Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for intelligence

intelligence

Pakistan Paradox: Will New Intelligence Committee Erase Deficiencies or Increase Military Influence?

by

By Mariam Qureshi

Image Caption: Prime Minister Imran Khan and Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa at ISI Headquarters. Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1593085

Pakistan has predominantly been a praetorian state with military overreach extending to politics and also to intelligence agencies. The intelligence community is marred with deficiencies in structural organisation and its politicization has further dampened its efficacy. In an attempt to reform the intelligence community, Prime Minister Imran Khan recently approved of a National Intelligence Coordination Committee. Would this be sufficient and effective in streamlining the two-dozen civil and military intelligence organisations existing in Pakistan? An effective reform in the intelligence community would ultimately help strengthen the civilian policy making process rather than solidifying military control. 

Pakistan’s troubled birth also accounts for the weakness of its institutions and strong military presence within them. India received the lion’s share of the division of assets of intelligence, bureaucracy, administration and army which meant that Pakistan had to start from scratch with minimal infrastructure. The initial military intelligence organisation collectively known as Defence Intelligence Services (DIS) consisted of tactical intelligence wings of the navy, air force and the Military Intelligence (MI) wing of the armed forces inherited at Partition. They specialised in carrying out offensive counterintelligence and military espionage. The only civilian-led intelligence organisation was the Intelligence Bureau (IB) which emerged from the partitioning of the British Raj’s Intelligence Bureau in 1947. It was responsible for collection, analysis and dissemination of domestic intelligence but no effective mechanism of coordination with other agencies existed. 

As the two neighbours started off with a highly volatile relationship that could boil over a plethora of disputes, Pakistan prioritised the development of its army and failed to take into account the equally essential need for a strong intelligence community to counter any Indian threat of war. With army as the only developed institute, Pakistan slipped into military dictatorship. The military dictatorships obstructed the development of a constitution and democratic political institutions, and it was not until 2008 that Pakistan witnessed the beginning of smooth democratic transitions. 

The Radcliffe Award arbitrarily divided the subcontinent along religious communal lines in 1947, creating border clashes and forcing a bloody, cross-border migration. The border dispute culminated into the 1947 war of Kashmir with India which presented an intelligence failure that highlighted the pressing need for a foreign intelligence agency. Thus, Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) was established in 1948 as a military organisation to carry out collection and analysis of external threats, liaise with foreign counterparts and conduct operations. It also aimed to enhance coordination among military intelligence organisations. The ISI was tasked with collection and analysis of domestic intelligence during the unrest in East Pakistan in 1971. Following that, the unrest in the province of Balochistan during the 1970s presented another opportunity leading to expansion of ISI’s ambit to cover internal intelligence permanently. This brought the military-led ISI in direct clash with the dwarfed civilian-led Intelligence Bureau. The better resourced military intelligence organisation monopolised the intelligence community of Pakistan as it flourished under military dictatorships in the initial decades. Unfortunately, rather than a structured development, Pakistan’s agencies were created as independently functioning units on a need-by-need basis with often overlapping responsibilities. 

Though Pakistan created civilian-led intelligence agencies for specialised tasks to fulfil domestic intelligence requirements, it failed to provide a conducive environment for them to operate in. The Pakistan Special Police Establishment, inherited from British India, proved inadequate for overseeing control of organised crimes, smuggling, human trafficking and other offences. Therefore, a cumulative counterintelligence agency also responsible for countering money laundering, border control and domestic security known as the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) was formed in 1975 under civilian control of the Ministry of Interior. The National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) was formed in 2013 under Ministry of Interior to counter terrorism although this clashed with ISI’s remit in overseeing external and internal terrorism. Similarly, other agencies were set up for specialised offenses such as drugs and narcotics control. The creation of independent agencies for specialised tasks meant their spheres of control overlapped, exacerbating the turf war between military-led and civilian-led intelligence organisations. The absence of a coordination committee to cohesively join the independent agencies meant that instead of pooling in intelligence collected for analysis, all agencies would carry out their own collection, analysis and dissemination. Further, they also faced a dearth of resources to carry out their tasks. The opportunity for these civilian-led intelligence organisations to realise and execute their responsibilities was diluted by the monopoly of military intelligence organisations. 

