P Kharel

They protest, shout and feign shock at the illegal and mean disregard for international norms and all that stuff. In reality, they all are culprits to the other side while they themselves rationalise the surreptitious engagement as essential for their national security and economic interests.
Perfidy thy name is double talk.
Intelligence entails inherent suspension of civil liberty in the name of national interest and survival. All nations justify their dubious activity but pursue the spying engagement of others as a threat to their interests. In this business, no one really can tell who is with whom for what purpose. Setting in motion double agents and counterintelligence is treated well within the bounds of the clandestine work.

In 2013, the United States charged the American whistle-blower Edward Snowden with theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information and wilful communication of classified communications intelligence. The consequent investigations led him to seek refuge in Russia. Snowden disclosed to the media how the internet and phone surveillance was conducted by the US intelligence.

In one of the latest disclosures, Denmark was found to have helped the US spy on European officials and politicians, including Merkel from 2012 to 2014. Germany’s close partner and neighbour reportedly aided and abetted US illegal wiretapping practices against the chancellor. The Defence Intelligence Service collaborated with the US National Security Agency to gather information. Intelligence was allegedly collected on other officials from France, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Some of Washington’s close allies described the “systematic wiretapping” as “unacceptable”.

Unsparing approach
If they can go to such extent in tracing the movements and discussions of those supposed to be among the closest of partners, would they pause for the slightest second when the targets are categorised as rivals as and less than friendly or divided by various other considerations?

Foreign agencies put on their payroll local recruits to spy upon their own country and fellow nationals. If the engagement is done for one’s own government, it becomes a job rendered for the best of the nation. Agencies that obtain the services of foreign nationals go to great length to protect the identity and physical security of these agents who, if identified by the public at home, are reviled as “traitors” by their own fellow citizens.
Vidkun Quisling — a term originating in Norway — is widely used as a synonym for traitor. It carries intense dislike in much of Europe and elsewhere. Founder of the pro-Nazi Fascist National Union Party, Quisling headed an out and out pro-Nazi government in Norway from 1942-45.

In sum, what might be staple for one’s government could very well be poison for those under surreptitious surveillance. Some state agencies howl over the espionage activity by others but they themselves spend much time, energy and resources for the very clandestine engagement they publicly abhor. FBI accuses Russia of trying to “denigrate” the US President Joe Biden. The American domestic spy agency accuses Russia of engaging in berating American leaders and their electoral process; the foreign cyber intrusion resulted in lack of confidence among general voters.

The CIA started circulating specially designed booklets to its recruits in the 1960s, which prescribed a series of grey, white and black lies to be resorted to for addressing specific targets in specific degrees. Use of disinformation against institutions and individuals together with the denigration and destruction of their images is not discounted. The practice is by no means an American monopoly, though. In the 21st century, too, the method is regularly applied all over the world.
For instance, during the Sino-Indian border skirmishes in 2019-21, South Asians were witness to major disinformation campaigns at full blast through the media and other platforms, making it difficult for the audiences to discern what is what.

Disclosure by news and human rights organisations earlier this season reported that many governments hired an Israeli surveillance technology firm to hack into the phones of their critics. The “Pegasus Project” scandal sent shock wave across the globe, giving an idea as to the extent of intrusion into individual privacy. French President Emmanuel Macron and 14 ministers figured in the leaked data. In fact, 50,000 phone numbers of French nationals were found to have been marked for the Israeli firm NSO Group’s particular clients since 2016.
In India, government agencies were accused of hacking more than 300 mobile phone numbers of people of various walks of life, including journalists. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government denied the intrusion, dismissing the allegations that had “no concrete basis or truth associated with it whatsoever”.

All-pervasive
Pegasus is the hacking software found very handy for spy work. Human rights activists, journalists and lawyers around the world were under the scanner selected as possible candidates for potential surveillance by regimes employing the hacking software.

Nazi Germany’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels headed over a highly effective publicity war of excessive exaggeration campaign through all available channels at disposal. His policy was that lies, if relentlessly repeated, delivered the desired results. Movies, documentaries, stage shows, rabble rousing speeches, public debates, stories and the whole range of it were used. Stunned by the German success, others followed the footsteps with religious devotion for their own purposes. Today, too, similar policies are pursued on many occasions by many governments, even if with contextual adaptations by all.

The resourceful leave no corner unexplored and untapped to the furthest edge and corner. Once, the CIA tried to trap a Soviet KGB spy caught in a honey trap that portrayed him in transparently compromising positions. When faced with the threat that the embarrassing photos would be mailed to his wife, the cavalier spy challenged the CIA to do as it pleased. He was confident that his wife would admire him all the more for his sexual exploits and prowess.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, two years ago, described “the risk of a large-scale confrontation in the digital sphere” as “one of the main strategic challenges of our time”. He broached the idea of a cyber-truce between Russia and the US to “exchange guarantees of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, including electoral processes” and using ICT and high-tech methods. Washington ignored the proposal.
The masterminds spying upon foreign governments and nationals consider their activity legitimate in serving their vital national interests. Their agents infest and intrude into the chambers privacy of targets. They do it without qualms, their primary interests being information and continued concealment of their work and identities.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)