Category: Saved Web Pages – Audio Posts

Because people have been spying for most history, it’s easy to forget that our intelligence bureaucracy was developed primarily to fight the Cold War. After the Cold War the digital revolution took off. The consequent transformation of the information environment is the most important development in the history of intelligence, at least since the Second World War.

Australia must adapt its National Intelligence Community (NIC) to information age. It’s true that Australia and its Five Eyes partners have reformed the intelligence institutions established in the Cold War. But the lodestar of reform for the last two decades has been counterterrorism. The independent review of NIC, which will submit its report in 2024, should focus more directly than its predecessors did on the challenges of information age.  

The sheer volume of information is its most striking feature. Turning torrents of data into useful information increasingly requires specialist skills. The disciplines of collation, verification, curation, and analysis have come to be known as open-source intelligence (OSINT). OSINT organisations, ranging from commercial data brokers to investigative NGOs such as Bellingcat are producing more intelligence that rivals that of secret intelligence organisations.

But OSINT won’t replace secret intelligence. Australia needs – perhaps more than ever – to understand the secret intentions and capabilities of its competitors and adversaries. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the value of both forms of intelligence. OSINT has pierced the fog of war while, the United States and United Kingdom used secret intelligence before Russia’s invasion to alert allies and “pre-bunk” Russian disinformation.

The real challenge is to balance and integrate the production of OSINT and secret intelligence. OSINT should provide foundational intelligence. Scarce classified resources to be focussed on hardest targets and most valuable secrets. Secret intelligence should be used to direct, refine and validate OSINT. Quality OSINT can be shared with allies and partners far more easily than secret intelligence because the risk to sources and methods is greatly reduced.

Still, integration remains a challenge because OSINT and secret intelligence differ in fundamental ways. According to intelligence expert Amy Zegart, they are different “ecosystems”. Each discipline has distinct advantages and disadvantages. OSINT is cheaper and faster. Secret intelligence is more tailored and revelatory. A degree of opacity is necessary for secret intelligence while transparency usually improves the quality of OSINT.

Integration remains a challenge (Rosie Steggles/Unsplash)

But secrecy comes at a cost. Secret intelligence organisations tend to over-classify and under share information. They generate a culture secrecy which views information as valuable because it is secret rather than vice versa. This culture is at odds with the new information environment and frequently invoked as the main obstacle to the adoption of OSINT by secret intelligence organisations.

Australian intelligence organisations are making more and smarter use of OSINT. But the NIC remains geared towards secret intelligence. That’s not surprising. Australian intelligence was, after all, established as part of a multi-layered Five Eyes bureaucracy designed to collect, protect, analyse and disseminate secrets. That bureaucracy delivered important wins in the Cold War and the war on terrorism, but a major shift towards OSINT is now necessary.

Australia should establish a dedicated OSINT organisation within the NIC. This would recognise – and make the most of – the fundamental differences between OSINT and secret intelligence. Housing the OSINT agency within the portfolio of Foreign Affairs and Trade would better connect it to the vast but under-utilised pool of knowledge contained in DFAT’s international network.

Done right, this reform could also disrupt the culture of excessive secrecy. The integration of OSINT and secret intelligence should not preclude healthy competition between the two disciplines. Secret intelligence is already competing with unverified social media feeds for the attention of ministers. A more managed competition between OSINT and secret intelligence should be harnessed to improve the overall quality of intelligence, regardless of its source.

Competitive pressure from OSINT should encourage the NIC to focus on valuable secrets, to correctly classify information and to prioritise the usability of intelligence. The downgrade, declassification and dissemination of intelligence by the United States and United Kingdom before and during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been rightly hailed as a success. But it is also true that much of this intelligence was, therefore, originally over-classified.

National security in the information era will depend more on the ability of states to obtain, protect and use data. But the new information environment is still taking shape. New technologies are both clarifying and confusing. We still have much to learn about the complex dynamics of information competition virality and disinformation, as well as how these dynamics shape human perception, cognition and action.

So, the NIC must, above all, become more flexible. Already, the distinction between OSINT and secret intelligence is starting to blur as cyberspace is fragmented by digital sovereignty, firewalls, and ubiquitous encryption. It’s distinctly possible that what we now know as secret intelligence will one day be a niche specialisation within the larger OSINT enterprise. Establishing a dedicated OSINT organisation would not cause such a radical shift. But it would better prepare Australia for that, and other, possibilities.

Ben Scott is author of Adapting Australian intelligence to the information age, an Occasional Paper published this week by ANU National Security College.