Perhaps the most problematic of all challenges is the deep politicisation of the intelligence agencies due to absence of oversight and accountability. The international and domestic threat of terrorism after the Soviet-Afghan War and the United States’ invasion of neighbouring Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks allowed the ISI to receive aid and work closely with the America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The pre-Partition, British imposed Pak-Afghan border, Durand Line, was on the radar of the intelligence agency since 1947. The border is rejected by Afghanistan as it claims that the Pashtun and Baloch tribes divided along the Durand line should be united as a single nation. The poorly managed border became the gateway for drugs smuggling, human trafficking and refugee migration after Soviet-Afghan War and cross-border terrorism after 9/11. The crossover between foreign and domestic security threat along the Durand Line became a priority issue for ISI, increasing its might and power. The premier intelligence agency became the de facto central authority in the intelligence community. Consequently, it has been accused of conducting proxy warfare in Kashmir and surveillance on leading political figures. The subtle manifestation of military control through ISI’s increased role in politics caused it to be dubbed as ‘a state within a state’. ISI’s authority remains unchallenged in the post-2008 democratic set up. 

Proposals have been made in the past three decades for an oversight and coordination committee under the Cabinet of the Prime Minister to enhance coordination between agencies and streamline civilian-military relationship within the intelligence community. Unfortunately, the civil-military tussle in Pakistan’s politics resisted any staunch attempt at reforming the intelligence community which could effectively undermine the military monopoly. The National Intelligence Coordination Committee is expected to improve coordination between existing intelligence agencies but is to be led by the Director General of the military-led ISI, an agency that does not want to see its influence reduced. The committee is at risk of being another ineffective bureaucratic layer if it is not divorced from military control. It is imperative to strengthen the democratic institutes of Pakistan which have been unable to develop due to decades of military rule. Therefore, the reform is likely to address underlying problems if the committee is placed under the Prime Minister’s Cabinet.     Additionally, the committee needs to carry out an efficient analysis of the collected intelligence and disseminate these assessments to the executive branch. This would boost efficiency of the intelligence community within Pakistan. A revival of the existing National Security Council under the Prime Minister’s Office can provide an effective platform for the civil-military leadership to formulate policies on matters of national security. These steps will significantly empower the democratic government in policy making and execution.

 

Mariam Qureshi is an MA International Affairs student concentrating in Espionage and Surveillance at the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London. She received her BA (Honors) in Political Science from Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan.

Realigning the Five Eyes (FVEY) Intelligence Alliance against China’s Threat 

by

By: Owen Saunders

The Five Eyes Alliance, also known as FVEY: Protectors of Terror or Invaders of Privacy?

Originally created as a bilateral US-UK agreement in 1946, the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance (FVEY) allows for mutual access to classified signals intelligence (SIGINT). Canada entered into the agreement in 1948, followed by Australia and New Zealand in 1956. The initial intention of the alliance was to gather information on foreign states that presented threats to its members through various intelligence collection and sharing methods. The formal expansion of the FVEY alliance last occurred in 1956 but there are other, less formal, extensions of the FVEY alliance, such as the Nine Eyes and  Fourteen Eyes. 

In recent years, due to China’s significant expansion of their telecommunications sector, driven by the “Made in China 2025” initiative, the FVEY alliance has placed greater attention on understanding and addressing the rising state’s ambitions and international strategy. The two focal issues for the alliance currently are China’s implementation of the controversial National Security law in Hong Kong, and their drive towards global superiority within the information and telecommunications technology (ICT) sector as exemplified by, though not limited to, Huawei, a global ICT company based in China. Allegations of close connections and cooperation between the company and the ruling Chinese Communist Party have been made, though these are denied by both parties. 

The alliance’s perception of China as a threat is rooted in its pursuit of dominance over international telecommunications. Tensions have heightened recently over the measures undertaken by its members to prevent Huawei technology from being part of important new domestic 5G networks, and this past year over the FVEY alliance’s overt criticism of China’s authoritarian interventions in Hong Kong. The alliance’s actions can been seen as efforts not only to thwart Chinese global cyber ambitions but also to counter any spread of illiberalism. Although the National Security law itself does not affect the global telecommunications market directly, concern around it reflects fears of the potential dissemination of antidemocratic values through Chinese technological dominance.

The primary concern of the FVEY Alliance is Huawei’s potential to relay information and data that the company collects, through its global operations, to the Chinese government. Some members within the alliance have taken firm stances to prevent this by either banning Huawei technology altogether and, most recently, adopting more stringent security laws aiming to protect networks on a broader level. Such protections have expanded to include government, industry and civil society, as opposed to the original strategies of blocking the technology from only core government networks which transfer sensitive information. To date, Canada is the only member that has not made an affirmative decision to ban or restrict the Huawei technology, despite significant pressure from the United States. 

China’s new National Security Law targets the autonomy of Hong Kong by giving the Chinese government greater control over the region’s internal affairs. The law aims to exert greater influence by establishing criminal sanctions for any activities dealing with “secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign or external forces.” Many have claimed that this new law demonstrates a complete disregard for the “one country, two systems” arrangement established in 1997 when the UK returned Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. Since the implementation of the new law, the FVEY alliance has taken a strong stance in condemning the law, with the five foreign ministers releasing a joint statement “[urging] the Chinese central authorities to re-consider their actions against Hong Kong’s elected legislature and immediately reinstate the Legislative Council members.” The statement was heavily criticized by the Chinese government which argued that the alliance has no right to interfere in its internal affairs. 

These two examples highlight what appears to be the changing nature of the FVEY alliance and its willingness to expand its reach and functions beyond its original purpose of intelligence sharing. There is also the possibility of expanding the current membership to seven by including Germany and Japan, both of whom have expressed a desire to join. Geographical and historical significance is important in assessing a FVEY expansion given the current Sino-Japanese relationship focused on bilateral trade. The formal inclusion of Japan would likely sow greater distrust and escalate tensions with China. Expanding the FVEY alliance would also, however, help counter the support of seventy nations in the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council for China’s National Security Law. Importantly, in line with its original mission, a formal expansion to include more states would strengthen the alliance by bringing new and vital information to the table from different governments on new security and intelligence matters, both generally and specifically regarding Chinese activities and Huawei. 

In light of these collective moves directed at China, coupled with the possible expansion of the alliance, the question is raised whether the alliance is at risk of diverting from and even subverting its original, practice-focused mandate of information collection and sharing? Specifically, in attempting to use its communal influence to pressure China through collective diplomatic and policy measures, does it risk diverging from the initial technical intentions of the organization?

By making collective statements such as those condemning China’s national security law, the alliance appears to be moving toward a more proactive and overtly political mode of operating on the global stage in contrast to its initial intentions and decades-old practices. Furthermore, adding another two (or more) formal members to the coalition could be seen as establishing a new, more powerful and politicized threat, potentially resulting in escalating tensions with an ever more economically and politically powerful China. After years of operating in the shadows, this new role for the alliance could threaten the old by its very visibility and assertiveness, increasing the likelihood of retaliatory responses. While it is not possible to accurately predict whether the data sharing ambitions of the alliance will be detrimentally impacted by the changes, the imperatives behind such changes can be understood.

The dynamics of the world have changed with the increasing and more varied use of digital technology, both in intelligence gathering and in the importance of technology in economic growth. It can be argued that this new role on the part of the alliance, whether it be through expansion, coordinated domestic policies, or greater diplomatic pressure, is a recognition of the growing importance of digital intelligence and power. The FVEY alliance has, in this author’s view, shifted accordingly to address the novel challenges of today.

Owen is currently pursuing his MA in International Peace and Security at King’s College London, Department of War Studies. He found interest in this topic in writing his undergraduate thesis and through the completion of an Undergraduate Student Summer Research Fellowship (USSRF) at Queen’s University, supervised by Dr. Christian Leuprecht. 

Owen is a Staff Writer at Strife.

Feature – From Debates to Processes: Trajectories of Intelligence Oversight in the UK

by

by Joseph Jarnecki

The British Parliament, seen from across the Thames (Image credit: Britannica)

On 17 October 2019, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) handed their report on Russian interference into British democracy to Prime Minister Boris Johnson. A bipartisan committee, the ISC is mandated by the British Parliament to oversee the British intelligence services – replacing open debates with formal parliamentary procedures.

Following significant delays to its release, the report saw light of day only nine months later. As a result, questions regarding the ISC’s ability to fulfil its brief have begun to be asked more loudly. This has only been exacerbated by the failed installation of Chris Grayling MP to Committee Chairmanship. With members of the ISC being nominated and not elected, and with recent events exposing the limits of the committee’s independence, how effective are current procedures of democratic oversight on holding intelligence services and their ministers to account? And is a nominated committee truly more efficient than open parliamentary discussions?

