Indian intelligence Agencies : News & Updates

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,745
6,057

What is ‘Five Eyes’, the intelligence alliance US wants South Korea, India, Japan to be part of​

New Delhi: The United States of America seeks to invite South Korea to join the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence-sharing alliance, according to a report in The Korea Herald.

This comes days after a US House of Representatives panel approved the National Defense Authorisation bill for fiscal year 2022, on 2 September, before the House of Representatives votes on it.

First introduced on 2 July by Representatives Adam Smith and Mike Rogers, the bill is primarily meant to officially authorise funding for American military activities & the armed forces for the next fiscal year. This also includes the potential of continued support for intelligence sharing operations with US allies, including member nations of the Five Eyes.

The Five Eyes alliance found mention in the congressional Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations’ report reviewing Smith and Rogers’ draft bill.

“The committee believes that, in confronting great power competition [from China and Russia], the Five Eye countries must work closer together, as well as expand the circle of trust to other like-minded democracies”, the report said. Along with Korea, three other countries — Japan, India and Germany — were proposed as possible new members.

If passed by the US House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by President Joe Biden, the National Defense Authorisation bill for fiscal year 2022 will lead to the official expansion of the ‘Five Eyes’ to the ‘Nine Eyes’.

However, the South Korean government is yet to express its “official stance” on a potential expansion of the Five Eyes and cited that the level of discussions in the US remain “nascent”, The Korea Herald report says.

‘Five Eyes’

The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance consisting of the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The origins of the Five Eyes can be traced back to the informal meetings between the US and UK code-breakers during the Second World War.

In 1941, British and American intelligence members began engaging in secret meetings before signing the Atlantic Charter that August, which listed global objectives for the two countries beyond the conclusion of the war.

According to the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), this Charter paved the way for the Britain-USA agreement, and later the UKUSA agreement, which was signed in 1946.

Declassified UKUSA intelligence documents confirm that the agreement was expanded to include Canada in 1948, and Australia and New Zealand in 1956, thereby creating the Five Eyes alliance, partly due to past shared Commonwealth heritage.


Five Eyes & Cold War

The alliance was created during the Cold War that was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as their respective allies.

Throughout the Cold War, covert intelligence operations were commonplace, and often the main currency for the parties involved. As such, alliances needed to share sensitive information regarding their adversaries on all possible fronts available.

In the case of Five Eyes, Political Science professor Andrew O’Neil says the alliance members engaged in “ocean surveillance, covert action, human intelligence collection and counterintelligence”, as well as the ECHELON surveillance programme since the 1960s.

The Five Eyes countries also frequently shared intelligence with other allied nations in Europe and Asia, also known as “third parties”, during the Cold War.

For instance, Japan shared military signals with the United States from the 1969 Sino-Soviet conflict as well as the 1979 Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan, Japanese historian Ken Kotani said in the East Asia Forum.

Push to include other countries

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the strategic objectives of the Five Eyes changed, with the war on terror and later the perceived threats of China and Russia emerging as points of intelligence and spheres of influence.

As such, the potential to expand the Five Eyes beyond the Anglosphere has been repeatedly talked about in recent years.

For instance, US lawmakers in 2013 requested the then president Barack Obama to include Germany in the alliance, according to a report by Deutsche Welle.

In 2019, a US Congressional Committee led by Representative Adam Schiff pushed for the integration of India, Japan and South Korea at par with ‘Five Eyes’ for intelligence sharing so as to maintain peace in the Indo-Pacific region.

In 2020, India and Japan had joined the Five Eyes nations in a joint appeal to tech companies to permit “backdoor access” to encrypted applications on smartphones.

‘Nine Eyes’? Bill Would Look at Adding Four Countries to Intel-Sharing Pact​

Lawmaker says current ‘Anglophile view’ is insufficient against China.​

Updated, Nov. 3, 12:16 p.m. to add Gen. Paul Nakasone's comments.
The United States’ “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing pact is a World War II relic that needs updating to better keep tabs on China, the chairman of a key house subcommittee on intelligence told Defense One.

Arizona Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on special operations and intelligence, has added language in this year’s defense bill that opens the door for the decades-old pact’s first expansion.

The provision would require the director of national intelligence and the Defense Department to report on the current status and shortcomings of intelligence sharing between the “Five Eyes” nations: the U.S., Australia, the U.K., New Zealand, and Canada, and what benefits and risks there would be to adding Japan, Korea, India, and Germany to the trusted group.

“We are very much stuck on this ‘Five Eyes’ model, which I think is outdated,” Gallego said at Defense One and Nextgov’s 2021 National Security Forum. “We need to expand the scope. It shouldn’t just be such an Anglophile view of sharing.”

The provision says, in part: “The committee acknowledges that the threat landscape has vastly changed since the inception of the Five Eyes arrangement, with primary threats now emanating from China and Russia. The committee believes that, in confronting great power competition, the Five Eye countries must work closer together, as well as expand the circle of trust to other like-minded democracies."

At the Aspen Security Forum Wednesday, National Security Agency director Gen. Paul Nakasone said he thought the U.S. would continue to build new security partnerships but that the Five Eyes would continue as-is.

“New security challenges to our nation are going to require us to look at forming other partnerships, but I think, you know, rightfully so…the Five Eyes will continue and I think that will continue very strongly,” said Nakasone, who also serves as the head of U.S. Cyber Command.

Dustin Carmack, who served as chief of staff to former National Intelligence director John Ratcliffe, said the U.S. has already increased its intelligence sharing and cooperation with Indo-Pacific nations, and that a formal change to the Five Eyes “is a lot easier said than done.”

“I think a lot of the work is already being done, personally, behind the scenes, to kind of build better links,” said Carmack, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

For example, the U.S. has since 2018 finalized key agreements to share military communications and bases with India, deals that were negotiated by the Obama and Trump administrations.

“I’m all for it,” said Carmack, but cautioned that each added country would need to be assessed to determine whether they could protect the Five Eyes’ intelligence collection sources and methods.

“When it comes to the Five Eyes, you know, information that has to be protected inside that relationship is very difficult to protect,” Carmack said.
The “Five Eyes” started during World War II as an intelligence-sharing agreement between the U.S. and U.K. to defeat the Axis powers, and grew to include the other three member countries. The pact has lasted more than seven decades.

Over the last few years, China has several times surprised the member countries, as with its summer’s tests of a hypersonic missile that circled the globe.

Gallego said adding Japan, South Korea, and India would allow the U.S. to expand its network of espionage assets to better monitor China through those nations’ cultural ties and location.

“We have worked greatly with South Korea for many years and they probably have better assets in China and in Asia that we could be working with, but we don’t have that relationship with them where we can share as much information as we do with Britain,” he said.

Gallego said it would likely be an uphill battle of both bureaucracy and norms to change the pact after so many years, and that further study would be needed on each potential partner’s intelligence relationships. But the benefits—both of securing stronger diplomatic ties and improving intelligence—are worth it, he said.

“It is basically a warning to China, as well as a shot in the arm to these nations, that ‘we trust you so much that we are putting you in our sacred circle of intelligence sharing,’” Gallego said.

Each of the Five Eyes countries are still majority-white countries with shared European ancestry. Gallego said he suspects there will be pushback to diversifying.

“I think you are going to have some people who are culturally unaware and at some base level are just xenophobic about sharing information with largely Asian, non-Anglo nations,” Gallego said. “Honestly, they are just going to have to get over that, because this is a whole new world that we are going to be fighting in. And we are likely going to be fighting with these friends, and we don’t want to be in a fight without them.”
Gallego’s provision was included in the House version of the NDAA, which was passed in September. The Senate has not yet passed its version, which will need to be reconciled with the House version before it is sent on to President Joe Biden for his signature.
 

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,745
6,057

Will India be joining the world’s most exclusive intelligence club?​

From high in the stratosphere, some 20,000 metres above the Caribbean Sea, the unblinking eye of a technological god gazed out over the rice fields of Los Palacios, west of Havana. The images from the U2 spycraft’s Hycon 73B camera, taken on October 14, 1962, recorded a Soviet military convoy passing down a road. Then, analysts hunched over a light table in the Stuart Building in downtown Washington noticed something else: six SS4 medium-range ballistic missiles, capable of delivering nuclear warheads deep inside the United States.

“We are sitting on the biggest story of our time”, National Photo Interpretation Centre chief Arthur Lundahl told his staff. Within hours, the image took the world to the edge of a nuclear war—and then helped it back again.


Efforts are now gathering to place India inside the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ club led by the United States, the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering alliance in human history. In language drafted by Senator Ruben Gallego, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on special operations and intelligence, the United States’ defence authorisation bill for 2022 has called on the Director of National Intelligence to report on the benefits and risks of expanding “the circle of trust to other like-minded democracies”.

This means Five Eyes could include Japan, South Korea and India, as well as European partners critical to fighting what some believe is a looming Cold War against China. Ever since at least 2015, the United States and India have discussed tightening their intelligence relationship, even some kind of associate membership of the Five Eyes. The bill’s language suggests the idea is gathering traction.

In principle, Five Eyes membership will give India the support it desperately needs to push back against the People’s Liberation Army’s massive military power: New Delhi’s ability to harvest and decrypt Chinese strategic communication, as well as its pool of language and regional expertise, has long been anaemic. Like all deals, though, this one involves hidden terms and conditions—some of them less than attractive.

Five Eyes had its genesis in intelligence-sharing between the United States and United Kingdom in the Second World War, which expanded into a formal alliance by 1955, involving the English-speaking democracies. Listening stations run by five countries across the world, supplemented from the 1970s by satellites, allowed their intelligence services to suck up virtually all electronic communication from around the planet. For example, part of the inter-city microwave signals carrying phone traffic went into space, because of the curvature of the earth.

