[ECHELON: Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Collection & analysis Network]History and Current Situation — Shahrukh A. Siddiqui
ECHELON: A signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement.
After 73 years of development, the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance has formed an organizational structure that fully connects 28 intelligence agencies in 6 major intelligence fields. Its positioning is evolving from a special intelligence network to an intelligence security alliance. It is expected to have an impact on the US alliance system, the South China Sea issue, The technological competition between China and the United States has an important impact.
Abstract
By analyzing the evolution of history and current situation of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, we will further enrich our country’s research on this intelligence network, and provide our country with countermeasures and suggestions for reference. Based on the public historical archives in the United States in recent years, the speech records of former officials, and relevant foreign research results, a comprehensive use of historical analysis and literature research methods are used to try to map the evolution path of the intelligence network and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the existing mechanisms. Research shows that after 73 years of development, the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance has formed an organizational structure with 28 intelligence agencies in 6 major intelligence fields, and its positioning is evolving from a special intelligence network to an intelligence security alliance. It is expected to be an alliance with the United States. The system, the South China Sea issue, and Sino-US technological competition have an important impact.
Introduction
After the “September 11” incident, the “Five Eyes Network (Five Eyes Network)” [1] gradually moved towards the front stage. The “Snowden incident” that occurred in 2013 was an important turning point. Although the information disclosed in the incident brought huge public opinion pressure to the alliance, at the same time, countries took this opportunity to push the alliance to the foreground. Five Eyes began to appear in In national strategy and policy documents. Since 2017, the heads of the five nations and intelligence agencies have frequently put pressure on Russia and China (hereinafter referred to as CN) in the name of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” on international occasions, showing that the organization has shifted from “special intelligence networks” to “intelligence The evolution trend of the “security alliance”[1][2]. It is foreseeable that the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” will have an increasingly important impact on the intelligence and security competition between China and the United States.
There have been a certain amount of research results on the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance in the domestic and international information science circles. American scholar Jeffrey T. Richelson focused on the background and operation of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance in his works such as “The American Intelligence Community” and “The Century of Spy: Intelligence in the 20th Century” [ 3][4]. CN scholars Liu Zonghe and Gao Jinhu introduced the intelligence cooperation mechanism formed by Britain and the United States and their allies during the Second World War and the Cold War in “The History of Information in the Second World War” and “The History of Information in China and the West” [5] [6]. After the “Snowden Incident” in 2013, other intelligence cooperation mechanisms between the United States and its allies, such as “Nine Eyes”, “Fourteen Eyes”, and “Forty-One Eyes” have gradually surfaced [7].
In July 2017, the Yale University Law School and Privacy International required the U.S. National Security Agency, the State Department, the Office of the National Intelligence Director, and the National Archives to disclose related to the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.的信息[8]. Beginning in April 2018, the National Security Agency and the State Department began to declassify more secret files. The most recent document was the 1988 secret agreement between the United States and Australia to extend the cooperation of signal intelligence stations. This batch of declassified files provided valuable information for this article, making it feasible to further advance the research on the historical evolution and evolution of the organization.
1. The history of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance
1.1 During World War II
The Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance originated from the signal intelligence cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States during World War II. On July 8, 1940, Philip Kerr, the British ambassador to the United States, wrote to the President of the United States, proposing that the two countries immediately initiate an exchange of secret technical information[9]. Subsequently, the President of the United States agreed to the proposal at a cabinet meeting on July 11. However, in the early stage of cooperation, since the United States has not formally entered the war and the overall intelligence technology level is better than that of the United Kingdom, the cooperation between the two countries at the implementation level is not smooth. For example, Franklin Roosevelt wrote to General Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army on July 9, 1942, expressing his dissatisfaction with the progress of the Army’s intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom [10].