The 1984 controversy surrounding union membership for Government Communication Head Quarters (GCHQ) employees generated the first substantial debates on intelligence services and democratic oversight in Parliament. To illustrate this point, that year there were over three hundred mentions of GCHQ in Parliament; in all its previous history there had been just fourteen. The rest of the decade continued this trend with increased attention for the intelligence services by parliamentarians. Here, debates frequently turned to questions of the politicisation of security as well as principles of parliamentary and collective democracy.

Of those debates, the 1985 Interception of Communications Bill is notable for opposing parliamentary sovereignty and royal prerogative – that is, those powers held under sovereign authority but exercised by the executive. The legislation, as asserted in the chamber by former Labour MP Tony Benn, expanded the executive’s ability to deploy surveillance such that it undermined ‘parliamentary democracy.’ He argued that those executive justifications for wiretapping on the grounds of ‘national security’ stripped parliament of its central purpose of discussing and deciding national interests, especially its capacity to determine British security interests.  Benn’s assertion, that ‘security in Britain is controlled by the Prime Minister,’ seems to therefore echo the thought of later academic work regarding the instrumentalization of security which, despite recent controversies over increasing surveillance through the use of prerogative powers in line with Coronavirus measures, receives little mention in contemporary Parliaments.

Two years later, the 1987 House of Commons (Services) debate, regarding the Speaker of the House’s decision to suspend Ronan Bennett’s parliamentary pass also centralises themes of security versus parliamentary democracy. Employed as a researcher for then backbencher Jeremy Corbyn, Bennett had been previously linked to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and had been convicted for the murder of a police officer – though this was overturned a year later. The decision to rescind his access was justified by advice received from the security services that Bennett was a ‘security risk,’ an accusation that quickly found its way into the media.

The foremost issue that MPs took with this incident, other than asserting that it subverted their right to hire as they please, was that the Speaker had not questioned the reasoning for this advice and that the recommendation was not a matter of public record. As such, neither the accused, his employer, the House services committee, nor the issuer of the ban knew the justification for the advice to exclude Bennett. This led backbench MPs to articulate a broader critique of undefined ‘security risks’ as instruments used to claim authority and to construct boundaries to debate, all whilst avoiding transparency. Tony Benn in this debate raised such limits on open debate in order to critique what he saw as executive overreach, saying that ‘Members of Parliament are in danger of being licensed only to discuss what Ministers want them to discuss.’ Whilst Benn’s words again stand out for what Conservative MP John Biffen called his ‘characteristic zeal,’ upon looking at the debate in full its apparent that references to themes of democratic oversight and its tensions with security were habitual touchstones for this cohort of parliamentarians.

These two accounts highlight that amongst initial debates on the intelligence services, the problematisation of security and liberty, as well as contestations over principles of parliamentary sovereignty, were apparent. This stands in contrast to the belief that these themes are unique to our current moment or else only emerged following 9/11, the so-called “migrant crisis”, or the Snowden revelations. Indeed, these subjects which were evident in the 1980s persisted in parliament into the early 1990s, accumulating momentum such that the government was pressured to establish the ISC. With the creation of the committee, however, direct debates on the intelligence services have become limited to the yearly presentation of the ISC’s report or else to issues with a high public profile. Accompanying this drop in frequency has been a shift away from discussing the politicisation of security and principles of democracy. In their place, there has been a movement towards reflexively supporting intelligence activities and an increasing emphasis on vesting authority in procedures and professionalised bodies.

Whilst this shift has been gradual since 1994 a key case that illustrates a change is the 2013 debate regarding the operations of GCHQ. Held in the wake of revelations by whistle-blower Edward Snowden that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was operating illegal mass surveillance, the debate saw then Foreign Secretary William Hague address questions regarding active GCHQ-NSA cooperation and whether comparative GCHQ initiatives existed. Hague opened the debate by outlining what he saw as the three main issues raised by the controversy, these therefore can inform our reflections on how government positioning has adapted to the existence of the ISC.

First, in describing ‘the action that the Government are taking in response to recent events’ the Foreign Secretary solely refers to the ISC. Saying that they have ‘already received some information from GCHQ and will receive a full report tomorrow,’ and adding that they ‘will be free to decide what, if any further action’ to take. His response here, barely longer than the included extracts is telling for two reasons. Centrally, Hague seems to equate action by the government with action by the committee, or else he seeks to derive legitimacy from the committee’s presumed authority as a parliamentary body exerting oversight. Secondly, by sidestepping a commitment to substantive action by deferring to potential ISC scrutiny the foreign minister is pushing the discussion far into the future. Any ‘further action’ the committee could take would necessitate a long report process with the possibility of executive delay in publication.

The second issue raised by Hague, regards how intelligence services work ‘in accordance with UK law’ and democracy. His justification here being that agencies operate under 1994 and 2000 legislation and are therefore legitimate in their actions. Regardless of the flawed assumption that law is necessarily good, which tellingly was not challenged by other debate participants, his point is undermined by his own government’s 2013 Justice and Security Act, which imposed greater restrictions, later that year.

Lastly, the Secretary’s third issue relates to how the law is upheld in international intelligence cooperation, which he acknowledges is regular between the NSA and GCHQ. He quickly outlines again that legislation alongside oversight by ministers and the ISC ensures adherence to the law, however in contrast to speakers in the 1980s, who might have interrogated the underlying rationalities for these agencies, Hague instead advocates for them through the prism of threat. In doing so he invokes physical and economic security, without a single mention of the preservation of life or democracy. As such, he displays an instrumentalisation of the authority the ISC is supposedly vested with as a scrutinising body, alongside an unreflexive prioritisation of the actions of the intelligence services.

Besides Hague’s statements what is also telling about this debate is what is excluded from the responses and questions to him. Of the forty-one MPs who spoke not one mentioned the word “democracy” nor “rights,” and of the three mentions of “liberty” two came as part of an exchange citing the paradox of Snowden’s invocation of the ideal from within the People’s Republic of China.

The final mention of ‘liberties’ came from former Conservative MP Rory Stewart wherein he urged Hague to focus not on the ‘legal problem’ of secret operations but instead on their repercussions for ‘balancing security and liberty.’ In what constitutes the only Benn-like elevation of the debate, Stewart went on to emphasise that the continuation of these operations relies on an informed public, who ‘through understanding, consent.’ Hague’s response to this assertion was to offer agreement that the public should be engaged, though he hedged this commitment with a call-back to the greater importance of secrecy as a guarantor of our security and the cooperation of our intelligence partners.

What is shown through these three debates is that there is no linear development of accountability for the intelligence services. Whilst the ISC provides a mechanism through which a select number of parliamentarians can access information the state has made secret; it has guaranteed neither substantive change in the powers afforded to Parliament nor multifaceted and nuanced debate. Moreover, the committee’s procedures provide ample excuses for governments to deflect or delay, as we have observed with the Russia report, and its annual sessions in parliament often do not receive great consideration. Whilst the executive retains the power of appointment and the ISC’s ability to launch formal investigations is limited, its capacity to achieve significant accountability is narrow.

The original full-length article can be found at the King’s Research Centre in International Relations (RCIR) Forum. The piece was written as part of the King’s Undergraduate Research fellowship held in the context of the GUARDINT project, which is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Joseph Jarnecki is a MA International Conflict Studies student at King’s College London and the Coordinating Editor for Strife blog. His research interests include the politics of knowledge production, the proceduralisation of democratic accountability, as well as violence and (in)security. He completed his BA in International Relations at King’s. You can follow him @Jarnecki.

The British Security Service: Challenges and Opportunities in a Post-Brexit Order

by

by Gemma MacIntyre

The SIS Building in London features as the headquarters of the British Secret Intelligence Service (Image credit: Wikimedia)

British security services traditionally played a leading role in protecting both international and national security interests. In so doing, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), since it was first established in 1909, has benefitted from unrivalled access to issues of a covert nature. In turn, this has allowed the SIS to gain vast amounts of intelligence, that have enriched the conduct of both British and European foreign policy. Most notably, access to international data has enabled the SIS to be both preventative as well as proactive in tackling foreign threats, matters that are increasingly paramount in the current information age.

However, the British security environment in 2020 is very different to that of the early 1900s. In addition to a variety of emerging security issues – such as the ubiquity of hostile non-state actors, tensions with an increasingly clandestine Russia, and the threat of cyber-attacks – the impact of Brexit on security relations with the EU remains unclear. Nonetheless, by considering to what extent the UK has allied with the EU on security matters, particularly those most prominent today – one could speculate the challenges, and potential opportunities, that leaving the EU may serve.

In 2018, the National Security Capability Review (2018: 5) underscored the impact of security threats in the twentieth century on the ‘rules-based’ international system. The threat of cyber-attacks to British public services (as evidenced by the 2017 WannaCry attack on the NHS); instability in Middle Eastern and African areas that could give rise to Islamic-extremists; threats posed by Russia (underscored by the 2018 Salisbury nerve-agent poisoning); and, of course, the speed and access to telecommunications worldwide – all convey the increasingly transnational nature of security threats to twenty-first century Britain. This, coupled with uncertainties of Brexit, will inevitably impact the conduct of British security.

On paper, British policy-makers recognise the importance of adapting British security services to respond to evolving needs in an increasingly globalised order. In 2018, the British Government conceptualised the term ‘Global Britain’, to convey Britain’s commitment to multilateral cooperation (UK Parliament, 2018). The UK Government stressed that, despite leaving the EU, Britain continued to share mutual security interests with EU states; so cooperation would continue. Pro-Brexit advocates, such as British Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, have made clear that by leaving the EU, the British intelligence service would benefit from increased levels of funding, and the capacity to be more flexible in foreign policy security (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2019: 6). Scholars such as Hadfield (2018: 181) have also suggested that by leaving the EU, the UK may have greater freedom to enrich its bilateral security-relationships with EU states.

On the other hand, many remain dubious about the impact of Brexit on security. Neil Basu, Head of Counter-Terrorism in the UK, reported that, in the case of a no-deal Brexit, ‘The UK’s safety and security would suffer’ (The Guardian, 2019). Furthermore, it remains unclear to what extent the UK will continue to benefit from European security initiatives. The Schegen Information System II (SIS II) and the European Arrest Warrant are two European databases, which have helped to provide intelligence to the SIS on a range of security threats. Most critically, the SIS II has, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS, 2019), enriched the UK’s counter-terrorism policy – by enabling Britain to track terrorists from Europe more easily. The IISS also highlighted the benefit of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which enables EU convicts to be extradited in their home country. In the case of the Spivrak attack, the EAW enabled Russian perpetrators to be extradited outside of the UK. British intelligence also benefits from the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), which significantly widens Britain’s security database. As a result, a no-deal Brexit, according to IISS (2019) would delay this process, making Brits more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Coupled with this uncertainty, there is a lack of political-security leadership. Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised for not taking security seriously enough, with representatives from MI5 having to brief him on the current severity of issues (The Sunday Times, 2019). Jonson, on the other hand, faces a different – though, still concerning – sort of criticism. His crass comments about Islam not only underline his lack of sensitivity; they also risk exacerbating security issues further – by isolating minority groups. The proliferation of terrorist attacks in the UK by home-grown jihadists underline the saliency of this threat, as well as the need to understand and integrate minority groups – rather than ostracising them further.

While the impact of Brexit on UK security capabilities remains unclear; it is nonetheless important for the UK to consider potential measures, to strengthen its security capabilities. If the FCO does experience cuts, this may limit its previous capacity and access abroad. Dr. Champa Patel, Head of the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House, argued that in order for the UK to remain a leader in international security, the British government has to improve its cross-departmental cooperation (Chatham House, 2018). Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, reinforced this argument, by stating that in the current security environment, intelligence data is vital to protect British interests (Financial Times, 2018). In other words, there is perhaps now, more than ever, a greater need for the intelligence service and policy-makers to work collaboratively in the interest of British security.

Of course, the arguments for cross-departmental cooperation are not new. Former intelligence officer-turned-academic, Michael Herman (1988), conceptualised the analogy of policy-makers as ‘consumers’ and intelligence agents as ‘producers’ over thirty years ago, to evoke the benefits of intelligence to British foreign policy-makers. Moreover, scholars have underscored the dangers of tensions between intelligence and diplomacy for years Bjola, 2014; Gookins, 2008; Pinkus, 2014). Blair’s fabrication of intelligence to justify Iraqi intervention (2003), is a case in point of the potential dangers of politicised intelligence, as well as the need for greater cooperation.

While advocacy for greater cross-departmental cooperation is hardly novel, what is relatively unprecedented is the use of intelligence in British foreign policy conduct – particularly in an increasingly uncertain security environment. This, coupled with the impact of Brexit on FCO funds and access to European security initiatives, underscores the increased need for cross-departmental cooperation. If security ties with the EU weaken; the UK must search for alternatives. Its domestic intelligence service serves the greatest beacon of hope to remain an influential leader in both national and international security policy.

References:

Bjola, C. (2014). The Ethics of Secret Diplomacy: A Contextual Approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 10(1): 85-100

Chatham House. (2018). The UK Needs to Speak with One Voice to Prevent Mass Atrocities. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/uk-needs-speak-one-voice-prevent-mass-atrocities

Gookins, A. J. (2008). The Role of Intelligence in Policy Making. Review of International Affairs, 28(1): 65-73

Hadfield, A. (2018). ‘Britain against the World? Foreign and Security Policy in the ‘Age of Brexit’’. In: B. Martill and U. Staiger. Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe. London: UCL Press

Herman, M. (1998). Diplomacy and Intelligence. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 9(2): 1-22

Pinkus, J. (2014). ‘Intelligence and Public Diplomacy: The Changing Tide.’ Journal of Strategic Security, 7(4): 33-46

The Financial Times. (2018). 5 Concerns for UK-EU Defence After Brexit. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/5c9898e0-124a-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277

The Guardian. (2019). Brexit: No Deal Would Harm UK Security, Senior Officer Warns. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/07/no-deal-brexit-would-harm-uk-security-senior-officer-warns

The International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2019). Brexit and Security. Available at: https://www.iiss.org/publications/survival/2018/survival-global-politics-and-strategy-december2018january2019/606-04-inkster-cm

The Times. (2019). Spy Chiefs Sit Corbyn Down for Chat About Russia and Jihadist Terror Threat. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spy-chiefs-sit-corbyn-down-for-chat-about-russia-and-jihadist-terror-threat-9mzf8wczd

UK Parliament. (2017). Brexit: Implications for National Security. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7798

UK Parliament. (2018). Appendix: Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/780/78008.htm

UK Parliament. (2018). National Security Capability Review: A Changing Security Environment. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201719/jtselect/jtnatsec/756/75602.htm

Gemma recently graduated from the University of St Andrews in International Relations and Management, and is now studying an MA in Conflict, Security and Development at King’s. Through her academic studies and voluntary experience with VSO in Nigeria, she has developed a strong interest in the relationship between corruption and development. During her undergraduate degree, she studied a range of post-conflict cases, with a particular focus on intractable conflicts such as Israel-Palestine and Bosnia. Her experience with VSO Nigeria furthered her interest, as she was made aware of the acute impacts of governance on public services, such as health and education. She hopes to pursue further research on the impact of conflict on health security.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strife Series on Cyberwarfare and State Perspectives, Part III – The argument for a more critical analysis on the United States

by

By Shivali Bhatt

Military Operation in Action, Soldiers Using Military Grade Laptop Targeting Enemy with Satellite (Credit Image: Gorodenkoff / Stock Image)

A critical line of argument regarding cyber warfare today is how it has supposedly brought about contextual changes that challenge the balance of power in the international system. The broad consensus is that large, powerful states, like the United States, are losing leverage against those – traditionally – deemed small and weak. According to an article published earlier this year by the World Economic Forum Global Platform, the rising domain of cyber warfare can be somewhat seen to be causing a levelling effect in the world today. Any state or non-state entity with access to the Internet and digital technology can develop powerful cyber weapons. At the same time, some news sources have claimed how the much-anticipated cyberwar is already underway, and how the United States is not ready or will most likely lose. The simplistic nature of such discourse fails to allow for a more critical understanding of what factors influence the nature and reality of cyber warfare. This article shall critique these narratives by analysing the factors that influence the strategic efficacy of cyberwarfare. Bearing the current state of cyberwarfare in the United States in mind, it shall contextualise these factors.

The United States is the most powerful state in the world, particularly regarding its military and intelligence capacity. President Trump elevated the original Cyber Command to a Unified Combatant Command earlier this year.

 

The importance of intelligence and collaboration

While it takes a lot of skill and effort to appropriately develop a powerful cyber weapon, the most complicated part of this process is application or deployment. It is this stage that determines the extent to which a cyber operation will yield strategic leverage for a state; one that relies on intelligence agencies and international alliances. In other words, cyber weapons are generally part of an extensive collection of capabilities.

Theoretically, the state with the most resourced and well-connected intelligence community will likely reel in greater strategic benefits from the domain of cyberwarfare, on the basis they are active political players in global affairs. The more in-depth and holistic the collecting and analysing of intelligence data, the smarter the cyber offensive strategy. In this context, the United States has notable leverage. The U.S. spends approximately $1 trillion on establishments and organisations that serve a national security purpose; in which its intelligence community spans across seventeen federal agencies. Moreover, these bureaus have strictly woven relationships with a large number of agencies operating in other states, with bases and ground-level operatives in over forty countries, including Israel and the United Kingdom. As NATO’s Operation Locked Shields demonstrates, cyberwarfare is a multi-dimensional domain that is determined by the nature of cooperation and collaboration between states. The Stuxnet virus, for instance, was planted with the assistance of the CIA’s regional partners in Israel; assets that were crucial to such a clandestine and sensitive operation. These practical steps to implementing cyberwarfare strategies explain why the U.S. is still and will always technically be a dominant player in the field.

 

The broader political context

Given that cyberwarfare is an aspect of broader political strategy, states that are regularly engaged in international affairs are more likely to determine the context for cyber-attacks. The United States is considered extremely influential, while North Korea – regardless of how large, fast-growing or highly skilled its ‘cyber army’ appears – a back-seat driver. Narratives that present North Korea as a case study to exemplify the ‘levelling effect’ in the world today, often present highly fragmented arguments outside of context.

It is useful to consider how economics and politics are woven together into the strategic context of cyber warfare, given that a prime part of developing cyber warfare strategy involves gathering in-depth knowledge on a person or situation. Similar to how former President Obama’s administration exploited the weaknesses of Russia’s economy by imposing heavy sanctions against Moscow in 2014, Washington can gain a notable edge by targeting Putin’s private affairs offshore; the consequences of which would be determined by the extent to which Putin’s private affairs affect Russia’s domestic political context. According to a National Bureau of Economic Research paper, the total accumulation of Russian offshore holdings amounts to approximately between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion; most of which belongs to President Putin and associates. This wealth power has been a contributing factor to his political power and ability to maintain authority in Russia, enabling him to govern and preside over state institutions and the secret police. Targeting his foreign assets would be a strategic application of U.S. cyber power.

 

Underlying factors

In this discussion, it is useful to recognise the longer-term damage traditional military weapons can have on both intellectual and physical infrastructures, and how those induced by cyberspace have not yet demonstrated such ability. At the same time, the Stuxnet weapon and newer versions inspired from its technological layering, such as the relatively recent Triton bug, can act as catalysts to broader military strategy. However, the accurate deployment of such a weapon not only requires a significant amount of skill and resource, both of which are usually available to higher-earning economies but also can go wrong. In the case of Stuxnet, several sources confirmed that the Americans and Israelis ‘lost control’ of their act.

It goes without a doubt saying that the United States is a powerful influencer in the world today, and especially so in a context of increasing globalisation and digital technology. There are a lot of concepts, processes and cultural embedding that would also need to be in the firing line for this argument to hold any traction in the longer term.

 

Conclusion

Today, it is really popular to consider cyberwarfare as this rising domain that challenges all other pre-existing tenets of global politics, with the narrative being how weaker states such as North Korea are on the rise and those powerful ones such as the United States should watch their back. However, the authors of such arguments seem also to disregard any more in-depth aspects of warfare analysis, such as the power of alliance, broader context, and particularly the underlying factors found within societal construct and culture that have existed before the advent of the digital age. While cyber warfare has proven to be a powerful mechanism, its scope of threatening powerful actors like the United States needs to be assessed through a more critical lens. Further, doing so will help better conceptualise its strategic worth in comparison to more conventional methods of warfare strategy.

 

Shivali is currently pursuing her MA Intelligence and International Security at Department of War Studies, King’s College London. She is also a Series Editor at Strife, as well as a Creative Writer at cybersecurity startup PixelPin, where she contributes articles on ‘Thought Leadership’, encouraging readers to approach security issues through innovative means. Prior to that, she spent some time in Hong Kong under the InvestHK and EntrepreneurHK organisations, engaging with the cybersecurity and tech scene on the East Coast. Her core research interests include modern warfare and contemporary challenges, cybersecurity, and strategic policy analysis. You can follow her  on @shivalixb

Image Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/gb/photo/military-operation-in-action-soldiers-using-military-grade-laptop-targeting-enemy-gm879913090-245205517