On Saturday, September 10, between Geneva and Munich, the traditional venues for the numberless negotiations on war in Syria, the US State Secretary, John Kerry, and the Russian Foreign Minister, Serghei Lavrov, reached an agreement for truce among the various factions fighting for the spoils of the Middle East State. The agreement will enter into force as from the sunset of September 12 and it will last one week only.
Who is concerned by the ceasefire? First and foremost Assad’s forces, namely the Syrian Arab Army, including its Russian and Iranian allies and the various groups of the Syrian Free Army, of which it is impossible to know the real size of its forces and its inconstant relationship with the other movements of the Syrian jihad.
Hence the agreement regards neither Daesh-Isis nor the militia of Fateh al-Sham, the new name chosen by the Al Nusra Front to distance itself from Al Qaeda as much as possible.
The hostilities will cease especially in the Aleppo area which, for everybody, is the key to the Syrian strategy, with a view to allowing the inflow of supplies, aid and relief to the local populations, hardly hit by both opponents’ actions.
It is worth recalling that so far the war in Syria has had a toll of 350,000 deaths and 11 million refugees, namely 50% of the Syrian population.
The essential political result of the September negotiations is – first and foremost – that the removal of the “tyrant” Bashar al-Assad from power is no longer on the agenda.
In fact, Assad is probably the only one who can keep Syria united – hence he is a necessary and valuable asset for Russia.
Conversely, in one way or another, all the Western countries involved in the conflict are interested in Syria’s splitting up and fragmentation.
Following its neo-Ottoman dream, Turkey wants to annex the Syrian Sunni area, also with a view to counterbalancing the Kurds’ influence both in Syria and on its own territory, by separating them with an enclave controlled by it.
Rojava (the West or Western Kurdistan in the Kurdish language) consisting of three self-governing cantons, namely Afrin, Jazira e Kobani, as well as the Shahba region, are located in the Syrian al-Hasakah Governorate. It is worth noting that the tree Kurdish cantons are multiethnic.
Obviously the Kurdish presence is the real target of the Turkish operations.
Shortly before the ceasefire, Turkey had deployed 43 self-supporting units and at least 200 soldiers, in addition to those of the Turkish garrison, in Gaziantep.
Shortly afterwards the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) started clashes with the Turkish forces in the Hatay Province.
Moreover no maps of Turkey’s operation “Euphrates Shield” are available and, at the same time, Isis demobilized its elite militants from the Al-Bab region, in the North-East province of Aleppo. Therefore we can predict a future jihadists’ counterattack from the South
The real aim of the Operation Euphrates Shield is to create a “safety area” for Turkey (90 kilometres long and 40 kilometres wide), with a view to avoiding the connection between the Kurds of Rojava and those in Turkey, as well as to definitely breaking Syria’s unity, which means creating strategic continuity between Anatolia and the Sunni Islam of Central Asia.
The United States want to “bring democracy” to Syria and intend to keep on controlling the areas held by their allies of the Syrian Free Army, the well-known “moderate” jihadists.
Without admitting so, also the United States want Syria’s splitting up and fragmentation so as to implement the unfortunate “Yugoslav model” also there, by creating ethnical statelets which – as happened in Kosovo – may possibly become recruiting centres for the jihad in the coming years or centres for managing drug trafficking.
Finally Russia wants a sufficiently united State which can protect the Alawite coastal territory where its naval bases in the Mediterranean are located.
Moreover Iran wants Syria to be a united State, under the leadership of the Alawites, who are Shias – as Imam Mussa Sadr established – which can be a bulwark against the Sunni Turkey and the destabilization trends from Saudi Arabia.
Hence the political and strategic sense is that – once the one-week truce is over – the United States and the Russian Federation should be reunited to fight against Isis-Daesh and Fateh al-Sham, namely the new Al Nusra “brand”.
As envisaged by the agreement of September 10, Assad’s forces should stop bombings “wherever the other forces are present” so as to allow the arrival of humanitarian aid in Aleppo.
Furthermore, the priority for the inflow of aid will be the city of Aleppo and its surroundings, in addition to the areas which are “hard to be reached”.
Again according to the agreement of September 10, both Assad’s forces and the “rebel” ones should leave Castello Road, which runs throughout the centre of Aleppo from the North of the city to the Eastern area, still held by the “rebels” of Jaish al Fateh and Isis-Daesh.
Also a part of the Kurdish YPG is present along the Aleppo road, which is currently monitored by the Russian soldiers.