After the United States officially declared war on December 8, 1941, the actual demand for intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom was greatly enhanced. In order to strengthen the stability of the intelligence cooperation between the two countries, the United States and Britain signed the first signal intelligence cooperation agreement on June 10, 1943-”Agreement between British Government Cryptography School and the United States Department of War on Specific “Special Intelligence”. Government Code and Cipher School and US War Department in regard to certain “Special Intelligence”). The main content of the agreement includes: sharing of intercepted encrypted signal intelligence, mutual intelligence liaison office, the United States is responsible for monitoring Japan, and the United Kingdom is responsible for monitoring Germany and Italy[11].
In the technical intelligence cooperation during World War II, the status of Britain and the United States was generally equal, while Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as the dominions of the United Kingdom, only played a supporting role and had no independent status in the intelligence agreement. The main opponent of the intelligence network at the time was the Axis Group consisting of Germany, Japan and Italy.
1.2 During the Cold War 1.2.1 Early Cold War
The landmark event that began the Cold War was the “Iron Curtain Speech” delivered by former British Prime Minister Churchill in the United States on March 5, 1946. On the same day, the United Kingdom and the United States signed the most important intelligence cooperation agreement after World War II-the “British-US Communication Intelligence Agreement”, also known as the “UKUSA”. The agreement established the basic framework of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance”. It is generally believed that the signing of the agreement marks the formal formation of the alliance.
The agreement clarifies twelve aspects of Anglo-American intelligence cooperation. The core content includes the scope of intelligence sharing, the docking agencies of the two parties, and the authority of intelligence sharing. In terms of the scope of intelligence sharing, the agreement stipulates that all foreign countries (except the United States, Commonwealth countries and the British Empire) have military, political or economic value information, which means that the intelligence work of the two countries is not only aimed at enemies, but also aimed at allies and neutral countries. . The docking agencies of the two sides are limited to the London SIGINT Board (London SIGINT Board) and the US State Department-Army-Navy Communications Intelligence Board (STANCIB). In terms of the authority to share intelligence, the United States is responsible for reviewing the sharing of the country’s various services and government departments, and the United Kingdom is responsible for reviewing the sharing of the British Empire and Dominions. The intelligence shared with Canada only needs to be approved by either of the United Kingdom, the United States or China. Other third-party sharing requires joint review by the United Kingdom and the United States.
The agreement also clarified the status of the Dominion of the British Empire (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) in Anglo-American intelligence cooperation. Article 4 of the agreement stipulates:
(1) The Dominion is neither an official signatory to this agreement, but it is not regarded as a third party[2]; (2) If the London Signal Intelligence Commission proposes or actually signs any intelligence agreement with the Dominion, it will promptly notify the United States; (3) The United States Department of State-Army-Navy Communications Intelligence Board (STANCIB) requires the approval of the London Signal Intelligence Board to reach any intelligence agreement with the Dominion (except Canada); (4) The United States needs to consult the London Signal before reaching an intelligence agreement with Canada The opinion of the Intelligence Committee.
The above regulations reflect the initial organizational relationship of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance”: the United States has initiated negotiations on a bilateral intelligence agreement with Canada, while the United Kingdom still regards Australia and New Zealand as “spheres of influence.” The five countries have initially formed the United States and Canada. On one side, Anglo, Australia and New Zealand is a dual structure on the other. Subsequently, in accordance with this basic pattern, the member states within the alliance signed a series of bilateral agreements with each other. For example, the United States and Canada signed the “Canada Intelligence Cooperation Agreement (CANUSA)” in 1949, and the United States and Australia signed the “Canada” in 1966. The US-Australia Agreement on the Establishment of Joint Defense Facilities in Pine Gap (Pine Gap Agreement) [13], etc., formed a composite intelligence network under a dualistic structure.
1.2.2 Mid and late Cold War
After the Anglo-American Agreement, the United Kingdom and the United States did not seek to sign a new agreement. Instead, they chose to respond to external security threats and changes in the relationship between member states by adding an “Appendix” to the original terms. There were two important revisions, one in 1955 and the other in 1961. The revision in 1955 originated from the establishment of the National Security Agency in 1952 by the United States, which necessitated corresponding adjustments to the agreement’s docking agency, which revised the original four annexes and added four new annexes [14]. The focus of the 1961 revision was to further clarify the status of Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the alliance, the most important of which are the two items in “Appendix J”: First, it stipulates that only Canada, Australia and New Zealand are eligible to participate This intelligence network established the exclusiveness of the alliance for the first time and fixed the “Five Eyes” framework; secondly, it stipulated that the Defense Signals Branch Melbourne (DSB) is a non-single joint operation by Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. The national institution is organizationally subordinate to the Australian Ministry of Defense, but is led by the United Kingdom at the technical level, which reflects the United Kingdom’s desire to balance the United States through a joint alliance with Australia and New Zealand [15].
In the middle and late stages of the Cold War, although Britain tried its best to maintain its position in the alliance, Britain continued to lose its overseas intelligence bases under the impact of the colonial independence wave, and its intelligence strength gap with the United States was growing. With the passage of Canada’s “1982 Constitution” and “Australia Act 1986”, Canada and Australia have achieved a fully equal sovereign state relationship with the United Kingdom, and the strategy of binding the United Kingdom to the dominion is no longer effective. The intelligence relationship between New Zealand and the United States has experienced major twists and turns. In 1987, New Zealand passed the New Zealand Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, prohibiting all nuclear-powered ships and equipment carrying nuclear weapons from the United States from docking or landing in New Zealand. This bill led to New Zealand’s withdrawal. The “ANZUS Agreement (ANZUS)” signed in 1951, the two countries suspended defense and intelligence cooperation [16].
In general, the United States became the core of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” during the Cold War, Britain and Canada were the second echelon, Australia and New Zealand were the third echelon [17], and the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” evolved into a distinct hierarchy. Intelligence network. During the Cold War, the main enemy of the intelligence network has always been the communist state bloc with the Soviet Union at its core.
1.3 “September 11” incident to 2009
After the end of the Cold War, the alliance lost its most important opponent and its development was slower than before. The “September 11” incident that occurred in 2001 brought new impetus to the alliance’s development-fighting terrorism. The “War on Terrorism” launched by the United States reshaped the alliance’s organizational relations. In 2001, all five member states participated in the war in Afghanistan. The United States and New Zealand took this opportunity to normalize their defense and intelligence cooperation. In 2003, the United States launched the Iraq War. Britain and Australia in the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” decided to join the war, but Canada and New Zealand refused to send troops again. In return, the United States has rapidly improved the level of intelligence cooperation with Australia: the “Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultation Joint Statement” issued in 2004 announced a comprehensive upgrade of bilateral relations and improved the level of intelligence sharing between the two countries [18]; President Bush Jr. issued an administration in 2005 The order allows “Canberra to obtain all classified original intelligence information, analysis reports, and real-time operational information and plans” [19]; the Australian-American Ministerial Conference in November 2005 once again emphasized the intelligence cooperation between the two countries [20]. For the first time since the establishment of the alliance, the US-Australia intelligence relationship has been elevated to a position equal to that of Britain and the United States [21].
In summary, since the “September 11” incident, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has formed a new structure that continues to center on the United States, Australia has been upgraded to the same status as Britain and Canada, and New Zealand has been relatively weakened. This new change is called “flattening of hierarchies” by some scholars: due to the networked and decentralized characteristics of terrorism, it is difficult for the United States to continue to cope with the proliferation of hierarchical intelligence networks. As a result, they rely more on partners in the alliance, and the status of member states has become more equal [21].
2. The cooperation mechanism and characteristics of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance
Beginning in 2009, on the one hand, the United States and its allies believed that through the “war on terrorism,” the transnational terrorist network represented by the “Al Qaeda” organization has been defeated, and the risk of large-scale terrorist attacks in the West has fallen sharply; on the other hand, Russia has become more and more high-profile. The military and political interventions of China and the rapid rise of CN national power have made the United States regard China and Russia as new opponents of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance.” The former senior official of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” proposed that the current opponents of the alliance should be ranked from high to low in terms of threat: authoritarian state, terrorism and cyber security [22].
This part will discuss the three aspects of organizational structure, division of responsibilities, and coordination mechanism, and finally focus on analyzing the trend of intelligence security alliance that it has shown in recent years.
2.1 Organizational structure
The organizational structure of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has evolved from the initial docking of technical intelligence agencies to a committee composed of chiefs of intelligence agencies (Chief of Intelligence) as the coordinating agency, docking the all-round cooperation of various fields of intelligence agencies in the governments of member states. The members of the Intelligence Chiefs Committee include: the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Director of the United Kingdom Joint Intelligence Committee (CJIC), the Canadian National Security and Intelligence Advisor (NSIA), the Director of the Australian Office of National Intelligence (DGONI) and the Director of the New Zealand National Intelligence Assessment Agency (DIA). The committee composed of the intelligence chiefs of the five countries is responsible for coordinating the intelligence cooperation, evaluation and planning action plans of each country, and each member enjoys legal equal status.
At the implementation level, 28 intelligence agencies of member states are responsible for the docking, as shown in Table 1:
Table 1 The docking of intelligence agencies of the Five Eyes Alliance 2.2 Division of labor and tasks
Geographically speaking, it is generally believed that Australia is responsible for South and East Asia, New Zealand is responsible for South Pacific and Southeast Asia, the United Kingdom is responsible for Europe and western Russia, the United States is responsible for the Caribbean, CN, Russia, the Middle East and Africa, and Canada is responsible for the Arctic region (covering Russia and the northern region of CN) ) And South America. Although today’s “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” is already a community covering all types of intelligence, in fact, signal intelligence is still the most important and most valued type. Therefore, it is still divided geographically according to the respective acquisition conditions of signal intelligence. . For example, Canada has an important “alert” signal intelligence station (Canadian Forces Stations Alert) in the Nunavut region of the Arctic. This is the closest monitoring point in North America to the Soviet Union. This intelligence station has been monitoring the Soviet Union in the Arctic since 1958. The activities of warships and ballistic missiles in the region are today tasked with monitoring the northern regions of China and Russia [23].
In terms of fields, including ocean, space, network, counter-terrorism, diplomacy, economy, etc., the division of labor in these fields mainly considers the conditions of each member state. For example, in the marine field, the five countries have deployed signal collection equipment in the surrounding waters (Australia faces the Indian Ocean, the United Kingdom faces the Atlantic Ocean, and the United States takes care of both the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean, etc.) to monitor ships passing through the marine “choke point”, especially Those routes that frequently pass by foreign submarines; in the space field, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom are more responsible for monitoring activities of foreign satellite deployment, ballistic missile testing, and strategic air force activities; using the three major international forces of New York, London, and Montreal, Canada The convenience of the financial center monitors arms transactions and other illegal commercial activities with sanctioned countries such as Iran and North Korea; in addition to the traditional security field, the Five Eyes Alliance also participates in the diplomatic and economic fields, obtaining inside information through secret means Information to assist member states in gaining an advantage in negotiations [23].
2.3 Cooperation mechanism
After the “September 11” incident, the communication and collaboration between the intelligence agencies of the five countries was more active than before. The United States proposed that the principle of intelligence sharing needs to be reformed, from the previous “need to know” to “need to share”, that is, to change the former only sharing of intelligence information directly related to it with member states. The approach is to further open up intelligence powers to member states and improve the efficiency of integration of fragmented information to deal with the new characteristics of decentralization of terrorism.
As the coordinating agency, the five-nation intelligence chiefs meeting meets at least once a year, and the venue can be in any member country[18]. In general, the content of the meeting of the leaders is to evaluate the cooperation in the past year and plan the key tasks for the next phase. The heads of government and ministerial officials of various countries can also meet collectively or individually with the intelligence chiefs of the five countries to communicate with them according to their own schedules [24]. For example, the 2017 five-nation intelligence chiefs meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada on July 17, and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau Jr. attended the informal talks after the meeting[25].
In addition to the heads’ meeting, the six docking organizations also have corresponding coordination mechanisms. Similar to the leaders’ meeting, the leaders of each docking agency will also hold annual evaluation and planning meetings (such as intelligence evaluation agencies at least once a year, and defense intelligence agencies at least twice a year). The difference is that since the executive department encounters more specific issues, the docking agency will establish a special transnational working group to deal with specific issues [23]. For example, the “Five Eyes Law Enforcement Group” initiated and led by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation is aimed at cross-border crimes, including organized crime, money laundering, and cybercrime [26].
In addition to the planning and implementation mechanism, the alliance has established a monitoring mechanism for the first time. In October 2017, in response to the public’s concerns that the activities of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” were not supervised and had excessive rights, the five countries established an internal oversight mechanism-Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council (Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council) . According to the signed “Five Eyes Intelligence Supervision and Evaluation Committee Charter,” the committee is composed of intelligence supervision departments from five countries, and it stipulates that at least one meeting a year and one conference call every three months. The committee’s responsibilities include:
1. Exchange opinions on common interests and concerns;
2. Explore better supervision and evaluation methods;
3. Research the scope of information suitable for evaluation and sharing;
4. Expand transparency to increase public confidence;
5. Maintain contacts with politically appointed officials, intelligence regulatory agencies of various countries, and non-Five Eyes countries [27].
From the above points and the “Operational Guideline” in this agreement, it can be seen that the information that the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” needs to disclose is limited, and the supervision it accepts is not mandatory. Even so, this committee still This is an important step towards reform of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance.” After the establishment of the committee, the alliance quickly moved from a high degree of secrecy to a relatively open, and increasingly united to exert political influence on specific security issues.
2.4 Evolution from Special Intelligence Network to Intelligence Security Alliance
From its establishment in 1946 to the “Snowden Incident” in 2013, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” mainly played the role of an intelligence network, but it was different from the general intelligence network, and it also had some characteristics of a security alliance.
The definition of intelligence network in this article is: a multilateral intelligence sharing mechanism established through formal or informal agreements in response to common threats. For example, the “Bern Club” established in 1971 is composed of 27 EU countries, Norway and Sweden, and shares information on a voluntary basis [28]. There is also the “Kilowatt Group” formed after the “Munich Massacre” in 1972. Its members include 11 countries including Israel, the United Kingdom, and France. The mechanism has no formal agreement and serves as a place for parties to exchange anti-terrorism intelligence.[29] . Compared with the above-mentioned traditional intelligence networks, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” differs in the following: First, it forms a stronger binding force through agreements, and the member states have clear rights and obligations; second, it has established a high degree of mutual trust among members. They promise not to spy on each other’s intelligence; third, the level of intelligence cooperation is high, not only informing each other of intelligence information, but also sharing intelligence sources, collection techniques and analysis methods. At the same time, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” also conforms to some characteristics of traditional security alliances. Schneider proposed that alliances should have three major characteristics: responsibility sharing, internal bargaining, and normative commitments that continue to deepen over time [30]. The member states of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” are responsible for different regions and areas. There have been fierce disputes between the United States and Britain over their respective status, and the alliance’s agreement has also undergone dozens of revisions. However, there is a major difference between the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” and the formal security alliance during this period, namely its secrecy. The existence of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” was once the top secret of the member states, and only national leaders and intelligence chiefs understood its operation. This high degree of secrecy makes it impossible to deter the enemy through open strategic documents, joint statements, and military mobilizations like a general security alliance.