Senior Hamas officials Bassem Naim and Moussa Abu Marzouk, and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov meet for talks on the release of foreign hostages, at a location given as Moscow, Russia in this handout image released on October 26, 2023. Hamas Handout/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo Acquire Licensing Rights

US pressures Israel to end war against Hamas ‘in a month’

December 07 2023, 10.05pm

Russian officials are demonstrating a sudden shift in rhetorics over the Israel-Hamas war — the question is how consistent can the Kremlin be

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Representative of Russia’s President for the Middle East Mikhail Bogdanov demanded immediate release of hostages held in Gaza. The statement was made in the telephone calls held on Sunday and Monday with Hamas and other Palestinian groups, stated Russian Foreign Ministry.

Earlier on Sunday, Russia’s FM Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia had immediately condemned Hamas’s terrorist attack on October 7. He said that the Kremlin only maintains relations with the group’s political wing.

HANDOUT / RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY / AFPRussian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meeting with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in Tehran.

“Hamas carried out a terrorist attack on October 7, which we immediately condemned. Hamas has a political branch operating in Doha and we have a relationship with that political branch,” he said.

“We immediately contacted the people in Doha to discuss the fate of the people taken hostage,” added Lavrov. He then noted that this was said in regard of the Russian nationals as well as the citizens of the neighbouring countries.

Such a dramatic change in the public narrative comes as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin held an almost one-hour long telephone conversation on Sunday. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) said that Israel’s PM openly criticized Russian officials’ stance on the Israel-Hamas war and Moscow’s intensifying dialogue with Iran.

Earlier on Thursday, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi paid a visit to Moscow to reportedly discuss with Putin bilateral cooperation as well as “regional and global issues, notably the Palestinian situation and ongoing developments in Gaza,” said Iran’s Irna news agency.

Hamas Telegram channelIran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani (L), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Putin’s Special Envoy to the Middle East Mikhail Bogdanov (C), and Hamas head of international relations Mousa Abu Marzouk (R), at a trilateral meeting in Moscow .

Deputy FM Bogdanov was also among those who held talks with the Hamas delegation in Moscow back in October. Namely, he met with Hamas head of international relations Mousa Abu Marzouk joined by Iran’s Deputy FM Ali Bagheri Kani.

Read more stories like this >>

• Netanyahu criticizes ‘dangerous’ Russia-Iran cooperation directly to Putin >>

• After 8 weeks, UN Women condemns Hamas’s sexual violence on Oct.7 >>

• Israel’s UN envoy wears Holocaust-era symbol, rails against Iranian regime >>

Published: 13:28 GMT, 13 December 2023 | Updated: 14:07 GMT, 13 December 2023

En el cuadro geopolítico global, hay regiones que, aunque geográficamente pequeñas, tienen una notable influencia en las relaciones internacionales. Osetia del Sur y Abjasia, dos entidades territoriales separatistas situadas en la región del Cáucaso en Georgia, son un vivo ejemplo de este fenómeno. Ambas regiones han estado en el centro de conflictos intensificados caracterizados por tensiones étnicas, desafíos territoriales y disputas geopolíticas.

CÁUCASO SUR, UNA REGIÓN HISTÓRICAMENTE CONVULSA

Si vamos a un mapa del mundo, vemos una región bastante turbulenta, situada en el Cáucaso, allí vemos que hay dos territorios, Osetia del Sur y Abjasia. Partiendo desde el inicio de estos problemas en ambos territorios, nos encontramos con la URSS. No es algo sorprendente. La historia de las tensiones entre estas dos regiones se remonta a la Edad Media, cuando ambos territorios formaban parte del reino georgiano.

En el siglo XIX, Osetia del Sur y Abjasia se convirtieron en territorios autónomos dentro de Georgia Imperial. La identidad étnica y cultural de estas regiones también se fue configurando de manera independiente por lo que hubo una creciente tensión étnica y política que hizo que se creara un conflicto abierto en 1918, cuando ambas regiones se declararon independientes. Georgia, por su parte, rechazó esta declaración y, en 1921, las fuerzas georgianas lanzaron una última campaña militar para someter al pueblo de Osetia del Sur y Abjasia.

Mapa de la guerra de Georgia en 2008 cuando tropas rusas entraron en territorio de Georgia en Abjazia y Osetia.

A principios del siglo XX, la región estaba inmersa en el contexto geopolítico del Imperio Ruso. Ambas regiones, tanto Osetia del Sur como Abjasia, eran parte de la periferia sur del imperio y compartían fronteras con el Imperio Otomano al sur y el Imperio Persa al sureste. En 1920, tras la Revolución Rusa y la creación de manera formal de la URSS, la región del Cáucaso fue escenario de cambios significativos, sobre todo en la zona sur. Un año más tarde, la RepúblicaDemocrática de Georgia fue ocupada por el Ejercito Rojo, y se estableció la Republica Socialista Soviética de Georgia. Esto solo buscaba consolidar el control centralizado y homogeneizar las identidades dentro de la URSS.

En 1930, Josef Stalin, nacido en Georgia, comenzó a desempeñar un papel crucial en la reconfiguración de las fronteras internas de la Unión Soviética. Se crearon repúblicas autónomas, como las de Osetia del Sur y Abjasia, que, bajo un marco soviético buscaba conciliar la diversidad étnica que existía en ambas regiones y ofrecerles un mínimo nivel de autogobierno, a pesar de que estaban subordinadas a Moscú.

Con la desintegración de la URSS llegaron los problemas

Tras la desintegración de la URSS en 1991, tanto Osetia del Sur como Abjasia se encontraron en una de las situaciones mas complejas de su corta vida. Las tensiones que habían estado latentes durante el periodo soviético se intensificaron, y ambos territorios declararon su independencia de Georgia. Este proceso llevó a grandes conflictos armados y a la creación de partidos políticos que abogaban por el separatismo de estas regiones.

En el caso de Abjasia, el conflicto más intenso tuvo lugar de 1992 a 1993, las fuerzas de abjasia, con el apoyo de voluntarios y tropas rusas, se enfrentaron a las fuerzas georgianas. El resultado del conflicto fue la independencia defacto de Abjasia en 1993, aunque, para la desgracia de todos los habitantes de la zona que apoyaban esto, la comunidad internacional, en su mayoría, no reconocieron su independencia. A pesar de ello, Rusia mantuvo su presencia militar en la región y, posteriormente, les otorgó la ciudadanía rusa a muchos abjasios.

Abjasia celebra el 30.º aniversario de su independencia de Georgia. Fuente: Agencia EFE

En el otro caso, el de Osetia del Sur, el conflicto armado más significativo fue en los mismos años que, tras una breve tregua, los enfrentamientos se reavivaron en 2008. El conflicto entre Georgia y Rusia, conocido como la Guerra Ruso-Georgiana, tuvo un grandísimo impacto en Osetia del Sur, recordemos que esta región esta altamente vinculada con Rusia. Después de estos enfrentamientos, Rusia reconoció también la independencia de Osetia del Sur, lo que genero aún mas rencillas entre Rusia y sus vecinos. En la actualidad, los países que reconocen a estas dos regiones son, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru y Siria, aparte de Rusia.

Desde el momento del “fin” de la guerra entre Rusia y Georgia, el país liderado por Putin ha reafirmado su posición. Las relaciones comerciales que mantienen los ahora Estados de facto con Rusia son prácticamente exclusivas. Según un informe de Routledge, llamado “East European Politics” la economía de Osetia del Sur está basada en las importaciones e inversiones rusas, pero, por otro lado, sus importaciones no van más allá de productos agrícolas de una calidad muy inferior a la que el país ruso puede acceder. Abjasia, por su parte, sí se beneficia de una mayor inversión en infraestructura de varios países extranjeros entre los que se incluyen, por ejemplo, a Turquía.

Regiones separatistas ocupadas por Rusia en Georgia. (Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales)

Algo muy característico es que en ambas regiones se usa el rublo ruso, la cooperación también se extiende al plano militar, que es el que más le interesa a Rusia, se firmaron acuerdos militares con ambas regiones en 2014 y 2015generando un gran descontento en los países occidentales viendo el poder que tenía en la zona. Estos acuerdos vienen precedidos de la anexión rusa de Crimea en marzo de 2014.

¿Qué está pasando en la actualidad en la zona?

En la actualidad y con las recientes contiendas abiertas por parte de Rusia, varios medios se han hecho eco de los planes que pudieran tener en estas dos regiones. “La idea de unirse a Rusia sigue siendo popular en Abjasia y Osetia del Sur […] Es muy posible que se lleve a cabo si hay buenas razones para ello”, estas fueron las palabras que recogía el periódico ruso, Argumenty i Fakti, de un discurso que ofreció el actual vicepresidente del Consejo de Seguridad ruso,Dmitri Medvédv. Este plan podría ser altamente beneficioso para Rusia y a su vez letal. Georgia ha mejorado exponencialmente su relación con la Unión Europea. En el año 2014, se firmaron los Acuerdos de Asociación, que incluían un Acuerdo de Libre Comercio Integral y Reforzado. También la Unión Europea ha proporcionado asistencia financiera a Georgia para poder respaldar su desarrollo económico e implementar reformas, han creado un plan de facilidad de movilidad para las personas de diferentes lugares hasta Georgia y, la parte más importante, la Unión Europea también se ha reafirmado con su compromiso con la integridad territorial de Georgia y ha expresado su apoyo a una solución pacifica y negociada para los conflictos en las regiones de Osetia del Sur y Abjasia.

Influencia económica rusa en los países del Cáucaso Sur. (Geopolitical Futures)

Esto podría hacer que si, en un futuro, tal y como afirma Medvédv, Rusia se pone en marcha para conseguir anexionar los dos territorios, a pesar de su sentimiento ruso, la UE saldría en defensa del pueblo georgiano por lo que se abriría una contienda que, por rivales, Rusia no estaría dispuesta a jugar.

NOTA: Los planteamientos e ideas contenidas en los artículos de análisis y opinión son responsabilidad exclusiva, en cada caso, del analista, sin que necesariamente representen las ideas de GEOPOL 21.

Good morning. Joe Biden said Benjamin Netanyahu must change tack, warning that Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza risked leaving the country isolated.

Offering his harshest criticism of the Israeli prime minister’s far-right coalition since Israel began its military offensive in response to Hamas’s October 7 attack, the US president said Israel is “starting to lose . . . support” around the world.

Speaking to donors at a political fundraiser, Biden described Netanyahu’s coalition as “the most conservative government in Israel’s history . . . [that] doesn’t want a two-state solution”, adding: “I think he has to change, and with this government, this government in Israel is making it very difficult for him to move.”

Biden until now had largely resisted publicly pressuring Netanyahu even as US officials said they have had tough conversations in private.

Earlier yesterday, Netanyahu acknowledged that his government and the Biden administration disagreed over how Gaza should be run once Israel’s war with Hamas ends. Here’s more on the emerging differences between the two leaders.

• Related: Washington expects the most intensive phase of Israel’s war on Hamas in southern Gaza to be scaled back and become more targeted as soon as early January, US officials said.

Here’s what else I’m keeping tabs on today:

• Economic data: EU reports monthly industrial production figures, while the UK releases its monthly GDP estimate for October.

• Monetary policy: The US Federal Reserve is widely expected to hold rates steady when it announces its latest monetary policy decision.

• Reports: Opec publishes its monthly Oil Market Report.

Five more top stories

1. China’s President Xi Jinping lauded Beijing’s security and commercial ties with Vietnam yesterday as he kicked off a state visit to the south-east Asian country. Vietnam has become a critical global supply hub not only for western companies diversifying out of China but also for Chinese manufacturers. Xi’s trip also sought to counter growing ties between the US and Vietnam.

• US-China news: The Federal Reserve should be required to stress test US banks’ ability to “withstand a potential sudden loss of market access to China”, according to a congressional committee.

2. The UN climate summit was headed towards eleventh-hour negotiations yesterday as the majority of countries present clashed with Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations over whether to commit to the phaseout of fossil fuels. Diplomats said Riyadh was the key obstacle to a stronger declaration and was backed by other Opec and Opec+ countries such as Iraq and Russia.

3. The US has hit companies in Turkey, the UAE and China with sanctions as part of a sweeping effort to stop the Russian defence industry easily obtaining sensitive technologies for Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. More than 250 entities were covered by the measures, which also reached deep into Russia’s war economy, even targeting a provincial bakery refitted to make drones.

4. Indian authorities have stepped up efforts to control domestic supplies and prices of agricultural commodities such as sugar, onions and wheat ahead of next year’s general election. The moves came on top of existing restrictions on exports of rice, wheat and sugar that have sent shockwaves through global markets.

5. UK businesses in China see 2024 as a “pivotal year” for Beijing to address growing concerns over its flagging economy and investment environment, the British Chambers of Commerce said yesterday. A survey of UK companies across China showed sentiment had improved from record levels of pessimism last year, but 60 per cent of respondents still believed business was more challenging than in 2022.

News in-depth

India’s appeal as a “China plus one” manufacturing hub may depend on how the country and foreign investors resolve one glaring issue: how and where to get enough workers in the right place. As the likes of Apple and Foxconn shift more production to India, executives hope staff will be willing to leave their homes and families to live on site at factories — with a dormitory bed as their only private space.

We’re also reading . . . 

• Iran’s ‘first lady’: It is highly unusual for the wife of an Iranian leader to promote her own views. But Jamileh-Sadat Alamolhoda has broken with tradition to speak to the FT.

• Kishore Mahbubani: The west is losing the respect of the rest of the world, writes The Asian 21st Century author, who calls for the west and the global south to talk to each other as equals.

• China’s deflation challenge: The country should stimulate consumption with spending on education, healthcare and public housing, writes Morgan Stanley’s chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya.

Chart of the day

A boom in private equity helped turn Kirkland & Ellis into the world’s most profitable law firm. But as dealmaking slows amid rising interest rates, the Chicago firm faces a reckoning, its fortunes entwined with those of the $13tn private capital industry.

Four years after it was razed in a bushfire, Australia’s Southern Ocean Lodge has risen from the ashes and welcomed its first guests last week. The FT’s Maria Shollenbarger recounts the emotional reopening of the celebrated wilderness lodge on Kangaroo Island.

Additional contributions from Tee Zhuo and Gordon Smith

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (C), accompanied by US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (R) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (L), arrives to meet with members of the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill on Dec. 12. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP