Connect with us

Intelligence

The Reluctant Dragon: Chinese Intelligence and Global Priorities

Avatar photo

Published

on

While China has accepted human security as a new framework to study modern security challenges, it has been very busy trying to show how the implications of human security can be intrusive and even invasive of state sovereignty.

Indicative of its confidence in projecting its own power outward across the global community, ‘non-traditional security’ includes not just people and populations but actual state security as well. Thus, China definitively inserts the rights and obligations of the state, and the chief imperative of state survival, as coincident with the desire to resolve and alleviate health emergencies, financial crises, natural disasters, nuclear pollution, political instability, and food shortages. By broadening the sphere of impact for human security to state functionality, China is operationalizing the ability to act in areas not necessarily deemed firmly within governmental jurisdiction. Not coincidentally, these problems represent most of China’s domestic and emerging security interests.

Chinese domestic aspects of security

  • Wide-scale corruption
  • Ethnic unrest
  • Economic inequality/Social stability
  • Military modernization

Chinese regional aspects of security

  • Fishing disputes
  • Offshore oil and gas fields
  • Border security
  • Conflict between neighboring states

Chinese global aspects of security

  • Economic instability
  • American ‘adventurism’

Chinese emerging aspects of security

  • Energy security
  • Environmental security
  • Cyber security
  • Maritime security

China’s domestic and regional security aspects are fairly distinct: whether it be the new regime’s focus on battling corruption or the Uyghur problem on its western borders or the growing concerns about economic inequality between urban and rural dwellers, China sees domestic security as an issue fully capable of being dealt with by the state and not open to interference or influence by external actors. This is interestingly another aspect where the lack of restriction on eligible targeting, foci, or participants in the intelligence gathering process draws a sharp distinction between Western and non-Western states. China has always seen very little difference between intelligence and information, between collection and research, and has not made an operational distinction between the domestic and international arenas. As a result, some of the greatest high-volume intelligence traffic arguably takes place inside China by the Chinese against other Chinese.

Chinese regional aspects of security give a strong hint of where China would be most motivated to insert intelligence efforts within its immediate neighborhood. China is most concerned with disputes that at the moment do not threaten it internally: primary amongst these are the disputes between the two Koreas, the Indo-Pak rivalry over Kashmir, the ongoing issues with Taiwan, and the general unrest within Central Asia. Ironically, the potential conflicts in offshore oil and gas fields could end up becoming a primary field of intelligence operations for China given how important energy security and resource scarcity factors into its concerns about future economic development and instability.

Much of the political culture and contemporary philosophy from the Chinese state today emphasizes state sovereignty and the principal of non-interference. Despite these so-called cultural and philosophical leanings the Chinese position is fraught with contradiction: China believes in pushing a grand strategy of reassurance that emphasizes cooperation with major powers and regional centers in order to demonstrate that it has benign intentions even as it grows ever more powerful. What that does not include, however, is an explicit Chinese commitment to simultaneously undermine any and all balancing coalitions that might be forming against China. Even more eloquent, and yet still somewhat contradictory, is a call for China developing a ‘more sophisticated grand strategy comprised of four ongoing changes:’

  • The concept of security must be made more complex to include non-traditional aspects.
  • Chinese diplomacy must evolve so as to be more issue-based and functional rather than country-based.
  • Economic development must shift from dependence on foreign technology and export to domestic consumption and sustainable development.
  • China’s use of ‘soft power’ must be enhanced so as to embrace shared values like good governance and transparency.

These objectives are entirely rational and perhaps in long-term operational forecasting these four dimensions will indeed show the way to where Chinese intelligence will begin to focus. But in the meantime domestic, regional, and global reality interferes with such long-term projection. For example, Chinese intelligence may already be focusing on issue-based operations but those issues de facto push them into specific countries. Thus, security issues will push China into Northeast Asia; economic issues will push China into Southeast Asia; energy and resource issues will push China into Central Asia; Island and fishing issues push China out into the South and East China Sea. All of these issues lead Chinese intelligence to focus on Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, North Korea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, etc.