The scale of Five Eyes' operations began to become public from the 1990s, based on disclosures made by New Zealand's Nicky Hager, American James Bamford, and British journalist Duncan Campbell. Fears mounted that member-states might use the alliance to conduct espionage against their own citizens, as well as to further their commercial interests.

In 2000 and 2001, the European Parliament released reports suggesting the fears were well founded. The furore forced former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey to admit that the United States did conduct espionage in Europe, both targeting entities violating international sanctions and paying bribes to gain contracts. He claimed commercial and economic intelligence of this kind was not passed on to companies in the United States.

Fred Stock, a former Canadian intelligence officer, earlier gave testimony that suggested Woolsey was, at best, telling part of the truth. Stock said he had been expelled from his service in 1993 for criticising its targeting of economic and civilian targets—among them, information on negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Chinese grain purchases, and French weapons sales.

Evidence also emerged that the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on United States targets—though not on its own soil, thus bypassing national legislation. Margaret Newsham, who worked at Five Eyes’ Menwith Hill facility in the United Kingdom from 1977 to 1981, testified that conversations involving the late Senator Strom Thurmond had been intercepted. The technology to target conversations involving particular people, she said, had existed from 1978.

Newsham’s revelations seemed to buttress what many had long suspected—which is that the Five Eyes agreement allowed the United States and the United Kingdom to spy on their own citizens, by the simple expedient of subcontracting the task to their alliance partner.

The massive scale of Five Eyes' operations across the world and their ability to penetrate even well-defended computer networks were underlined by former United States NSA officer Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations. The Snowden leak demonstrated that large-scale electronic surveillance compromised the privacy rights of even the citizens of Five Eyes partners.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey.

Leaving aside privacy issues, though, do the national-security benefits of Five Eyes membership outweigh its risks? The answer isn’t as obvious as it seems. For one, surveillance technology can potentially be used by vendors against suppliers. For decades, countries across the world—including India, Pakistan and Iran—purchased encrypted communications equipment from Swiss firm CryptoAG. In 2015, though, declassified NSA documents showed the firm, which was secretly owned by the CIA and Germany’s BND, designed encryption algorithms which allowed their intelligence services to listen-in to the traffic.

The CIA was thus able to monitor Iran’s Ayatollahs during the 1979 revolution, crisis, pass on Argentinian military communications to the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, and discover evidence that Libyan officials had been responsible for a terrorist bombing in Berlin.

Likely, the United States was also able to listen-in to significant parts of Indian and Pakistani communications-intelligence traffic—though the available archive of declassified documentation does not suggest either country’s nuclear and military programmes were affected. The United States had begun to supply the Research and Analysis Wing's Aviation Research Centre equipment to spy on China's nuclear programme and naval assets from 1962; no one knows for certain what might have been compromised.

Five Eyes’ partner states understand these dilemmas; countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand have concluded that their strategic interests are best served even at the risk of their own secrecy being compromised. New Delhi and/or Tokyo might come to the same conclusion—but the decision will have to be weighed carefully.

The second problem with Five Eyes membership has to do with what scholar Kristie Macrakis has described as the intelligence community’s “technophilic hubris”. Even though the United States spent an estimated 70% of its gargantuan intelligence budget on technological means, Macrakis has demonstrated that the Soviet Union achieved more using old-fashioned human espionage. Soviet intelligence services were able to recruit spies in the heart of the United States’ nuclear weapons programme, as well as its communications intelligence technologies and operations.

In one famous case, the CIA burrowed a tunnel under Berlin, to listen to Soviet phone communications. From the time plans began in 1953, the tunnel had already been betrayed to the Soviets through the British double-agent, George Blake. The Soviets fed misleading communications through the network, deceiving their opponents.

Even the famous U2 images that led to exposure of the Soviet Union’s nuclear missiles in Cuba were only generated because of intelligence provided by Oleg Penkovsky, a military intelligence officer in Moscow who passed on information on the intermediate-range ballistic missiles to the United States. Lacking that information, photo-interpretation experts would likely not have recognised the facilities near Moscow.

The lesson isn’t that intelligence technology isn’t useful—just that it has limitations. Even as India thinks through the prospects and perils of joining Five Eyes, it needs to be working harder on addressing the chronic deficits that plague its own intelligence community. These include shortfalls in the number of personnel recruited to its intelligence services, lack of language and regional expertise, poor technology staffing, and outdated curricula and training practices.

For 2019-20, for example, the government committed funding of Rs 2,575 crore for the Intelligence Bureau, less than a third of the Rs 7,497 allocated for the Delhi Police alone. A tiny fraction of that sum—Rs 83.5 crore—will be available for capital investments. The Intelligence Bureau’s means are in stark contrast to those of major intelligence agencies in the West; the Federal Bureau of Investigations, with a far narrower role, has sought $9.6 billion in funding for the 2020 financial year.

In 2013, Parliament was informed that some 8,000 positions in the Intelligence Bureau were unfilled, out of a sanctioned staff strength of 26,867. Things have not significantly changed. Although precise numbers are hard to estimate, of some 30-odd Joint Director-level officials—the critical level of senior executive authority—only nine operate in national-security domains like counter-terrorism.


Experts have long understood these problems. As the highly regarded bureaucrat N.N. Vohra has noted, there is also “no mechanism to assess the productivity of our two apex intelligence agencies”. In one article, now-National Security Adviser Ajit Doval called for debate to shape “new doctrines, suggest structural changes, aim at optimisation of resources and examine administrative and legislative changes required for the empowerment of intelligence agencies”.

Little of that, sadly, has been done—leaving India’s intelligence community grappling with problems no club membership will fix.
 

jetray

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
1,967
1,159
India
The lesson isn’t that intelligence technology isn’t useful—just that it has limitations. Even as India thinks through the prospects and perils of joining Five Eyes, it needs to be working harder on addressing the chronic deficits that plague its own intelligence community. These include shortfalls in the number of personnel recruited to its intelligence services, lack of language and regional expertise, poor technology staffing, and outdated curricula and training practices.

For 2019-20, for example, the government committed funding of Rs 2,575 crore for the Intelligence Bureau, less than a third of the Rs 7,497 allocated for the Delhi Police alone. A tiny fraction of that sum—Rs 83.5 crore—will be available for capital investments. The Intelligence Bureau’s means are in stark contrast to those of major intelligence agencies in the West; the Federal Bureau of Investigations, with a far narrower role, has sought $9.6 billion in funding for the 2020 financial year.

In 2013, Parliament was informed that some 8,000 positions in the Intelligence Bureau were unfilled, out of a sanctioned staff strength of 26,867. Things have not significantly changed. Although precise numbers are hard to estimate, of some 30-odd Joint Director-level officials—the critical level of senior executive authority—only nine operate in national-security domains like counter-terrorism.
(y) we are too intelligent to fill those positions.
In 2000 and 2001, the European Parliament released reports suggesting the fears were well founded. The furore forced former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey to admit that the United States did conduct espionage in Europe, both targeting entities violating international sanctions and paying bribes to gain contracts. He claimed commercial and economic intelligence of this kind was not passed on to companies in the United States.

Fred Stock, a former Canadian intelligence officer, earlier gave testimony that suggested Woolsey was, at best, telling part of the truth. Stock said he had been expelled from his service in 1993 for criticising its targeting of economic and civilian targets—among them, information on negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Chinese grain purchases, and French weapons sales.
This is the one of the reason why we should never let any digitization or data collection part to MNC. It will simply screw our market economics.
 

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,745
6,057

Japan should be admitted to the Five Eyes network​

The time has come for Japan to become a member of the world's leading intelligence-sharing arrangement.

Today, the Five Eyes, comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are the world's preeminent intelligence sharing group. These five countries have extensive access to military, political, financial, economic and technical information. Their capability for gathering and sharing information on a wide range of global dynamics is unparalleled.

Yet if one was trying to build the world's leading intelligence-sharing coalition from scratch, one probably would not pick just five countries, and one might not begin with these five. As the U.S. turns its attention to China, intelligence requirements dictate working more closely with countries across the Indo-Pacific. But the Five Eyes countries are, in several dimensions, on the outside looking in at a highly diverse and rapidly evolving Asian region.

The group does have a number of advantages. All five countries speak English, or at least some version of it, which makes communication easier. They all share a common history too. But both similarities can be weaknesses as well as strengths, making it harder to gather information from diverse regions and cultures. It also opens the group up to criticism that the Five Eyes arrangement is an anglosphere alliance defined by race rather than a shared commitment to a set of common rules.

In the past, commonalities among coalitions were often seen as an advantage. During the Cold War, for example, The West generally shared a single form of government and similar economic systems. Democratic capitalist societies competed with communist ones in largely fixed blocs. In many ways, familiarity and similarity were seen as advantages, helping keep these coalitions close and coherent.

Today, however, modern coalitions must be far more diverse. Many critical U.S. partners, and indeed some treaty allies, are not full-fledged democracies. Some key players are not capitalist. And few speak the same language. As a result, this will not be an era of fixed blocs but rather shifting coalitions made up of diverse countries that reconfigure depending on the issue set. Countries will vary their alignment across security, economic, technological and governance matters.

Since intelligence must cover all of those areas, the world's premier intelligence-sharing group needs expertise that crosses each of these issues as well. And it requires countries with shared interests and values that will permit deep trust to be built over time. There are only a handful of countries that meet these requirements. And Japan is at the top of the list given its leadership on a range of security, economic, technological and governance issues and its concerns about China.

But adding Japan to Five Eyes is easier said than done. Japan's intelligence agencies are still perfecting their information protection measures, which will take time. Meanwhile, Japanese leaders will have to convince foreign counterparts that they can provide sufficient information to justify Japan's inclusion. And perhaps most challenging, Tokyo will have to get not just Washington on board, but also London, Canberra, Ottawa and Wellington.

Concerns remain in various Five Eyes capitals about language barriers, information protections and third-country concerns. Japan has built deep ties with the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, which can overcome many of these issues. Yet despite good relations with Japan, Canada and New Zealand remain more skeptical about Japan's inclusion in the Five Eyes club.

In the near term, therefore, Japan should begin a process to develop the technologies and procedures that Tokyo would need to ensure that its organizations can both share and protect critical information. This process should aim not only to increase Japanese capabilities but deepen confidence in Washington and other capitals. The Five Eyes should also make clear that a successful process could lead to Japan's inclusion in an intelligence-sharing grouping.

In the long-term, it will be necessary to transform the Five Eyes into a new type of coalition, based not on membership but on mission. The Quad and Group of Seven have suffered from similar challenges to the Five Eyes in incorporating new members, which is not surprising given that all groups are named for the number of countries they include. This has constrained their ability to adjust to new realities by adding members, either temporarily or permanently.

Adjusting the Five Eyes would also send an important signal that the United States and its key allies and partners are willing to rethink their rather anachronistic approach to coalition building. The name Five Eyes is itself a significant barrier to expanding the group. Since adding new partners is much more difficult when it requires renaming the group, the members should come up with a new name disconnected from the size of the coalition.

This new era requires a new approach to intelligence gathering and dissemination. Japan's expertise on economic security provides a clear rationale for Tokyo's inclusion in such a pact. After all, intelligence sharing is about looking into the future. The world's leading intelligence-sharing coalition will not be successful if it remains overly constrained by its past.
 

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,745
6,057

Five Eyes to Nine Eyes? China threat sparks call for wider intel sharing​

NEW YORK -- About a 30-minute walk from Tokyo's bustling Shinjuku Station, the neighborhood of Wakamatsucho marks one of the highest points in the capital's center. A building near the very top of the hill houses Radiopress, the wire service that monitors radio broadcasts from North Korea.

Its roots go back to 1941, when Japan's Foreign Ministry created a "radio room" to listen in on enemy chatter. Since becoming Radiopress in 1946, it has monitored radio and satellite broadcasts of mainly Communist countries, serving as a critical element of Japan's intelligence gathering.

Though Radiopress monitors only publicly available broadcasts, the sheer volume of information it has followed for 80 years -- 24/7, 365 days of the year -- allows it to notice the slightest of changes.


The rooftop antennas in Wakamatsucho let Radiopress capture broadcasts from Pyongyang clearly. Though much of today's intelligence gathering has shifted to cyberspace, satellite images and tracking signals emitted by ballistic missiles, Japan's proximity to countries such as North Korea and China as well as its army of linguists fluent in Korean and Chinese give Tokyo a unique perspective into its rumbustious neighbors.

The company's reports are sent to Japan's leading intelligence agency -- the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office -- the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and various media companies.


https%253A%252F%252Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%252Fimages%252F_aliases%252Farticleimage%252F2%252F9%252F3%252F5%252F37335392-3-eng-GB%252FCropped-163656061520211110NY%2520Wakamatsucho%2520Hill.jpg
Radiopress is located on a hilltop in Tokyo's Wakamatsucho neighborhood, one of the highest points in the Japanese capital's center. From here, the company's transcribers listen in on North Korean radio broadcasts. (Photo by Yuri Yorozuna)

More U.S. officials want Washington to tap such Japanese expertise. Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services subcommittee on special operations and intelligence, has added a provision into the 2022 U.S. defense budget that suggests expanding the "Five Eyes" intelligence sharing arrangement consisting of the U.S., the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada to include Japan, South Korea, India and Germany.

The proposal would require the director of national intelligence, in coordination with the defense secretary, to provide a report to Congress by May on current intelligence and resource sharing agreements among the Five Eyes, "as well as opportunities to expand intelligence sharing with South Korea, Japan, India, and Germany."

The report is expected to include "the nature of insights that each of these countries may be in a position to contribute" and identify the risks associated with expanding intelligence sharing arrangements.

At a webinar with security news outlet Defense One, Gallego said Washington needs to expand cooperation as the U.S. no longer can rely solely on the post-World War II intelligence structure centered on the English language.

Calling Five Eyes "outdated," Gallego said that South Korea, for example, has "better assets in China and in Asia that we could be working with, but we don't have that relationship where we can share as much information as we do with Australia or New Zealand or Canada."

"We need to expand the scope," he said. "We shouldn't just [have] such an Anglophile view of sharing."

An official from one of the Five Eyes members downplayed the likelihood of expanding the network.