There must also be a “secure access” to the area of Ramouseh and, if there will be seven consecutive days of successful truce, even partially, the United States and Russia will operate together to “develop military actions” (sic) against Fateh al Sham and Isis.
At the regular end of the ceasefire, a Joint Implementation Centre will be established to exchange the information required for military activities, but the problem is that the United States will continue to support the “rebels” close or allied to Jaish Al Fateh and that Russia shall convince its ally Assad to stop bombing the cities.
However, if the ceasefire is successful, all the forces whose territory borders on the “Islamic State” can concentrate their forces only against Isis. This will generate a sort of competition between allies, at least as regards the fight against Al Baghdadi’s Caliphate.
Furthermore, a few days before the deal, two “rebel” groups – both supported by the United States – clashed with each other in Jarabulus, north of Aleppo, namely Jaish al Tahrir and the Syrian Democratic Forces.
Hence the situation of military power relations in Syria just before the ceasefire was complex: on September 4, Assad’s forces started again the siege of Aleppo while, on September 5, Isis initiated a series of suicide attacks in Tartous, Homs and Damascus, as well as on the YPG Kurdish positions in Qamishli and Hasaka.
The Isis attack came just a few hours after the elimination of the Caliphate – along the Turkish-Syrian border, in the Aleppo area – by the Turkish Armed Forces and their jihadists of reference, namely the Turkmen.
A military success which was evidently the harbinger of the deal under discussion between Russia and the United States.
It is therefore likely for Isis to seek a new expansion in Western Syria, pending the ceasefire.
However, the deal reached on September 10 is very hard to be maintained.
The agreement is undoubtedly a success of Russian diplomacy, as both President Obama and part of the Pentagon and CIA did not want to acknowledge any role for Bashar al-Assad, while now – at least figuratively – they have sat at the same negotiating table as Syria’s emissaries.
The obsession of President Obama and much of the Pentagon was “Assad must go!”, as if the fall of a “tyrant” could magically change the political balance of a whole country.
The same mistake made with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and with the old “democratic” President, Hamid Karzai, in Afghanistan.
Certainly, if the two major powers on the ground really join, the end of Isis will be a matter of weeks, if not days.
But many ceasefires are “in water writ” and that of September 10 is no exception to the rule.
The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces have continued to hit jihadist targets despite the truce and the coordination center between the United States and Russia, envisaged by the deal, has not yet been definitively put in place to operate. It cannot certainly be created magically from nothing at the end of the fateful one-week truce.
On September 13 the parties exchanged artillery fire in the Aleppo area, while Bashar al-Assad’ Syrian Arab Army and the Hezbollah engaged combat with Jaish al Fateh in the aeras of Qarassi, Zeitan, Khan Touman and Khalsah.
Jaish al Fateh responded by hitting Assad’s outposts in the Malah Farms and the Ramouseh Artillery Base.
On September 12, all Jaish al Fateh forces stated they did not accept the ceasefire because their leaders had not been called to discuss the document and hence their role as primary group of “resistance” to Assad had not been recognized.
The following day, at least according to their sources, the air forces of the Syrian Arab Army shot down an Israeli jet and a drone near Quneitra, but Israel denied it.
However what is the strategic significance of the ceasefire, apart from the repositioning on the battlefield?
Russia emerges as the true leader of the future in Syria. The United States operate with their Turkish allies in the North, but this is an anti-Kurdish operation and the various Kurdish militias are US allies.
Shortly a clash will be recreated between both factions backed by the United States, which evidently have no strategy whatsoever in Syria except for the stale and impossible “exporting of democracy.”
Maybe the ceasefire will hold, but later the Syrian crisis will remain stable, with tensions on the Euphrates, the Kurdish reaction, the backlash of the Iranian Shiite units and the Russian raids.
The Western forces have no strategic project and therefore Russia – and hence Bashar al-Assad – will win because it has one, but after unimaginable ruins and the creation of a flow of migrants to the EU that will be very difficult to manage.
Psychological programming and political organization
Contemporary politics and the ensuing organization of consensus currently employ techniques and methods never used before.
We are going through an era in which completely new mechanisms operate within the traditional Parliamentary political representation, inherited from the liberal and democratic thought of the eighteenth century and of the following century. These mechanisms are much more powerful than those that – in the modern imitation of the Athenian agora -formed the will of the people and the guidelines and directions of the government.
Democracy of Ancients and Democracy of Moderns – just to use the simile of Benjamin Constant – were basically similar, but different in their functioning.
The number of citizens did not constitute a substantial difference, except that, according to Constant, modern democratic citizens delegated to the ruling class what did not fall within their being “private individuals, with private interests”.
Again according to Constant, the reason lay precisely in the new category of “private individuals” who, with a view to maintaining their wealth or work, deemed it right to delegate to someone else their power to make and break laws. Nowadays the private sphere does no longer exist. But not in the sense of the society of “one thousand eyes” and of continuous supervision and surveillance, but because the very category of “private” is over even in the political discourse.
Hence a mass totalitarian society, with a repressive apparatus that applies to everything would previously have been the subject of the strictly personal sphere of life.
Everything has currently changed, but everything still appears to be similar to the criteria and principles we have studied in the manuals of history of political doctrines. This is not the case.
Meanwhile, since the beginning of the 20th century, Eduard Bernays, Freud’s nephew and the father and pioneer of public relations, had established some connections between Sigmund Freud’s psychology (and with Gustave Le Bon’s Psychology of the Crowds, Mussolini’s favourite book) and political practice.
That was the beginning of what we now call “corporate communication”.
The suffragettes smoked and that was an operation funded by Bernays through the US tobacco producers.
The exaltation of sex – following the publication of the Kinsey Report and the mass spread of the contraceptive pill-changed and upset the consumption styles and habits of vast masses of young people who, in the 1960s, were to shape the consumption habits of what Galbraith called the “affluent society”.
That was the objective, not sex.
Hence, based on what discovered by Sigmund Freud, with a view to selling or prompting and inducing political behaviours, there was the need to “work” above all on the unconscious.
Currently, whatever is implanted from outside into the unconscious – if repeated constantly – always becomes real in the future.
The real for itself always becomes in itself, because what individuals think -in crowds, but solitarily (Riesman’s “lonely crowd”) -becomes either consumption or political behaviour, which is basically the same.
The subconscious has a huge power, i.e. controlling all subjective experiences. It is the autopilot of life, also from a practical viewpoint.
Nowadays no one speaks to the “reason”, the myth of the eighteenth century, but to instincts, to the subconscious, even to the unconscious.
The whole mechanism of the subconscious is already well in place and ready at 7-8 years of age and continues all lifelong.
With a view to reprogramming it, we need at first to limit the external and environmental negativities.
Indeed, we need to look for fully “positive” people, things and environments, as well as information.
Needless to say, this rule is carefully followed by all political propagandists and, above all, by advertisers.
Currently politics always follows the rules of consumer goods advertising. The leader is a testimonial. The script is the program and the government an oligopoly.
With a view to de-programming the “negative” mind, we need instead to visualize – as in a daydream – positive situations which we have already experienced.
We also need to reprocess the feelings of joy, which reach the subconscious immediately, well before the other ones.
The subconscious mind always and only knows the present.
Past and future are conceptual notions and processing – hence they are conscious. The subconscious interprets the negative of a negative proposition only as negative.
Creating positive propositions that counteract the negative ones processed and produced by the subconscious and then continuously repeat these actions. This is the basic technique.
This is, in short, the subjective mechanism that is currently used in political and commercial communication.
What are, however, the current technologies used to program and reprogram people’s minds?
We can mention the theory of social warfare, the virtual but all-out clashtaking place in the minds of citizens of a target country, using current technologies.
The aim of any reprogramming campaign is, in fact, to make the enemy (the enemy people, indeed) think like us.
It is a new kind of manipulation, much wider than the one carried out with the old disinformation or with the intelligence intoxication that was the non-violent part of the Cold War.
The most used information technologies are now Precision Targeting – which sends messages and behavioural inductions to a specific group – as well as the wide range of Artificial Intelligence mechanisms that are used to simulate online the behaviour and thought in relation to the primary information we wants to convey. There is also the algorithmic decision-making, which processes information through specific algorithms in view of formulating recommendations or taking fully automated decisions.
This holds true both for decision-makers and for the vast mass of users, citizens and voters of the aforementioned decision-makers.
We can also mention the Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) technologies, which create partially or completely artificial environments for both the programmers of the public opinion and the public itself.
But also the Internet of Things (IoT) is used in this field, by correlating machines and sensors for the construction of a Complete Reality, which becomes facts and data to be spread as such.
In this context of complete manipulation of information, which becomes the Complete Reality, also voice interfaces are useful. They allow to exchange information between the Source and the User or between Users, thus allowing the psychological reinforcement of news.
Again in the field of information manipulation, blockchains are also important. They allow to control and process information only through the users enabled to use the “chain”.
We should also recall the computerized programs that generate completely false videos and images – fakes which, however, are absolutely plausible.
Precision Targeting is used above all to reprogram groups of pre-selected individuals, who provide the Web with a continuous flow of information, from mobile phones, from the Web and from the other channels, to those who can selectively access the Web. All this is currently used, above all, through social media.
In this case, we have already reached the phase of neuromarketing, which changes the desires and habits of specific population groups, by combining the mental effects with the emotional ones.
As if it were a sign which, according to De Saussure, is the indestructible connection between signified and signifier. But the product of neuromarketing is not at all a language sign.
In this case, the above mentioned technology could be used for indirect facial recognition, manoeuvred by Artificial Intelligence systems.
Facial recognition will enable those who manoeuvre -also temporarily – the Web to quickly check the emotions of millions of people, and we all know how important emotions are now to tamper with the psyche and communicate concepts that often have very little relevance at conceptual and even at emotional or mental levels.
By 2035 these technologies are expected to be spreading like wildfire, since they are very important both for commercial operations and for political marketing.
Artificial Intelligence is the primary axis of development of all the other technologies we are talking about. AI will be used above all in verbal and textual recognition, as well as in the collection and analysis of very broad spectrum data, and for the processing of raw initial data, again in a very large population.
AI, however, will above all be used for defining an automated decision-making that can support the human decision-makers when they do not know, remember or understand all facts and, above all, the underlying determinants of facts.
We will get to imitate, without realizing it, Elsa Morante’s book “The World Saved by Kids” and certainly what is happening in global communication already guarantees this future to us. They are more manipulable. They have no memory and they are perfect for the Brave New World that stands before us.
We can easily imagine what all this means for advertising, for the selection of markets, for business decisions but, above all, for the development of political platforms, both in terms of the electoral process and for the more specific decision-making process.
The next level will be content, which will often be produced directly by AI systems.
But let us better analyse what algorithmic decision-making is.
It is often currently applied in medicine.
Disease analysis, therapy forecasting, statistical analysis of diseases and their effects, both at subjective and population levels. In the near future, however, other sectors will be ever more like the banking system. Human Resources, even political decision itself, will be the subject of these applications, which will often become so complex as not to be understood – in the future – by the computers using them.
If you collect a lot of data, it is increasingly likely that a sequence of decisions or simple new data is not recognized by the program operating in the computer.
Also for AI networks we will have a process of learning by doing.
There are two dangers. Firstly, that the private ownership of the most important databases makes competition between systems impossible; secondly that the algorithms are hackable or manipulable by third parties unknown to the system.
There are also Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality.
If we proceed with the increasingly analytical and obsessive adaptation of the devices to the Ego of the User, or to his/her tastes- considered, for some reason, immutable – we risk an ideological drift of new technologies, i.e. that of hyper-subjectivism and, as happens in current educational practice, that of the permanence of the mass Ego in an eternal childhood.
The “Minor Ego” advocated by some people is a very real risk and it is not even clear how a super-massified production can be adapted to the increasingly self-referential psychologies of the Consumer Ego.
Not to mention the natural limit – currently often evanescent – that the Augmented Reality keeps between the imaginary and reality – a limit that, in the propaganda and political implementation of the Virtual Reality, could become very dangerous to cross.
Immanuel Kant spoke of the 100 gold Thalers that can be in your pocket or just in your imagination, but that cannot certainly be mistaken one for the other.
Hence beyond any technological processing, Reality is never the Imaginary.
Although the imaginary can induce behaviours very similar to those that the subject would have if subjected to reality, the one that – as Voltaire said – has “hard head”.
By Internet of Things (IoT) we generally mean an environment full of machines that interact with one another through the Web.
As can be easily guessed, the IoT information potential is huge.
Human consumption habits, but also communication, ways of life, lifestyles, exchanges between subjects, positions and information exchanged between individuals will be part of huge databases.
Probably, in the future, it will be difficult to find exactly what is needed in those databases, considering that the bias of the IT and data storage systems tends to increase with the quantity and complexity of data.
It is estimated that, by 2030, there will be over one and a half trillion sensors connected to IoT networks, which will be worth half of the entire Internet traffic of “simple” users.
According to Deloitte, the entire IoT market is expected to be worth a trillion, in addition to further 750 billion for IoT network connection modules.
It can be easily imagined to what extent this makes it possible to hack data not only from IoT networks, but also from all other networks connected to the Internet and ending up in an IoT structure.
By 2030 blockchains will be the basis of financial, control, check and analysis networks.
It will be the beginning of virtual monetization, which is, in itself, the opening of the financial gates of Hell.
The miserable level of the current economic thinking allows it.
Nevertheless, all this technological development – between imagination and reality – will lead us towards a society of the unverifiable and probable, with no possibility of responding to a government financial or information fake and with an increasing penetrability of information networks, to which the whole social fabric and not only its control will be delegated.
However, the society of the imaginary 100 Thalers – believing that the imagined ones are already in the pocket – will not be able to pay anything.
Baghdadi Dead : What it means for Terrorism in West and South Asia?
President Trump’s announcement that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State(IS) commander, died during a US military operation in Syria, later confirmed by ISIS itself, was a welcome news for all fighting terrorism or suffering from it in any part of the world. This was followed by death of their spokesperson and arrest of his sister and wife by Turkey. After the decimation of IS caliphate, IS continues to exist in small modules in many parts of the world, mainly in West Asia, but the loss of its undisputed leader who inspired many youth globally towards radicalisation as never before, during his peak performance days will not be easy to fulfil. He revolutionised the art of extending terror network through internet, made IS the richest terror group in the world, with a caliphate to govern through sharia laws and revived sex slavery. It’s a major setback to IS & affiliated terror groups but long overdue good news for those suffered its brutality like Yezidi women. The idea of IS does not end with leader, who stands replaced by Ibrahim al Hashemi al Qurayshi from Prophet Mohammad lineage (qualified to become caliph) with a vow to avenge Baghdadi’s death. There being no change in the overall aim and ideology of IS, it will manage to regroup with lesser fund flow and area of influence and wait for opportunity to re-emerge; hence the global fight against IS has to continue.
What does it mean for Regional Terror Groups?
The US has given a strong message to terrorists but its declared withdrawal from Syria is untimely; hence the Middle-East needs a fresh look from strategic perspective. Turkey cross-border offensive on October 9 against the Kurdish YPG militia, whose fighters made up the bulk of the SDF controlling IS is a game spoiler in fight against IS. Turkeys double game with terrorists is marred with helping IS and treating Kurds as terrorists as they demand a homeland. Its desire to invade Syria and destroy Assad’s supporters made it an ally of US, but US is not keen on decimation of Kurds, who will be left with no choice but to commence terrorist activities against Turkey. The temporary five days truce, sanctions against Turkey could buy some time, but is unlikely to change Erdogan’s intent who seems to have decided to go Wahhabi way. It does give some extra lifeline to IS, which is going to get dispersed to other areas, in addition to some existing ones like Afghanistan. US withdrawal also cedes this strategic space in Syria to the forces loyal to Assad and Russia, something which US was not very keen to concede till short while ago as it was not in the best interest of Israel. This strategic equation does not change the terror potential of Hamas appreciably.
The internal political disturbance Lebanon puts Hezbollah in tight spot. The current internal political turbulence in Iraq is helpful for reorganisation of IS as it dampens the Shia spirit which indirectly helps Sunni terror groups. The recent strategic clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia triggered by a drone attack on Saudi’s oil establishment followed by attack on Iran oil tanker is also a recipe for refuelling of Shia – Sunni terror competition in West Asia. After US walked out of JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal) renewed and clamped additional sanctions on Iran which European Union could not prevent, Iran has also climbed the escalation ladder by announcing to fill gas in over 1000 centrifuges to enrich uranium further, which it was holding out due to the deal. This is another dangerous spiral in the region to increase the insecurity of Saudi Arabia and may result in further push to Sunni cause. These developments have blurred the definition of victim and oppressor. The internal turbulence of West Asia therefore is creating an environment for breeding terrorists.
After IS suffered these reverses it has opened opportunities and ignited some competition for other terror groups like Taliban and al Qaeda, to strive to gain the influence they lost to ISIS earlier. This has increased their quest to grab more power and money, a bulk of which comes from coercion globally, prove their terror potential to the target population and governments to get more attention, followers, logistics and other resources. It is however noteworthy a number of terror organizations having allegiance to IS have still not changed their allegiance, indicating that demise of IS may not be on the card so soon and the group is still not out of competition.
What does it mean for Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) Region?
Afghanistan continues to face aggressive and coordinated attacks by ISIS’s branch in the region, the Islamic State’s Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) and the Afghan Taliban, including the affiliated Haqqani Network (HQN). Afghan Taliban seems to have grown much stronger for the fact that it controls more territory in Afghanistan than what it controlled when US forces marched in 19 years back. The fact that all world powers talked to them for peace (to fulfil their respective interests) indicate the blackmailing potential of Taliban. Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) and remaining US forces have not been able to control their terror strikes despite their best efforts, which are likely to increase if US choses to withdraw completely. I do visualise some more efforts of global powers for talks to Taliban in near future. Although al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan and Pakistan was degraded earlier by multinational forces, remnants of al-Qa’ida’s global leadership, as well as its regional affiliate – al Qa’ida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), continue to operate from remote locations in the region have a reason to cheer Baghdadi’s death.
Pakistan continues to be the epicenter of global terrorism playing host to maximum UN designated terrorist organisations and terrorists in the world, a large No of them have indicated allegiance to IS. Pakistani military counter-terrorism operations are more of ethnic cleansing acts against Pashtuns and Baluchis directed against groups which conducted attacks within Pakistan, such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Pakistan Army and ISI supports externally focused groups such as Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), which continue to train, organize, and fundraise in Pakistan with a narrative of pseudo Islamic Jihad. The Pakistani Army does not restrict the Afghan Taliban and HQN from operating in Pakistan and threatening US and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, despite being placed on the “grey list” continuously till date, since June, 2018.The support of Pakistan to Sunni terror groups is well known and IS is no exception. The increasing radicalisation of establishments in Pakistan, conglomeration of terrorist groups in Af-Pak Region is a dangerous sign as it indicates a caliphate in making, far more dangerous than ISIS caliphate.
What does it mean for South Asia?
After the declaration of the caliphate, the newly named Caliph, Baghdadi while addressing the jihadists the world over explicitly mentioned China and India as one of the prime targets of the ISIS amongst many others and there are no signs of change in that narrative. ISIS and other militant groups are attempting to spread their ideology to countries that have Muslim population, and where there is a chance to reach out to dis-satisfied youth. al-Qa’ida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) and ISIS have together claimed responsibility for over 40 attacks in Bangladesh since 2015. The Government in Bangladesh continues to battle terrorism with strict Anti- terrorism Act in place, however terrorists do manage to operate there with backing from ISI, Pakistan. Terrorist organizations are using internet, social media to spread their ideologies and solicit followers globally including South Asia and many terrorists have been featured in multiple publications, videos, and websites associated with ISIS and AQIS. Terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka and rapid radicalisation in Maldives are some more examples of IS mastered methodologies to spread terror, which is likely to continue.
India having the second largest Muslim population in the world is an obvious target for IS. India is a tolerant and pluralist society with a mix of Shias and Sunnis, which has absorbed all religious faiths, hence the rate of penetration of radicalisation has been extremely low, although some individuals have been attracted to it. Many Lone Wolf Attacks in Europe, like the suicidal car crash attack in Westminster in London on 22 March 2017, are a possibility in India as well, in future, for which it needs to be prepared. The Incidents like the train explosion in Bhopal-Ujjain express by a terror suspect, Mohammad Saifurullah alias Ali, allegedly a member of the ISIS(K) module, on 07 March 07, 2017 injuring 10 passengers, occasional display of IS flags in Kashmir Valley, bursting of few IS modules in South India by National Investigative Agency, announce the arrival of IS in India. These incidents need to be viewed in consonance with the global scene, wherein Daesh is looking for new hosts after decimation of their caliphate.
Recent Trends in Terrorism
The peaceful coexistence of IS, Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and so many terror groups in Pakistan indicates that they are also collaborating and economising on certain activities and efforts like intelligence sharing, training camps, arms transfers, irregular trade and related activities on mutual benefit basis, hence it is increasingly difficult to use one against the other, despite intense competition amongst some of them. They are generally keen to expand their terror industry under pseudo religious cause of avenging perceived atrocities to muslims and continue to fight security forces trying to disturb their design. Their fight against each other is rarely seen in recent times. The other interesting trend especially in Pakistan is that whenever a terrorist organisation is banned globally, it changes its name, registers as social welfare organisation, and continues terrorist activities as usual.
A very well organized media and cyber campaign by the IS by incorporating technologically savvy cadres from western countries affecting some Indian youth is still on. Some media news that it had gained access to fissile material and suspected access to chemical weapons like Sarin gas, indicates that its potential for global nuisance is far from being over. The same is being tried by other terror groups as well. To fight the global war on terror the world community will have to shun double gaming, individual country interest over global safety, the concept of good and bad terrorist and strict sanctions on terror sponsoring countries because terrorism cannot flourish without financial and logistics support.
The Strategy of cybernetic on Practical of International Relations
The space for policy and cyber interaction or, more accurately, the “cyber policy” space, is considered to be the most recent and most important area of interest among policy and international experts in the theoretical and practical field, which neglects it can cause serious damage and unpredictable for countries as the most important actors in the field of international relations.
Today, cyber policy and cyber security are discussed in the field of international relations and politics. Real space cyberspace is a real new field for influencing and, consequently, friendship, cooperation, competition, hostility and even war between nations and other actors. These cases show well that the Internet and cyberspace have provided a new field for politics, a space in which individuals, groups and governments are acting and policy makers.
Cyber policy is a bipartisan concept that refers to the interaction and coherence of the two arenas of politics (the place of friendship, cooperation, competition, conflict, and war on values and interests) and the Internet (a new platform for acting). Some experts have gone even further and talked about cyber policy “great politics” versus “undercover politics”.
In the field of international relations, under the influence of the tradition of realism, international issues are divided into very important and crucial issues such as security and less important issues, such as economic issues. Some experts believe that because of the importance of cyberspace, cyber policy has to be considered as one of the most important, critical and security issues or great politics. They point out that today, millions of people worldwide have access to computers and the Internet, and each day they increase the number of users and the level and depth of Internet use, which provides a very important area for acting and, consequently, policy is making every day, the number of users as well as the level of technology is added. Under these circumstances, cyberspace plays an important role in guiding public opinion, creating priorities and desires, public diplomacy, spying, vandalism, war, conflict, and everything that actually forms the realm of real politics. As a result, cyberspace should be considered an excellent policy.
The theoretical framework and the most influential impact of cyberspace on politics and international relations are three main issues. The first issue is the presentation of a “conceptual order” to explain the relationship between cyberspace and politics. The second issue is identifying and believing in the widespread connection between cyberspace and politics. The third issue is the explanation of the route and the important issues in this connection.
The theory of “surplus pressure” is the applicable theory in this field. The theory of lateral pressure means a new level of analysis beyond Stefan Walt’s three levels. He believes that cyberspace cannot be discussed based on previous levels and attitudes of people like Kenneth Boulding and Kenneth Waltz.
In addition to the three levels of “human”, “states” and “international system,” space requires a different level. At this new level, which is the “global level”, the impact of cyberspace is emphasized by the emphasis on the separation between the “social system” and the “natural environment.” At the global level, it is emphasized that the Internet space and its widespread impact on the world of politics cannot be discussed with the old levels that emphasize the individual or state or international arena. Internet space is a space for acting actors, non-state actors such as terrorists and private companies in terms of economic, cultural, security and even military. Therefore, it should be emphasized on the global level that, while combining the other levels, creates a broad interconnection between all levels and dimensions and is capable of analyzing other political space. Therefore, in lateral suppression theory, there is an attempt to establish a relationship between the individual, state and international levels as the old levels and the level of global analysis.
Based on the experience of the past decades, the Internet and cyberspace have affected the relations between countries, especially the United States and Iran. Indeed, a serious competition between countries in this area has a positive and negative or positive effect. In this conflict, major nations, including China and the United States, are trying to outsource the other in the field of technology, which has positive implications for the advancement of the Internet, but the Internet, meanwhile, has created a new atmosphere of competition, hostility and warfare, sometimes with some countries, including America and Iran have been attracted.
Regarding the content of the Internet and the role and policies of governments to control cyberspace, powerful nations are trying to influence the direction and overall space of the Internet and determine its future path. In contrast to the weaker countries in this area, they are struggling with a sophisticated look and feel, with influences such as content filtering, affecting the Internet. In such a space, the serious competition that has emerged between the West and the rest of the world has a different shape every day.
In the “cyber policy” space as a major new issue in the field of politics and international relations, as in other areas of politics, “values” and “interests” by various factors such as governments, organizations and government actors And non-governmental organizations, and even people who produce, distribute and consume. In fact, cyber policy, unlike the past, has placed new actors alongside governments as the most important actors in international relations, which are sometimes more capable and successful in the Internet.
However, apart from all the benefits and benefits of the Internet, the fact is that the Internet has provided “a new war space”, which is referred to as “cyber warfare”. In this type of war, countries and other actors use the Internet to spy, sabotage, and create insurrections, revolutions and even the destruction of military installations and vital centers of the other side.
Of course, the Internet has created a new space for “cooperation” and “interaction” between countries. In spite of this, the Internet has made the relationship between all actors, including governments, individuals, organizations and institutions, cheap and comfortable, due to its high speed and precision. As a result, the conditions for cooperation and engagement have been more interesting than before. While countries and other actors are aware of the need for extensive international cooperation on the Internet, they know that cyberspace has created a new area of international cooperation.
Regarding the widespread impact of the Internet on all aspects of politics and international relations through the spread of knowledge and knowledge of individuals, the fact is that the Internet has been instrumental in facilitating and expanding access to information and knowledge in the national and international arena. Individuals and communities have become more aware and more educated than before, and the world faces a new phenomenon called “Human Awakening,” which is known in Muslim countries as “Islamic Awakening.” As a result, political demands such as the consideration of democracy and the necessity of respect for the political independence of nations, reverence for cultural and religious values, the right to decent social economic development, etc., and increased sensitivity to issues such as the environment. Accordingly, the Internet has affected the field of action of countries and other actors.
Finally, a new atmosphere in the international arena that cannot be analyzed based on theories, approaches, and levels of the past is being analyzed. In fact, the content and philosophy of the new space, known as cyberspace, is very different from the past. In this new space, new types of friendship, cooperation, rivalry, hostility and war have been created alongside past patterns. Meanwhile, various and varied actors have been added to traditional actors that are very vague and unpredictable. Consequently, these conditions must emphasize new ideas, approaches and perspectives that are much more flexible and open to the past.
Cyber policy and cyber security in the current context are considered by the international relations experts as the main issue, along with older issues of war, economics, women and the environment, and even consider some of its importance more than other areas; Because the cyberspace has all the domains and the old ones.
For example, cyberspace has provided new conditions for cooperation and competition between countries and, of course, other actors in the military, security, political, economic, environmental, women’s, children’s, health, education and other fields. Therefore, the cyber space has created new conditions in which issues of international relations are presented in a different way, resulting in a new form of cyber policy, with particular implications for national and international security. Based on this, a comprehensive review of cyber policy and cyber security, and its impact on all domains, will reinforce the deployment of passive defense at the national level.
Hilton Named Official Hotel Partner of the Chicago Theatre
Hilton and The Madison Square Garden Company (NYSE: MSG) are pleased to announce that Hilton has been named the official...
Another Sign of Turkey Turning Away from U.S.
On November 6th, Ibrahim Karagül, who is an extremely influential Turkish media baron and newspaper columnist, and is considered to...
ADB Project to Promote Rural Entrepreneurship in Nepal
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has approved a $50 million loan for a project that will improve the livelihoods and...
Climate change: Scientists warn over impact on food security and oceans
UN climate scientists presented MEPs with new evidence on how climate change is affecting food production and oceans. The Intergovernmental...
Cybersecurity: A Crucial Element of Socio-economic Stability and Prosperity
Cybersecurity has become a key safeguard to future socio-economic prosperity and stability as industries are transitioning towards data- and technology-driven...
Jaeger Lecoultre & Amanda Seyfried
Amanda has established herself as one of Hollywood’s most captivating young leading actresses. As a talented singer, she can be...
It’s when not if China’s Middle Eastern tightrope snaps
China is manoeuvring to avoid being sucked into the Middle East’s numerous disputes amid mounting debate in Beijing on whether...
Middle East3 days ago
The narrative approach of Lebanon’s uprising
Middle East2 days ago
Americans return to Syria for oil
Middle East3 days ago
US-Iran confrontation amid Lebanon, Iraq protests
Intelligence2 days ago
Psychological programming and political organization
Defense3 days ago
Strategic Instability in the Era of Information and Communication Technologies: Crisis or the New Norm?
International Law2 days ago
Validity of Reservations of Bangladesh against Article 2 of CEDAW
Reports3 days ago
Health spending set to outpace GDP growth to 2030
Energy News3 days ago
UNIDO and Morocco’s MASEN to strengthen cooperation to deploy renewable energy technologies