Astropolitics: Emerging Trends and Challenges” hosted by Dept of Aerospace Sciences and Strategic Studies (DASSS), Air University, Islamabad hosted on 27 Apr, 2021.
Category: Interviews
Interviews
The Blurring of War and Peace: Analyzing Hybrid Warfare
In the past few decades, there has been a recurring debate on the division between war and peace. The use of modern technologies and Artificial Intelligence has changed the nature of warfare. The cold war between U.S. and the Soviet Union and post-war phenomenon of hybrid warfare has emphasized the International Relations experts and military domains that the world politics cannot be only studied and seen through the lens of war and peace.
The most recent NATO summit declaration explains that different nations are facing amplified pressure from state and non-state actors who are using hybrid techniques to create uncertainty and blue the line between peace, conflict and crisis.Hybrid warfare is a very popular yet controversial term in the academic and military discourse. It has not yet been clearly defined and has given different connotations and definitions by various military experts, observers, researchers, and academicians through the observation of enemy agenda and activities.
As terrorist organizations keep on changing their fighting styles to adapt to changing environment and technological era, therefore, observers and experts also keep on searching new characteristics and dimensions of hybrid warfare. Rapid developments in AI-enabled technologies provide revolutionary competencies to military as well as non-military domains. This has not only transformed war hardware but has also deeply impacted human dimensions through certain direct and indirect means. It is important for state organizations, Intelligence agencies, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), and other military domains as well as government think tanks to introduce mechanism and operational methodologies to timely detect hybrid threats.
In general, hybrid warfare is considered to be combination of fanatic fighting styles and advanced technologies including machine learning and deep learning, being used by both non-state actors and state actors through covert operations. These gray-zone tactics have postured continuous challenges to collective defense. The state actors have the edge to use paramilitary forces and incremental tactics to achieve security objectives and political aims without triggering war response. The combination of military and non-military means is the prominent feature of modern warfare. According to researcher Alex Ronald, technology is very important factor in holding warfare; however Frank Hoffman downplayed the role of technology in warfare. It is because technology obsession by military professionals has blinded them to the predominance and significance of humans in the warfare. Some experts view hybrid warfare as a skirmish involving state and non-state actors including; irregular forces (terrorists, extremist groups, insurgents, and guerrillas) and conventional military forces which are focused to achieve ideological agendas and political objectives. Machine learning and deep learning technologies combined with the fluidity of irregular tactics will render the understanding of hybrid warfare obsolete.
Characteristics of Hybrid Warfare. There are five important characteristics of hybrid warfare including; synergy, ambiguity, asymmetry, disruptive innovation, and battle over psychology. Firstly, Synergy refers to the use of various MPECI (Military, Political, Economic, Civil and Informational) spectrums to manipulate the concentration of hybrid warfare. Secondly, Ambiguity explains the blurred periphery between peace and war. Although peace and war are opposite phenomenon, but hybrid warfare has made this distinction vague through the use of such techniques that defy categorization between the two terminologies. Through the intensified use of AI technologies and spreading propaganda on social media, civilians also become warfighters in disguise. Thirdly, Asymmetry is the feature of hybrid warfare which discusses that the capacity of state and non-state actors is unequal. State actors are more equipped with advanced training skills and high-end technological weapons as compared to non-state actors. However, state actors are duty-bound and confined by the law and war ethics and are not able to launch counterattacks while ignoring the legal norms. On the other hand, non-state actors use violent extremist ideologies, criminal and illegal means in order to launch terrorist attacks and achieve their objectives. Fourthly, Disruptive Innovationinvolves actions at the operational and tactical levels to achieve strategic objectives. This is done by the state actors through disinformation campaigns in cyber domain and media, mobilization of non-attributable forces, and awareness among public especially social media users. Non-state actors use this characteristic by the repetitive use of terrorist attacks, bombings, using advanced commercial technology and amplified levels of military sophistication i.e. UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), command and control system, and secure communication. Finally, Battle over Psychologyis the fifth distinguishing feature of hybrid warfare. This involves target population including the conflict zone population, home front population and the international community population. Both state and non-state actors use such technologies and strategies to win this battle by presenting their loyalty, ideologies and agendas to the target population. The non-state actors use propaganda and disinformation campaigns widely spread on social media and other platforms. Conversely, state actors tend to threaten but economize the military equipment usage to create psychological pressure on the target population.
Conclusion. The use of modern technologies and AI has blurred the distinction between peace and war. The use of these AI enabled technologies has blurred the distinction between peace and war. The use of these technologies and spreading propaganda on social media to change the mindset and loyalty of people has become crucial factor in deciding the victory or defeat in the modern warfare. With the help of advanced technologies, it has become convenient for terrorists and extremist groups to spread their ideological objectives through fake audio and video messages. Expansion of computational propaganda is made through impression accounts as well as automated accounts in order to radicalize public against state. Due to this, general public especially social media users are becoming an important tool in disguise, for spreading the ideology of these non-state actors. In many instances, social media platforms are flooded with too much fake information that it becomes very difficult for public to filter out genuine and correct information. The success or failure of any group in the modern warfare depends more on the psychological win or loss and less on the military gain or loss. Therefore, the use of hybrid warfare characteristics, AI technologies and scrutinizing social media platforms to identify and disrupt potential radicalization is crucial in getting a winning edge.
Emerging Geostrategic Environment: Implications for South Asian Strategic Stability
Online Seminar on Emerging Geostrategic Environment: Implications for South Asian Strategic Stability, on 09 Apr 2021
Media as a Tool in Conflict Prevention
The 20th century marked the beginning of the age of media, today media is known to be the fourth yet immensely powerful supporter of the state. Importance of media cannot be denied in the present era of information technology where masses are 24/7 connected to media through television, mobile phones, radio, newspapers etc. The influence of individuals to different references of media helps it play an essential part in opinion building. Media is source of information and education that will make outline to the daily choices in people’s life. Media basically construct their opinions built or alter their perceptions. Due to the rapid and advanced technology world is global village. Connecting the world together just at the distance of one button click. Stories and concerns of people from the remote areas of Afghanistan and china to the vast desserts of Arabia and the problems faced by the people of superpowers to the difficulties in the life of Africans all are at everyday screens of our dinner table.
Media has a strong connection with the politics and social issues in contemporary strategic environment. As a source of communication or information between state and people, and between states, the earlier role of media has widened and transformed. Now every actor works in the environment that is shaped by the media. Media shapes the perceptions of individuals and leaders. And on these perceptions every actor formulates the policies, mostly during the circumstances of crises or political changes. Media shapes the perceptions of leaders and people. And on the basis of these perceptions the political actors formulate the policies, especially during the situations of crisis or political changes i.e. elections. Media works either under the pressure of government laws or under the influence of financial, as media has become a moneymaking industry.
Today, media has pervaded almost every sphere of human interaction. The human minds are being constantly bombarded with information. This information either consciously or subconsciously shapes the human mind. Humans tend to view the world through certain social ideals, which they are taught, to make sense of the world around them. Humans use these social ideals to formulate opinions and give value laden judgments on issues. The information on media not only appeals to these social ideal to foment a desirable public opinion, but also shapes these social ideals. For instance a child who grows up watching Western media is more prone to be acceptable of western values and social ideals, while a person who has not watched Western media is likely to be resistant of Western values. Nowadays the Media also appeals to universal human emotions to arouse a desirable course of action. Media plays an important role in defining human attitudes and behaviors. This power of media can be used by the state to enhance a sense of nationalism within its populace.
Information is the ultimate power and insight can impact public discourse. Hence, perceptions are often altered due to access to media. Different forms of media are employed globally to disseminate knowledge and idealistically speaking, free mass media may be an enabler of and a signpost for democracy. Freedom of expression is not only the basis of a healthy media but also a fundamental human right, vital for a democratic arrangement. Media stands as a symbolization of freedom of speech, the right to information and the representation of diversity in opinions of a heterogeneous society. In any culture of prevention, free and democratic media is a crucial segment, indispensable for societies working towards making a transition into peaceful and democratic entities. As Harry S. Truman once stated, “You can never get all the facts from just one newspaper, and unless you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgements about what is going on’’.
In case of a predicament or a dispute, the international media can amass global attention. The mass media is a paramount part of our daily ritual especially in industrialized countries and thus being able to shine highlight conflicts anywhere in the world. Since most military conflicts recently have governmental and not territorial roots; the parties involved are often concerned with ensuring that masses support their narrative and take their side, which holds a lot of potential for misrepresentation of facts. For this particular reason, it is vital for the world’s public to have access to unbiased global media, free from political intrusion.
Journalism can not only help in distributing information but also counter hate-speech and make an environment of balanced opinions, an information equilibrium. This way people are often addressed directly, and their own personal experiences and lives can be incorporated far better, than with foreign media. Broadcasting news by utilizing network radios can help reach people in various zones, even with various dialects without any problem. In this way people are often communicated directly also their personal life experiences can be incorporated rather than with foreign media.
Internal clashes don’t happen unexpectedly, yet they have general history. Nearby media ordinarily have a more profound comprehension of the predominant political structures, the members of the contention likewise on the grounds that the progressions going before the episode of viciousness. The media can consequently not just impact society before the contention by perceiving and appropriately tending to the trouble yet in addition a short time later.
In the contemporary era, media enormous power cannot be denied. Over the past few decades, media has been influential in impacting people’s thinking on political, military and social issues. The overarching strategic goal of the international community should be to achieve cohesiveness in the society. The tactics through which it achieves this objective are plenty, the possibilities are as much as our imagination. The people, states all over the world needs to view themselves as a single cohesive unit without any fragmentation. To achieve this cohesiveness there needs to be some social ideals which are acceptable to all. The impact of electronic media on the behavior of human, impact on their mind. It is indeed considered a “mirror” of our society, culture, norms and values that shape our lives, mindset and perceptions of reality the way it wants.
Non-Traditional Threats: Peace and Security Dynamics in South Asia
The contemporary milieu, characterized by a changing global strategic environment, interdependence, real-time connectivity and fast-paced technological advancements, has led to a spillover effect that goes far beyond the territory of any single continent. The advent of cyberspace is rapidly mounting the medium of virtual environment with growing dominance and influence of Social Media and Content Sharing Platforms which is also the element of hybrid warfare and elements of non-traditional threat to peace and security of the states. The information and for that matter disinformation become powerful weapons, which possess the potential to alter foreign relations among nations and provides strategic victory to the best manipulator of information. Propaganda, misinformation and fake news have the potential to polarize public opinion, to promote violent extremism, hate speech and, ultimately to cause damage and create chaos within and outside the country. Resultantly, it de-stabilizes the victim state’s affairs.
Recently, a report by EU DisinfoLab revealed India’s deep rooted and long term led campaign against Pakistan by non-traditional use of power centers. India involved engagement of great and middle powers in its hybrid warfare agenda to destabilize and demoralize Pakistan. According to the report facts it advanced the situation of external and internal threats to subjects of Pakistan national security. As India increased involvement in funding and training separatist militias in Pakistan, conducting economic subversion by politicizing international bodies like FATF and carrying out diplomatic disruption in the form of disinformation campaigns.
This virtual nature of warfare has shifted the Center of Gravity notion. Terms like operational, tactical and strategic cannot be distinguished when focusing on the enemy’s Center of Gravity. Instead, the concept is to assess intentions of the enemy holistically.
A case of India’s disinformation campaign against Pakistan. The EU DisinfoLab European non-governmental organization (NGO) has published a report entitled “Indian Chronicles.” The report highlighted that the operation’s long-term objectives was to promote content against Pakistan and China, and consolidate India’s power at international forums such as the EU and UN. It revealed the extent of India’s disinformation network to discredit countries in conflict with it with a specific focus on Pakistan and to an extent on neighboring China.
Specifically, it targeted Pakistan through fake news, false testimonies at the UN Human rights Commission and spiteful propaganda campaign involving the EU members of Parliament. The investigation disclosed that fake news was created in Brussels, Geneva and across the world, reformed and disseminated through ANI to local media networks. Around 97 countries are part to multiply the online negative content about countries in conflict with India.
Over 750 Indian backed websites spread across 119 countries have been operating to undermine Pakistan since the last 15 years within the European Union and the United Nations, an investigative research by EU DisinfoLab showed in the report. Back in 2019, the DisinfoLab had uncovered 256 pro-Indian websites that were operating across 65 countries and steering a vast disinformation agenda campaign against Pakistan. All those websites traced back and rooted to a New Delhi based company, the Srivastava Group. In the new report, the campaign also involved regular media channels such as Asian News International (ANI) – India’s largest wire service and various fake NGOs including ten U.N. Human Rights Council-accredited NGOs, that were being used to target members of the EU and the U.N. The campaign used and impersonated renowned personalities and media houses such as Harvard Law faculty member Professor Louis B Sohn and EU Observer. Revelation of the disinformation campaign indicated the deep rooted and complex network of hybrid warfare against Pakistan based negative false propaganda and other destabilizing activities.
Implications on Bi-lateral Relations between India-Pakistan. The lethality of modern military options and cyber domain has made less relevant the total war or full scale conventional wars between nations as an instrument of state policy to settle disputes or to coerce any state. Though, military force remains a useful tool for deterrence rather than compellence and punishment between the nuclear-armed states. This report of Indian disinformation campaign has given impetus to assess the nuances of employment of sub-conventional conflicts and hybrid warfare as a means to harm the adversary, especially the nuclear-armed country like Pakistan. Hybrid and Information war is a full-spectrum of theatre without any limitation of just war theory through which both physical and psychological vulnerabilities of the target state are exploited. According to this report analysis, India utilized hybrid warfare tools in the exploitation of domestic fault lines like political, religious, economic, and societal to destabilize Pakistan internally and externally. They have been employing diplomatic and economic pressures to malign Pakistan’s image and in addition to make it economically frail.
Pakistan’s National security is encountering both traditional and non-traditional or sub conventional security challenges. The policymakers have adequately addressed the traditional security challenges, i.e., external military threats.
Indian damaging activities like disinformation campaign and other negative propaganda against Pakistan causes the impairment not only to Pakistan’s global image but also negatively distresses peace and stability of the region. It increases suspicion in Pakistan’s threat perception vis-à-vis India. It re-surfaces the already deep rooted mistrust among India-Pakistan. Further expand the tensions in the existing contentious issues between India-Pakistan specifically the Indian Occupied Kashmir. Additionally, the revelation of cyber related malicious campaigns by India, add problems and difficulties in paving any possibility of communication through talks and dialogue.
Conclusion. The non-traditional ways of creating instability in South Asia is a source of concern due to the dynamics of India-Pakistan relations and the recent 2019 episode of military crises between the two nuclear armed adversaries. India’s military and non-military operational strategies by keeping the threshold of engagement at multiple levels considered under control will may prove misperceived. Bluntly instigating hybrid warfare tactics by India, along with exponential induction of new technologies, including anti-satellite (ASAT) and hypersonic weapons. Furthermore, the conduct of Indian leadership as was witnessed during the 2019 military crisis, when the Indian PM tossed nuclear threats may lead the region towards further instability. Not to forget however, any such expectation would have consequences far beyond the India-Pakistan’s periphery.
Aside from the current negative trajectory, India and Pakistan have a history of negotiating experiences. India, though, remains reluctant to engage with Pakistan and such cyber related warfare tactics further blurs the possibilities of communication between the two states. On Pakistan side, although, the term hybrid and information warfare has gradually been gaining attention in Pakistani security policy discourse, yet its adequate securitization is further required. Thus, the situation warrants the adoption of a comprehensive policy involving all security related institutions to encounter hybrid warfare threats for state itself and for maintaining peace and stability in the region.
The Cyber Threat to Strategic Stability in South Asia
In the last decade of the 20th century and with the start of the 21st century we have seen a revolution in the field of information and communication technology. States, non-state actors, and even individuals began to use communication networks and computer systems for their daily life businesses. This hyper reliance on digital technologies succeeded to such an extent that it has rendered life impossible without using them. Dependence on information and communication technologies has benefited economic growth and increased connectivity between people around the globe. But this dependence on digital technologies brought with it numerous vulnerabilities. A constant threat of cyber-attacks has made life difficult not only for individuals but it has now wider implications for the security of the states also. Cyber intrusions have already disturbed bilateral relationships between many state and Pakistan and India are no exceptions
Cybersecurity is undermined when there is a disturbance is created by an adversary state or individuals. In cyberspace, threats can emerge from multiple sources, including state, non-state organizations, or criminal gangs’. Cybersecurity is undermined when the disturbance is created by an adversary state. Cyber-attack could potentially generate different kinds of disruption from cyber intrusion for espionage to attacking critical infrastructure that could produce kinetic results undermining the national security of a state. Hackers can steal a large sum of money, they could also be involved in stealing which is of primary importance for a state or institution. Viruses and malware can create disturbance in the computer system damaging the smooth flow of information.
A new threat also emerged in the South Asian political landscape. This new threat emerged in the shape of cyberwar. Although no major cyber-attack has occurred so far but India and Pakistan are regularly involved in small scale cyber-attacks. The majority of these attacks are about the defacement of websites belonging to government institutions as well as media houses. When a website is hacked the attacker usually places unwanted images or content on those websites. Pakistani hackers are usually called ‘Pakistan’s cyber army’ while Indians are called the ‘Indian Cyber Army’. Majority of the time these attacks were claimed by either Indian or Pakistan. Though this defacement does not produce any physical result it does have a social impact. It creates a disturbance in the minds of government officials and makes the masses believe that they are no longer protected by their state’s cybersecurity system. Moreover, Indian and Pakistan are regularly involved in cyber-attack for espionage. Both states try to steal important data that might benefit them in future endeavors. When tension is heightened between two states along the line of control in the disputed Kashmir region we see a massive surge in cyber-attack from both sides. In February 2019 post-Pulwama incident, the threat of cyber-attacks was massive from both sides. The Indian government has directed its cybersecurity institution to increase their capacity fearing massive cyber-attack from Pakistan’s side while on the other hand, Pakistani authorities were also asked to improve their cybersecurity by the official. This was done because the cyber-attack by the Indian side was increasing at a rapid pace.
Indian and Pakistan are at loggerheads for more than 70 years with no end in sight of this bitter conflict between them. Therefore reasonable chances are present that they will also use cyberspace to achieve their national interest. Offensive cyber-attacks on the critical infrastructure of one state could bring a conventional response from the other side. It is called escalation, and when it gets out of control it can bring the nuclear weapon into the theater of war. The problem with cyberspace is that it is sometimes very difficult to identify the perpetrators. In a time of crisis, a third party could exploit the situation by targeting the critical infrastructure of either India or Pakistan. The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) in his report once argued that “Tomorrow’s terrorists may be able to do more damage with a keyboard than with a bomb.
Therefore, to mitigate this emerging threat India and Pakistan have few options but the good thing is that they still have options. The first and most important of them is to build cyber norms. Both countries can build cyber norms between them. Norms mean acceptable behavior from both sides. A kind of hidden agreement from both sides that they will not target critical or strategic infrastructure. Secondly, both countries can develop an institutional structure that will regulate the cyberspace between them. This institutional structure will play an important role during the time of crisis.
Last but not the least, the best way to solve this cyber threat is to solve the longstanding issue between South Asian neighbors through peaceful means. The most important of them is the disputed Kashmir region due to which this region is called a nuclear flashpoint. With the peaceful settlement of Kashmir, cordial relations will start between two states which eventually will eliminate the security dilemma and the threat of war between them.
Kashmir, Article 370 and Pakistan’s Stance
Recent developments in the subcontinent have been daunting. India has revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which granted a special status to the valley of Jammu and Kashmir. After the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession in October 1947, leading to protests which resulted in the first Indo-Pak War, the defence, communications and foreign affairs of Jammu and Kashmir came under Indian jurisdiction. But as the population of the valley had not chosen India out of their free will, a middle ground had to be reached for the state machinery to operate. Therefore, the constituent assembly of Kashmir was formed in 1954 with the purpose of formulating a constitutional framework for Kashmir. Under this assembly, article 370 only applied those provisions of the Indian constitution on Kashmir which were originally stated in the instrument of accession. Therefore, Indian nationals could not buy a franchise in the valley or own property there. But the constituent assembly dissolved itself in 1957; it neither fulfilled its purpose nor gave a decisive solution on the viability of article 370. Thus, the special status inferred on Indian Occupied Kashmir during the Nehruvian era prevailed.
In retrospect, when India took the matter of Kashmir to the United Nations on 1st January 1948, the UN established a special commission under article 39 and demanded that India hold a free and fair plebiscite for the Kashmiri people’s right of self-determination under UNSC Resolution 47. Although both countries welcomed this mediation offer, India never fulfilled its part of the deal and the plebiscite has not been held since. Subsequently, under the Simla Agreement of 1972, both countries agreed to respect the Line of Control maintained after the ceasefire in the 1971 Indo-Pak war and to treat the Kashmir issue as a bilateral concern with an option of third-party mediation. Surprisingly, India has always insisted that Kashmir is a bilateral issue under the Simla Agreement, which is technically a falsehood.
The rise of the BJP in the 1990s and the resultant nationalist urges always pushed for the government to seize Kashmir, without any concern as to the legal prospects of the issue. The BJP fulfilled its Hindu nationalist dream on 5th August 2019 when it revoked Article 370 and stripped Kashmir of its special status. This constitutional coup was supported by a surge in the number of Indian troops in the valley and a communications blackout. Kashmir has been in a state of panic since, and the global community is silent. Pakistan has urged the world to intervene but India’s insistence on it being a matter of internal concern has deterred any offer of mediation so far.
The approach adopted by India strikingly resembles that of Israel. Israel, after the Oslo Agreement of 1993, seized control of the major territory of the West Bank. But the remaining area, which was not under Israel’s direct control, was also not safe from Israel’s colonial endeavours. It expels the Palestinians from their homes, props up housing developments in their areas and brings Israelis people to settle them there. In moving ahead with its forced settlements and occupation, it is aiming at changing the demography and history of Palestine.
But why is the world silent? Why is Pakistan taking a mellow stance? Why does it seem that the pleas of Kashmiris are falling on deaf ears? It is because the language and morality of states in international relations is different from that of individual morality. First, despite the United States’ recent offer of mediation, it is not involving itself in the issue because it has a strong trade relationship with India and it would not endanger its economic prospects. Second, China, despite its ties to Pakistan, conducts a bilateral trade of a tremendous annual scale with India. Although it has shown concern over the Ladakh region, it cannot act as an exclusive party between India and Pakistan. Third, the United Nations has been rendered toothless and its depth and scope of authority has wavered through the years. It has been unable to help the Palestinians and the Rohingya Muslims. Powerful states have scrapped the demands of the UN on various occasions. Fourth, Pakistan is depressingly weak on its diplomatic front. The Pulwama stint was avoided due to a moderate escalation and the Pakistani nation was infused with courage due to its quick military responses. But Pakistan’s performance on the diplomatic front has been disappointing. For instance, the ICJ chided Pakistan for not providing consular access to Kulbushan Jhadav, the FATF has been on Pakistan’s back for many years now and Pakistan has not found itself in diplomatically friendly hands recently due to its perpetual economic woes. Therefore, the internal weaknesses of Pakistan gave India the chance to adopt a hard stance on Kashmir, because it was aware that Pakistan would not have much ground to manoeuvre.
However, from another perspective, Pakistan’s calm can be decoded as a political move. Imran Khan’s visit to the US was a success on many levels. The US has been wanting to leave Afghanistan for a while now, and it is evident that this feat cannot be achieved without Pakistan’s help. Therefore, it is possible that America and Pakistan reached a mutual consensus on the issues of Kashmir and Afghanistan. A quid pro quo. And the hasty moves of India are a retaliation to Donald Trump’s offers of mediation. But these matters in international relations take more than a few days and weeks to materialize. Perhaps, once the Americans have a guarantee of ensured peace in Afghanistan, they will turn their attention to Kashmir. And if it does not, then also Pakistan will have an edge. Because it would have been a successful and indispensable stakeholder in the Afghan Peace Process, and it would have gained an international footing to demand a serious stance from the global powers on the issue of Kashmir.
These are harrowing times for the Kashmir cause and Pakistan cannot do anything but urge other countries to intervene on its behalf. It is imperative for Pakistan to complete its diplomatic homework and improve its politics in the international arena. Because a slow or weak response can cost Pakistan dearly in the form of lost allies and weakened credibility.