"We massively appreciate the contributions of these partners and are always looking at ways to bring them in on a issue by issue basis," the official said. "But I do not expect the Five Eyes becoming Nine Eyes at this point."


https%253A%252F%252Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%252Fimages%252F_aliases%252Farticleimage%252F6%252F8%252F9%252F1%252F37311986-3-eng-GB%252FCropped-163648157120211109NY%2520White%2520House%2520situation%2520room.jpg
President Joe Biden meets with security advisers to receive updates on Afghanistan on Aug. 20 in the White House Situation Room. (Photo courtesy of the White House)

Last December, the fifth and most recent version of the so-called Armitage-Nye report, led by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye, former dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, called for adding Japan to Five Eyes.

"The United States and Japan should make serious efforts to move toward a Six Eyes network," the report said.

"The difficulties with moving to a Six Eyes ... are almost entirely in Japan to come up with a process in which you can appropriately share intel with a very limited number of Diet members," Armitage said at an online launch event for the report. A mechanism, like in the U.S., where members of Congress receive intelligence briefings under strict confidentiality, will be necessary, he said.

A Japanese government official told Nikkei Asia: "It is true that multiple countries are approaching Japan's intelligence community for insight into the region's countries. Japan shares cultural similarities [with China and North Korea] and more countries seem to be appreciating our analytical capabilities."

Japan lacks a full-fledged agency equivalent to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and Tokyo's intelligence gathering activities pale in scale. But new Prime Minister Fumio Kishida may choose to bolster intelligence gathering and sharing with the likes of Five Eyes, the official said.

When Kishida convened his first National Security Council meeting on Oct. 13, he raised the need to review Japan's 8-year-old security strategy to fit the challenges of today.

Bruce Klingner, a former CIA officer and senior research fellow at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, said that even if more countries joined Five Eyes, there would be layers of sharing based on the sensitivity of the intelligence.

"It isn't that the five nations automatically get all the information," he said. "Even amongst the Five Eyes, we had different restrictions on information that was being shared. For example, we might have U.S.-only information or U.S.-U.K.-only information."

The most sensitive is human intelligence, or HUMINT, gathered by spies on the ground, Klingner said.

"We would be very hesitant to share specific information about human sources because people's lives are at stake," he said.

Klingner also said the Five Eyes may limit sharing based on geography -- as Japan would need to know less about Europe than Germany -- and based on sensitive collection systems. The U.S. might share imagery and signals intelligence only with partners that have the same capability, "especially if a system is newly developed," he said.

Despite the technical issues, the likes of Japan and South Korea offer elements that the Five Eyes lack, Klingner said.

"Each nation has its own intelligence agencies and collection capabilities, and different nations may be very good at niche targets," he said. "Clearly, South Korea has very good capabilities against North Korea because of the common language and culture and an advantage with HUMINT."

"Just like on a sports team, different players have different attributes, and when you put them together, the whole is better than the sum of its parts," he said. "If you avoid duplication and you bring together the strengths of all the different partners, we're all better off for it."
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,773
1,224
switzerland
Defence Intelligence Agency , India has been failing past over one year.

1. China prepared and intruded - no idea
2. Colonel was ambushed in North East along with family - no idea
3. Past month many of Indian soldiers died when terrorists intruded in Kashmir - no idea
4. Nagaland misshaping, due to wrong spotting - no idea
5. Information warfare from Pakistan and China - no idea
 
  • Haha
Reactions: R73 FTW

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
12,693
9,934
Tripura, NE, India
Diplomatic pressure by Modi govt pays off with SFJ Multani arrest in Germany

The Modi government provided actionable intelligence to German police through diplomatic channels and made it clear that the onus lay on Berlin in case Mumbai or Delhi is targeted by SFJ terrorists at the behest of Pakistan.

By Shishir Gupta, New Delhi
Published on Dec 28, 2021 09:17 AM IST
1640697505555.png

Jaswinder Singh Multani is closely associated with all the core members of SFJ. (Sourced)

The arrest of banned Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) radical Jaswinder Singh Multani by German police is a culmination of more than 72 hours of hectic diplomacy by the Modi government with Berlin with New Delhi making it clear that it would hold Germany accountable if any bomb blast took place in Mumbai or Delhi.

According to officials based in Berlin and New Delhi, the Modi government provided actionable intelligence to the German embassy in Delhi and back in Berlin to convince the Federal Police about the urgency of the matter. Indian Embassy officials were recalled from their Christmas holidays by top Ministry of External Affairs officials to ensure that the German authorities understand the seriousness of the matter about an impending terror strike on Mumbai. It is understood that Multani had been able to send explosives to Mumbai with a terror team being assembled for the strike. While the SFJ terrorist is currently being interrogated by the German police, Indian security agencies and the MEA are totally tight-lipped on the matter.

The arrest of Multani by German authorities is a huge step in bilateral relations as it will also force countries like the UK and Canada to take action against Sikh separatists, who are being backed by the Pakistani deep state. The inaction on part of the UK and Canada, despite being India’s strategic partners, has convinced Indian security agencies say that these countries with large Sikh populations are trying to fish in troubled waters. Multani recently come to notice of the security agencies for arranging and sending weapons consignments comprising explosives, hand grenades and pistols from across the border with the help of his Pakistan based operatives and arms smugglers. He was planning to carry out terrorist activities in Punjab by using the smuggled consignments.

On February 7, 2021, Punjab police initially arrested four local radical criminal module members belonging to the Tarn Taran, Amritsar and Ferozepur districts. Police also recovered 8 country-made pistols along with 8 magazines and 7 cartridges from them. The module members procured the illegal pistols from MP based Sikligar Sikhs and others for carrying out radical/criminal activities in Punjab. Subsequently, Punjab police arrested another radical criminal, Jeevan Singh of Mansa, who was radicalised and motivated by Multani (on social media to target a key farmer leader Balbir Singh Rajewal, president of BKU-Rajewal. Multani also sent funds to Jeevan Singh for arranging locally made weapons for targeting Balbir Singh Rajewal, president of BKU-Rajewal being linked with left-wing communist ideology.

In August 2021, Multani motivated and radicalised Saroop Singh from Johal Dhaiwala of the Tarn Taran district. Police arrested Saroop Singh and recovered 2 hand grenades from him. He was contacted on Facebook by a guy from ‘Surrey’, who was in fact Multani. Later, Multani connected with Saroop Singh on WhatsApp. JSM sent money through Western Union and sent two hand grenades (86P) at Amritsar-Harike road (Tarn Taran) from across the border and shared a photo of the location and asked him to collect them.

Two FIRs have been registered against Jaswinder Singh Multani in SAS Nagar and Amritsar. He is closely associated with all the core members of SFJ.

Diplomatic pressure by Modi govt pays off with SFJ Multani arrest in Germany
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,745
6,057

Abu Bakar, one of India's most wanted terrorists and 1993 Mumbai blast accused, held in UAE | Exclusive​

n a major operation overseas, Indian agencies have succeeded in apprehending one of India's most wanted terrorists involved in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case. Twelve blasts at different places had taken place in Mumbai, killing 257 people and injuring 713.

The apprehended terrorist is named Abu Bakar who was involved in arms and explosives training in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, landing of RDX used in the serial blasts, and conspiracy and planning at Dawood Ibrahim's residence in Dubai.

Abu Bakar, said to be one of the prime conspirators of the 1993 blasts, had been residing in UAE and Pakistan. He was recently apprehended on inputs of Indian agencies in UAE.

Bakar was once apprehended in 2019. However, he had managed to get himself freed from the custody of the UAE authorities due to some documentation issues.

Top sources confirmed that Indian agencies are in process of extraditing Bakar. Almost 29 year after being put on India's most wanted list, Abu Bakar will finally face law in India once he is brought back from UAE.

Abu Bakar whose full name is Abu Bakar Abdul Gafur Shaikh was involved in smuggling along with Mohammad and Mustafa Dossa who were key lieutenants of Dawood Ibrahim. He smuggled gold, clothing and electronics from Gulf countries to Mumbai and nearby landing points. A Red Corner Notice was issued against him in 1997.

Abu Bakar has several business interests in Dubai and has married an Iranian national who is his second wife.

Top sources in central agencies confirmed the development to India Today on Friday evening and said that the process of Bakar's extradition has been initiated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,745
6,057

Building faith in India’s investigative agencies​

Given our experience with democracy so far, it is proven beyond doubt that democracy is best suited for a pluralistic society like ours. Our rich diversity cannot be sustained through dictatorial governance. It is only through democracy that our rich culture, heritage, diversity, and pluralism can be sustained and strengthened.

We Indians love our freedom. When any attempt has been made to snatch our freedom, our alert citizenry did not hesitate to seize the power back from autocrats. So, it is essential that all the institutions including the police and the investigative bodies uphold and strengthen democratic values. They should not allow authoritarian tendencies to creep in.

The police and investigative agencies may have de-facto legitimacy, but as institutions, they are yet to gain social legitimacy. Police should work impartially and focus on crime prevention. They should also work in cooperation with the public to ensure law and order. The CBI possessed immense trust of the public in its initial phase. But with the passage of time, like every other institution of repute, the CBI has also come under deep public scrutiny. Its actions and inactions have raised questions regarding its credibility, in some cases. People hesitate to approach the police in times of despair. The image of the institution of police is regrettably tarnished by allegations of corruption, police excesses, lack of impartiality and close nexus with the political class.

Often, police officers approach us with the complaint that they are being harassed after the change in the regime. The need of the hour is to reclaim social legitimacy and public trust. The first step to gain the same is to break the nexus with the political executive. The best of talents enter this system in expectation of recognition and accolades. But upright officers find it difficult to stand by their oath. The truth is, that no matter how deficient and non-cooperative the other institutions may be, if you all stand by your ethics and stand united with integrity, nothing can come in the way of your duty. This stands true for all institutions. This is where the role of leadership comes into play. The institution is as good, or as bad, as its leadership. A few upright officers can bring a revolution in the system.

I would like to point out a few issues affecting the system. These are: Lack of infrastructure, lack of sufficient manpower, inhuman conditions, especially at the lowest rung, lack of modern equipment, questionable methods of procuring evidence, officers failing to abide by the rule book and the lack of accountability of erring officers.

Then there are certain issues that lead to delays in trials. They are: Lack of public prosecutors and standing counsels, seeking adjournments, arraying hundreds of witnesses and filing voluminous documents in pending trials, undue imprisonment of undertrials, change in priorities with the change in the political executive, cherry-picking of the evidence, and repeated transfers of officers leading to a change in the direction of the investigation. These issues often lead to the acquittal of the guilty and incarceration of the innocent. This severely affects the public trust in the system. The courts cannot simply monitor every step.

Reform of the police system is long overdue in our country. The Ministry of Home Affairs has itself recognised the glaring need for the same in the “Status Note on Police Reforms in India”. Unfortunately, our investigative agencies still do not have the benefit of being guided by a comprehensive law. The need of the hour is the creation of an independent and autonomous investigative agency. For instance, in spite of the various issues affecting the Indian judiciary, the public still reposes its faith in the institution. This faith is largely due to the inherent autonomy and commitment to the Constitution and laws by the judiciary.

There is an immediate requirement for the creation of an independent umbrella institution, so as to bring various agencies like the CBI, SFIO, and ED under one roof. This body is required to be created under a statute, clearly defining its powers, functions and jurisdictions. Such a law will also lead to much-needed legislative oversight.

It is imperative for the organisation to be headed by an independent and impartial authority to be appointed by a committee akin to the one which appoints the Director of the CBI. The head of the organisation can be assisted by deputies who are specialists in different domains. This umbrella organisation will end the multiplicity of proceedings. A single incident these days gets investigated by multiple agencies, often leading to dilution of evidence, contradiction in depositions, prolonged incarceration of innocents. It will also save the institution from being blamed as a tool of harassment. Once an incident is reported, the organisation should decide as to which specialised wing should take up investigation.

One additional safeguard that needs to be built into the scheme, is to have separate and autonomous wings for prosecution and investigation, in order to ensure total independence.

A provision in the proposed law for an annual audit of the performance of the institution by the appointing committee will be a reasonable check and balance.

There is a need for regular upgradation of knowledge, deployment of state-of-the-art technology, and international exchange programmes to learn the best practices.

With the police and public order under the State List, and rightly so, the burden of investigation is primarily on the state police. There is no reason why state investigative agencies, which handle most of the investigations, cannot enjoy the same level of credibility as that of the national agency. The proposed Central law for the umbrella investigative body can be suitably replicated by the states.

An issue that needs addressing at this stage is the representation of women in the criminal justice system. Often, women feel deterred in reporting certain offences due to a lack of representation. Their presence in the policing system will further encourage hesitant victims to approach the criminal justice system and report crimes.

Relations between the community and police also need to be fixed. This is only possible if police training includes sensitisation workshops and interactions to inspire public confidence. It is imperative for the police and the public to work together to create a safe society. Ultimately you must remember that your allegiance must be to the Constitution and the rule of law and not to any person. When you stand upright, you shall be remembered for your courage, principles and valour. The political executive will change with time, you as an institution will be permanent. Be independent, pledge solidarity to your service. Your fraternity is your strength.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 2, 2022 under the title ‘Break nexus with executive’.

Edited excerpts of the 19th D P Kohli Memorial Lecture delivered by Chief Justice N V Ramana on April 1 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi

 

R73 FTW

Member
Mar 21, 2022
43
16
Bharat
Thankfully no casualties took place. But what kind of intelligence network is run by the Punjab police. How come an RPG gets into the hands of terrorist here considering BSF foils every drone supply of explosives and nabbing of terrorists on frequent basis in Punjab. Unless it's the doing of kejruddin. This is exactly why a deep state is needed in the country for national security
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
6,135
12,064
New Delhi
Thankfully no casualties took place. But what kind of intelligence network is run by the Punjab police. How come an RPG gets into the hands of terrorist here considering BSF foils every drone supply of explosives and nabbing of terrorists on frequent basis in Punjab. Unless it's the doing of kejruddin. This is exactly why a deep state is needed in the country for national security
Two of the worst decisions taken BJP govts at center have resulted in the present shitty condition of India. First Atal cleared foreign investment in Media houses/channels
and later Jaitely cleared foreign funding of Political parties in 2015-16. AAP is a direct result of this foreign funding.
 

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,555
1,004
Delhi
Thankfully no casualties took place. But what kind of intelligence network is run by the Punjab police. How come an RPG gets into the hands of terrorist here considering BSF foils every drone supply of explosives and nabbing of terrorists on frequent basis in Punjab. Unless it's the doing of kejruddin. This is exactly why a deep state is needed in the country for national security
They can't even stop drug smuggling and you are talking about stopping explosives.