It is sound policy to move economic development from dependence to sustainability. That goal, however, does not ignore the fact that Chinese economic strategy still focuses on taking advantage of severe trade/debt imbalances with other countries while economic reform to deepen and broaden domestic economic mobility and prosperity have so far been uneven at best. This reality cannot help but ultimately press deeply into the Chinese strategic intelligence condition. This is yet another perfect example of how malleable culture can be, especially in the area of intelligence analysis. China is clearly expert on understanding and knowing how to utilize the democratic, free-market, and human security buzzwords when positioning itself on the global stage. But as one Chinese analyst mentioned, China’s leadership still believes in the two Karls – Marx and von Clausewitz – in that politics, economics, diplomacy, and military might are all aspects and tools utilized for the continuation of a single game. And what can a project that touches upon Chinese political culture and security consider itself without a pithy quote from the inimitable Sun Tzu:

‘It is preferable to subdue a state whole and intact than to destroy. The skill in killing does not deserve the highest praise. To conquer the enemy without resorting to war is most desirable. The adepts in warfare are those who can conquer the enemy without fighting battles. They can win a complete victory without as much as wearying their own men.’

Despite this philosophical tradition that crosses the ages, many Western observers of Chinese intelligence find fault with it based on how little it mimics American conceptions. This fault-finding is misplaced as China’s 2500 year tradition is also one that exemplifies a relatively merit-based bureaucracy that long preceded the rise of Weberian-style rationalist administration in the West and that has withstood to a degree even the irrational blows of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Thus, China’s intelligence condition interacts with culture, to be sure, but it does not end up dominated solely by cultural factors. This only gives greater affirmation as to why a formula based on non-Western conditional realities would be a welcome addition into the analytical intelligence discipline and allow for greater debates with more predominant cultural explanations.

China has long felt comfortable occupying a major portion of the global stage and is simply aiming to ensure no one violates its personal space. One cannot sense the same sincerity, however, when the Chinese strategic intelligence condition discusses the need for a polycentric order and crows about multilateralism and respect for sovereignty. Be wary of such posturing: in this instance the positioning is not to ensure equality in balance but rather to inculcate regional domination and global leverage. China does not want the responsibility that comes with being the recognized regional or global superpower like the United States. This would be seen as inefficient and wasteful. It would be preferable to simply acquire the material, diplomatic, economic, political, and military benefits that would naturally come with such a position while not having to sacrifice too much in order to maintain it. This is the overwhelming distinction and contrast one discerns when building and comparing the Chinese strategic intelligence condition with others.

Dr. Matthew Crosston is Executive Vice Chairman of ModernDiplomacy.eu and chief analytical strategist of I3, a strategic intelligence consulting company. All inquiries regarding speaking engagements and consulting needs can be referred to his website: https://profmatthewcrosston.academia.edu/

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

India’s Strategic Use of TTP to Undermine Pakistan’s Stability

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: hindustantimes.com

Again, bloodshed in the city of flowers, with more than 90 martyrs and at least 250 injured in a suicide attack by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in Peshawar. India’s backing for the TTP and its participation in the group’s avowed jihad against Pakistan have emerged as the most important security challenges in South Asia, with significant ramifications for regional stability and peace.

The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), commonly known as the Taliban in Pakistan, is a Pakistan-based Islamist extremist group. The group, which was founded in 2007, has claimed responsibility for a number of fatal assaults against Pakistani civilians and military personnel. TTP has proclaimed war against Pakistan’s government and military forces, arguing that they are not Islamic enough.

TTP has become a major security danger to Pakistan over the years, spreading widespread fear and instability. The group’s constant strikes on civilians and military targets have resulted in hundreds of deaths and massive devastation. The rising frequency and savagery of TTP assaults has caused considerable alarm among Pakistanis and the international world. Despite significant international criticism, the TTP continues to carry out atrocities with impunity.

Evidence of India’s Support for TTP:

Over the last decade, Pakistani security services have often reported on the Indian intelligence agency (RAW) providing support to the TTP. This assistance has been reported to include financing, training, and weaponry, all of which have aided the TTP’s capacity to carry out strikes against Pakistan. Pakistani officials, security professionals, and independent investigators have claimed India’s participation with TTP, citing proof of Indian involvement in TTP activities and divulging the false flag operations.

TTP commanders obtaining safe shelter in India is another piece of evidence pointing to India’s connection with TTP. TTP commanders have been said to have crossed the border into India for medical treatment and then stayed for lengthy periods of time. The granting of safe haven to TTP commanders implies that India is not only supporting the organization, but also shielding its leaders from prosecution and reprisal.

In addition to the Indian intelligence agency’s direct backing for TTP, there have been claims of Indian media outlets distributing misinformation in favor of TTP. This has included interviews with TTP officials and positive coverage of TTP’s efforts by Indian news sources. The media coverage has been interpreted as a means for India to legitimize the TTP’s conduct and seek sympathy from the world community.

India is contributing to Pakistan’s instability by supplying TTP with the money, safety, and legitimacy it requires to carry out its assaults.

India’s Motives Behind Supporting TTP:

One of India’s key motivations for supporting the TTP is to undermine Pakistan’s government and military. By assisting the organization, India is able to undermine Pakistan’s ability to maintain security and stability, creating an atmosphere in which the TTP may operate with impunity. The ultimate purpose of this assistance is to weaken Pakistan’s military and political institutions, making it easier for India to achieve a regional advantage.

Another reason India backs the TTP is to create a political and security vacuum in Pakistan. By assisting the organization, India may foment turmoil and instability in the country, creating possibilities for India to exploit the situation. The political and security vacuum left by the TTP’s operations can then be utilized by India to further its own goals and acquire more influence in the area.

India’s backing for the TTP might also be interpreted as an attempt to shift attention away from its own human rights violations in Kashmir. By assisting the TTP and producing turmoil and instability in Pakistan, India is able to divert attention away from its own activities in Kashmir, which have been severely condemned for abusing the human rights of Kashmiris. By helping TTP, India can divert attention away from its own acts and position itself as a responsible regional actor.

The Consequences of India’s Actions:

One of the most serious consequences of India’s backing for the TTP is the worsening of terrorism in Pakistan. India is feeding the fire of terrorism in the area by supplying finance, training, and equipment to the group, making it easier for TTP to carry out its heinous actions. This has had a significant influence on Pakistan’s security and stability, as well as the safety of its population. Terrorism has exacerbated violence and loss of life, creating an environment of dread and insecurity throughout the country.

India’s backing for TTP worsens regional tensions and instability. The rise of terrorism in Pakistan has heightened tensions between Pakistan and India, as well as between Pakistan and its neighbors. This has produced a climate of insecurity and uncertainty in the region, threatening regional peace and security. As each side gets more entrenched in its stance, the international community’s ability to find a solution to the crisis has become more difficult.

India’s backing for TTP has had a significant influence on regional peace and security. The rise in terrorism and tensions has made it increasingly difficult to establish regional peace and stability. This has had a detrimental influence on the region’s economic development, social advancement, and people’s well-being. The continuation of violence and insecurity has also made it more difficult for the international community to address the underlying causes of conflict and work toward a long-term solution.

Conclusion:

The international community must take steps to confront India’s backing for TTP. India’s activities are clearly against international law and standards, and they endanger regional peace and security. The international community must strongly denounce India’s conduct and endeavor to hold those involved accountable for their acts.

Holding those involved accountable for their conduct is critical to preventing such incidents in the future. The international community must act to bring individuals who promote terrorism and destabilize the area to account. This involves investigating and punishing individuals responsible for supplying TTP with support, as well as those involved in planning and carrying out terrorist actions. Only by taking firm action can we expect to restore stability and security to the area and prevent such actions in the future.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Cyberwar, Netwar: The Untouchable and Unpredictable

Avatar photo

Published

on

Territorial integrity, sovereignty and non-interference are salient features of a just and secure state. For a state to exist, compete and survive in the international context, a country must be well equipped. The unbiased, neutral and non-aligned movement is the best way to reach heights, especially for small states. However, this is not an easy task, ‘everything has a price’. The existence and co-dependence of a state are made further vulnerable as well as strengthened by way of ‘information’. Unlike in past, when troops protected borders, at present country must face and react to content generated and disseminated on online platforms.

Cyberwar and Netwar are mechanisms that are used by certain individuals as well as entities to infiltrate systems, pass a message, steal information or change the material content. “Cyberwar” is the act of “disrupting, if not destroying, information and communication systems”. On the contrary, “Netwar” is to “disrupt, damage, or modify what a target population knows or thinks it knows about the world around it”.  These threats are vicious to national security. Since the whole world is digitalized, any information regardless of its credibility reaches a wide audience. There are various modes of cyberwar including Phishing, Ransomware, E-commerce data interception, Crimeware-as-a-Service, Cyber Scams and Crypto-jacking. (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 1995) states, that a Netwar may focus on public or elite opinion, or both. It may involve diplomacy, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with local media, infiltration of computer networks and databases and efforts to promote dissident or opposition movements across computer networks.

According to Blackfog’s 2021 State of Ransomware Report, government agencies were the top targets for cybercriminals, followed by education, healthcare, services, technology, manufacturing and retail. According to Curran, Concannon and McKeever (in Janczewski and Colarik 2008: 03) have pointed out; the LTTE became the world’s first terrorist outfit to attack a country’s computer system in 1998. Another example is India. In August 2013, Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI) faced a Cyberattack. ‘Technical snag’ hit the operations of terminal no. 03. Nisar & StepovayaIn (2022) has cited (UNODC, 2021) which states that in September in Malaysia, a web-hosting service was the target of a ransomware attack demanding US$ 900,000 in cryptocurrency and In May, four subsidiaries of an international insurance company in Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and the Philippines were hit by a ransomware attack asking for US$ 20 million. Where that being said for cyber-war, net war is also a crucial problem. This is explicit in Russia and Ukraine conflict where information advantage is heavily discussed and debated. Byman (2022) has mentioned, “Confrontation between Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE (the so-called “Quartet”) and Qatar, for example, began in 2017 in part due to social media exploitation involving hacked email accounts and associated disinformation”. Sri Lanka too faces disinformation by LTTE and its international networks.

Threats, which occur on online platforms, are equally important as much as militaristic aspects of warfare. Where the militaristic aspect includes conquering and declaring power, Cyberwar and Netwar disrupt systems and brainwash people respectively. Since crimes conducted, are unpredictable, intangible and cross borders, ascertaining the criminal is daring. Due to these reasons, imposing liability as to whether it is collective or individual becomes strenuous. Furthermore, lack of experience, expertise in personnel, lack of technology and inadequate infrastructure can be identified as problems. Information illiteracy is another pertaining issue, which is the inability of individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use information effectively. Moreover, cyber-attacks are widely done due to their low cost and widespread nature.

With that being said, it is imperative to reiterate, that national security is threatened by Cyberwar as well as Netwar. Thus, any country must overcome the challenges mentioned afore. For that, to fight cyber war, enhancing technological infrastructure and technical capacity is important. In netwar, information literacy must be instilled to the population. Hence, people will be able to evaluate the quality, credibility and validity of the content. In addition, it is crucial to have a reporting mechanism for false content disseminated online. International cooperation is effective to combat Netwar and Cyberwar. Likewise, it is vital to sign and ratify necessary laws and follow resolutions in the international context. Furthermore, individuals, government, as well as private entities, must behave in a cyber-resilient manner that they are otherwise not incentivized to do.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Operation Neptune Spear and the Killing of Osama bin Laden

Avatar photo

Published

on

The founder and first leader of Al-Qaeda, And establishing 20-years republican government in Afghanistan: Neptune Spear was the secret name or code of the operation that was carried out under the leadership of the CIA on May 2, 2011 in the Abbottabad region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for killing of the leader of the Al-Qaeda group Osama bin Laden. This operation, which was carried out from Afghanistan to the territory of Pakistan by former President of the United States Barack Obama, is generally known as JSOC.

 Why this mission was named Neptune Spear? 

The reason why the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda group, was given the name Neptune’s Spear is as follows: The mission was named Operation Neptune’s Spear because it was the emblem of the United States Navy Seal, and Neptune in classical mythology means the god of the sea. In addition, this operation is commonly known as JSOC, because the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a sub-command of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), which played an important role in the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011.

The Neptune Spear operation started on May 1, 2011 from the American military base in Jalalabad province of Afghanistan, and ended on May 2 in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Former President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and members of the national security team were monitoring the operation online. All involved in Operation Neptune Spear were 23 SEALs, an interpreter, two helicopters and a combat dog. The operation started from a base of the American forces in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on May 1, 2011 at 10:30 pm local time, and on May 2, 2011, after 40 minutes long operation, they ended by killing Osama Bin Laden before one o’clock. Who was Osama Bin Laden and how did he become a big threat to the world, especially the United States?  Osama bin Laden, the son of Muhammad bin Awad, was born on March 10, 1957 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but some sources close to Osama believe that he was born in 1958. Osama bin Laden had five wives, his first wife was Najwa Ghanim, who married him in 1974, his second and divorced wife was Khadija Sharif, who married him in 1983, and His third wife was Khairya Saber who married Osama bin Laden in 1985. His fourth wife was Siham Saber, who married Osama bin Laden in 1987, and his fifth wife was Amal al-Sadah, who married Osama bin Laden in 2000.

 Osama had about twenty male and female children from his first four wives, but according to some sources, Osama had twenty-four male and female children from his fifth wife, and some put the number of children at 26, but the exact report is 24 about Osama’s children. Osama bin Al-Adeen studied economics at Abdul Aziz University, And in addition to this, after receiving education in the field of Civil engineering, politics and Shari’a, he studied partially in English literature at Oxford University in England, But intellectually, he was more encouraged towards the jihadist ways and intellectually he chose the jihadist way. Before Osama Bin Laden left Britain and went to Pakistan to choose the path of war, he showed intellectual interest in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Moreover, during his university years, he financially supported jihadist groups in South Sudan, Egypt, Syria and a number of African countries, because he inherited 20 to 25 million dollars from his father, And Osama spends a part of that money on construction projects and financially supports terrorist groups with the money received from those construction companies. In 1979, Bin Laden went to Pakistan and stayed with his intellectual and jihadist teacher, Abdullah Azzam, and prepared for the war against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, after that, he became friends with Ayman al-Zawahiri and founded the (Maktab-Al-Khadamat) in 1984 with Abdullah Azzam, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. After that, he started recruiting fighters for Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and spent most of his wealth on financing terrorists. After that, Osama bin Laden started a massive effort to establish Al-Qaeda and started recruiting fighters from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, And he accelerated the search for young people with a fighting and jihadist mindset from all over the world, and he focused on Egypt in order to attract Egyptian engineers. After extensive financial and armed cooperation with other jihadist organizations in Pakistan, in 1988, the Al-Qaeda armed group was activated by Osama, Not only did they continue their attacks in Afghanistan, but they also carried out many bloody attacks in the Middle East and Africa. The bloodiest attack was the 11th of September 2001 and the darkest day in the history of the United States. September 11 or 9/11, on September 11, 2001, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes, and the first two commercial airplanes and suicide bombers targeted the New York City International Trade Center. The third plane targeted the headquarters of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and the fourth plane planned to attack the federal government building in Washington DC, but did not reach the target, And in four attacks, around 3000 Americans were killed and up to 25000 Americans and foreigners were injured. After this attack, Osama was included in the list of the most wanted terrorists by the United States and the Western alliance, a list controlled by the FBI.

 After 10 years of intense investigations and intelligence investigations, on May 2, 2011, the US government avenged 9/11 by killing Osama at the ISI’s most secure location in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, Osama’s body was thrown into the sea before his body should be presented to the intelligence agencies of the world as evidence. But there is some confidential information that Osama bin Laden, the American dictator and the founder of al-Qaeda, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the beginning of the US-sponsored jihadist war against Afghanistan, And he was 22 years old and trained in a CIA-sponsored guerrilla training camp. In any case, Osama’s entry into Afghanistan led to the fall of the first Taliban regime, and at the same time, a person who was famous for so dear to Westerners came to power in Afghanistan.

How did Hamid Karzai get from immigration to the presidency?

 Common understanding between former President Hamid Karzai and the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States and some untold facts: When the Al-Qaeda group carried out the deadly attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, and the leader of this group, Osama bin Laden, took refuge in Afghanistan. In addition, the first Taliban regime of Afghanistan at that time, under the leadership of Mullah Omar Mujahid, accepted the refuge of Osama Bin Laden. Not only that, the American people knew that the United States and the security agencies of this country would not remain silent, and would soon start preparing for revenge. But before that the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Army, and the Special Operations Command of the United States Army started a response plan, they first proposed to the Afghan government to hand over Osama Bin Al-Adeen to the United States. Nevertheless, the leader and founder of the Taliban, Mullah Omar Mujahid, rejected their request, and for the second time, the United States tried to mediate the Saudi Arabia. The US asked the Taliban government to hand over Osama to the government of Saudi Arabia, but Mullah Omar Mujahid said that handing over Osama Bin Al-Aden to Saudi Arabia means handing over to America.

Furthermore, after rejecting the second proposal, the plan to attack Afghanistan was started by the United States and its allies on October 7, 2001. Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, CIA and US Special Forces personnel were sent to northern Afghanistan, to meet local tribal leaders and local commanders such as Abdul Rashid Dostum and work together, to start a war against the Taliban, who controlled the country and gave shelter to Osama bin Laden. A CIA team arrived with $3 million in $100 bills to use to recruit tribal leaders and strengthen the war against the Taliban, and teams of military units came from the fifth Special Forces Group. The then President of the United States, George W. Bush, together with the head of the CIA, George J. Tenet, made a coordinated decision to overthrow the Taliban government by appointing an influential person from the southwest zone of Afghanistan after the formation of a new government in the country.

That person was Abdulhad Karzai’s son Hamid Karzai who spent a lot of time in exile in Pakistan,  not only  he was the national leader for the Pashtuns of this side of the border, but he also had a special status among the Pashtuns of that side of the border in Pakistan. This position made him a target of the CIA. After October 7, 2001, members of the Central Intelligence Agency began to secretly visit Hamid Karzai’s house in Quetta and Chaman, Baluchistan, Pakistan, as a result, in July 2002, Hamid Karzai came to power in Afghanistan under the warm support of the CIA and the West, and he remained the president of Afghanistan until September 2014.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending