to land, sea, air, or space. Nevertheless, realism recognizes cyberspace as a space for state interaction, involving both conflict and cooperation to pursue national objectives (Aguilar Antonio, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Constructivist approaches, by contrast, emphasize the role of non-state actors, such as private firms, hackers, and criminal groups, in shaping cyberspace and the international system. Nye (2010) underscores that while cyberspace does not replace physical geography or negate state sovereignty, its diffusion of power complicates governance and strategic planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nye (2010) highlights that cyberspace enables a diffusion of power, reducing traditional asymmetries and allowing weaker actors to exert influence. Low barriers to entry enable technically proficient actors to compromise critical infrastructure, extract classified information, or create disproportionate social effects. Paraguay, for instance, reported nearly 200 incidents in April 2025 (Paraguay Innovation Observatory, 2025), including coordinated attacks in May 2025 affecting over ten government websites, including the Presidency and the Ministry of Health (P\u00e1gina 12, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This apparent democratization of power, however, paradoxically increases vulnerabilities for developing countries lacking robust institutional frameworks, cybersecurity legislation, or strategic doctrines. The speed, opacity, and sophistication of cyber threats make it difficult for such states to detect, attribute, or respond to attacks effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Digital technologies have dramatically expanded the scale and scope of information collection (Leung, 2015). According to Obioha Val et al. (2025), the ability to gather, process, and use information has become a strategic tool, reshaping power dynamics in international relations. Cyber espionage\u2014the unauthorized acquisition of sensitive information for strategic, political, or economic purposes\u2014has become a key instrument in modern diplomacy and national security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paraguay has been directly affected by significant cyber espionage incidents. In November 2024, MITIC and the U.S. Embassy in Asunci\u00f3n reported that Flax Typhoon<\/em>, allegedly linked to China, had infiltrated government systems (Infobae, 2024). In March 2025, Brazil\u2019s intelligence agency (ABIN) reportedly conducted cyber espionage targeting Paraguayan officials involved in Itaip\u00fa treaty negotiations (EFE, 2025). These events highlight Paraguay\u2019s structural vulnerability and the urgent need for robust cybersecurity capabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cyberspace has become a structural component of international policy, transforming traditional notions of security, sovereignty, and influence. For Paraguay, securing digital infrastructure is critical to protecting strategic information, safeguarding institutional integrity, and maintaining international positioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paraguay faces the dual challenge of strengthening cybersecurity legislation and institutional capacities while promoting a proactive digital foreign policy emphasizing international cooperation, transparency, and sovereign control of critical infrastructure. Multilateral governance, grounded in human rights, technological sovereignty, and equitable participation, is essential to ensure cyberspace serves the global good rather than unilateral interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Agencia Brasil (2025). Paraguay exige explicaciones a Brasil tras operaci\u00f3n de espionaje. https:\/\/agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br\/es\/internacional\/noticia\/2025-04\/paraguay-exige-explicaciones-brasil-tras-operacion-de-espionaje<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Aguilar Antonio, J. M. (2021). Retos y oportunidades en materia de ciberseguridad de Am\u00e9rica Latina frente al contexto global de ciberamenazas a la seguridad nacional y pol\u00edtica exterior. Estudios internacionales (Santiago), 53(198), 169-197.<\/p>\n\n\n\n BBC (2015). El virus que tom\u00f3 control de mil m\u00e1quinas y les orden\u00f3 autodestruirse. https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/mundo\/noticias\/2015\/10\/151007_iwonder_finde_tecnologia_virus_stuxnet<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bernat, L. (2021). Enhancing the digital security of critical activities (No. 17). OECD Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brasil de Fato (2024). US espionage: recalling when WikiLeaks revealed NSA spied on former President Dilma Rousseff and members of her government. https:\/\/www.brasildefato.com.br\/2024\/06\/26\/us-espionage-recalling-when-wikileaks-revealed-nsa-spied-on-former-president-dilma-rousseff-and-members-of-her-government\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Broeders, D. (2024). Cyber intelligence and international security: breaking the legal and diplomatic silence?, Intelligence and National Security, 39(7), 1213-1229. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02684527.2024.2398077<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Daniel, Carolina Dibarrat. (2022). Ciberseguridad como herramienta fundamental ante la inminente amenaza global. Revista Ensayos Militares, 8(1), 33-50.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deeks, A. (2020, October 26). Will Cyber Autonomy Undercut Democratic Accountability? SSRN. https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3719457<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n DW (2025). Acci\u00f3n de inteligencia de Brasil tensa relaci\u00f3n con Paraguay. https:\/\/www.dw.com\/es\/operativo-de-inteligencia-de-brasil-tensa-relaci%C3%B3n-con-paraguay\/a-72111294<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n EFE (2025). Paraguay convoca al embajador de Brasil tras conocerse una operaci\u00f3n de espionaje de ese pa\u00eds. https:\/\/efe.com\/mundo\/2025-04-01\/paraguay-operacion-espionaje-brasil-bolsonaro\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Infobae (2025). Gobierno paraguayo ha atendido unos 7.900 incidentes cibern\u00e9ticos los \u00faltimos cinco a\u00f1os. https:\/\/www.infobae.com\/america\/agencias\/2025\/04\/14\/gobierno-paraguayo-ha-atendido-unos-7900-incidentes-ciberneticos-los-ultimos-cinco-anos\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Informe del Observatorio de Innovaci\u00f3n de Paraguay (2025). Informe de Ciberseguridad Abril 2025. Incidentes reportados (Spam, Malware, Phishing, entre otros). https:\/\/obi.mitic.gov.py\/entradas\/informe-de-ciberseguridad-abril-2025-incidentes-reportados-spam-malware-phishing-entre-otros<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Khan, A. W., Saeed, S., & Kakar, M. S. (2024). Cybersecurity as a geopolitical tool: The growing influence of digital warfare in statecraft. International Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 345\u2013357.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuehl, D. T. (2009). From cyberspace to cyberpower: Defining the problem. In Cyberpower and national security (pp. 30).<\/p>\n\n\n\n La Naci\u00f3n (2025). Investigan posible hackeo a la cuenta de X del presidente de la Rep\u00fablica. https:\/\/www.lanacion.com.py\/politica\/2025\/06\/09\/investigan-posible-hackeo-a-la-cuenta-de-x-del-presidente-de-la-republica\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n La Pol\u00edtica Online (2024). China neg\u00f3 el ciberataque y acus\u00f3 a EEUU de montar una \u00abcampa\u00f1a sensacionalista\u00bb. https:\/\/www.lapoliticaonline.com\/paraguay\/politica-py\/china-nego-el-ciberataque-al-gobierno-y-acuso-a-eeuu-de-montar-una-campana-sensacionalista\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Leung, M. (2015). Cyber security Challenges in International Relations: State Responses and Global Cooperation. https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/384055872<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nazareno, D. O. D. L. (2024). Ciberseguridad en las Relaciones Internacionales: \u00bfC\u00f3mo los ataques cibern\u00e9ticos pueden crear tensiones internacionales? Cuadernos de Nuestra Am\u00e9rica, (010), 18-30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nye, J. S. (2010). Cyber power (pp. 1\u201324). Cambridge: Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Obioha Val, O., Olaniyi, O. O., Gbadebo, M. O., Balogun, A. Y., & Olisa, A. O. (2025). Cyber Espionage in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Study of State-Sponsored Campaign. SSRN. https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=4717710<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n P\u00e1gina 12 (2025). Paraguay sufri\u00f3 un \u00abataque cibern\u00e9tico coordinado\u00bb. https:\/\/www.pagina12.com.ar\/825273-paraguay-sufrio-un-ataque-cibernetico-coordinado<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ruiz, J. J. (2025). Hegemon\u00eda quebrada: la rivalidad entre Estados Unidos y China en la nueva era de la pol\u00edtica de fuerza. https:\/\/www.realinstitutoelcano.org\/analisis\/hegemonia-quebrada-la-rivalidad-entre-estados-unidos-y-china-en-la-nueva-era-de-la-politica-de-fuerza\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Sangery, D. E., & Hirschfeld Davis, J. (2015). Hacking Linked to China Exposes Millions of U.S. Workers. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/06\/05\/us\/breach-in-a-federal-computer-system-exposes-personnel-data.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Santoro, M., y Borges, B. (2017). Brazilian foreign policy towards internet governance. Revista Brasileira de Pol\u00edtica Internacional, 60, e003.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIntroduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Reconfiguration of the International System, Cyberpower, and the Expanding Concept of Frontier<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
International Cases of Cyber Incidents<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Challenges for International Relations Theory<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Asymmetries, Power Diffusion, and Vulnerabilities in Cyberspace<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Information as a Strategic Resource in Cyberspace<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n