The above situation changed after the “Snowden Incident” in 2013. The alliance went from being secret to being open. While continuing to play its role as an intelligence network, it began to play a more active role as a security alliance. The main manifestations are as follows: One is to disclose its existence through the strategic documents of the member states. For example, Australia and Canada disclosed the details of their participation in the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” for the first time in their national defense strategies in 2016 and 2017 respectively[31][32]; The second is to put pressure on opponents in the name of the alliance. For example, on April 18, 2018, the heads of state of Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand held a joint press conference in London in the name of the “Five Eyes Alliance” to condemn Russia for “trying to use cyber warfare”. To destroy the international system”[1]. On the issue of CN Huawei’s participation in 5G construction, the alliance also exerted pressure through openness and linkage. The specific situation will be discussed in the next section.
3. The impact of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance mechanism on member states
The cooperation of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has brought important positive and negative impacts to the member states. On the one hand, the alliance not only provides member states with reliable intelligence information, but also increasingly plays the role of a security alliance, improving the The influence of member states; on the other hand, with the development of network intelligence technology, intelligence alliances have also brought new security risks to countries.
3.1 Positive impact
3.1.1 Comprehensively improve intelligence capabilities
The “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has not been limited to intelligence information sharing since its establishment, but includes comprehensive cooperation in intelligence technology, verification methods, and analysis methods. For example, in 1940, the conditions for the Anglo-American communications intelligence cooperation were that the US Air Force provided the United Kingdom with its more advanced microwave radar technology, while the United Kingdom shared its identification friend or foe system and air-to-air fire control system [33]. For Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the alliance, the intelligence and technical support provided by the United States and the United Kingdom are particularly important. Some scholars have suggested that about 90% of the intelligence exchanges between Australia and the United States are provided by the United States. Australia also provides a stronghold for the United States to monitor the South Pacific, South China Sea and Indian Ocean [34]. Therefore, the alliance is an “amplifier” for the intelligence capabilities of countries.
3.1.2 Provide the most reliable intelligence
The intelligence provided by the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” is hailed as the most reliable intelligence information. Douglas Lute, the former deputy national security adviser of the United States, called “Five Eyes Intelligence” the “Gold Standard” of the intelligence community [35]. There are two main reasons: First, the five member states represent the highest level of the intelligence community. The United States has the world’s most powerful technical and human intelligence capabilities, while the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand cover Europe, Asia, South America and This is the only intelligence network organization that can almost monitor the world in the two poles and other regions. The second is to achieve extremely high reliability through cross-validation. The Five Eyes Alliance has a mutual trust mechanism unmatched by other intelligence networks. The intelligence evaluation agencies of the five countries are Before the product is delivered to the government, it will participate in the research and judgment. Therefore, all intelligence reports marked with “Five Eyes Only” are the most important and trusted information sources of national leaders [35].
3.1.3 Play the role of security alliance
As mentioned above, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” increasingly presents the characteristics of a security alliance. For the relatively small countries in the alliance (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), this means that security risks can be resisted through alliances with the United Kingdom and the United States. Moreover, the alliance has extremely high stability and is not affected by parliamentary politics and the change of leaders. Especially after Brexit and Trump came to power, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has become an important link to maintain security cooperation between the five countries.
3.2 Negative effects 3.2.1 Increased risk of information leakage
This is the most significant risk that the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” brings to member states. Due to the high degree of mutual trust and openness of the intelligence sharing mechanism of the five countries, once a leak occurs, the loss will far exceed the intelligence information itself, including intelligence sources, collection techniques, analysis models, communication methods, etc., may be stolen, endangering the entire intelligence network. Safety. The risk of information leakage is divided into traditional personnel and non-traditional network leakage.
The most significant personal mutinies in recent years occurred in Australia and Canada. Jean-Philippe Wispalaere, an employee of the Australian Defence Intelligence Organization (ADIO), was “fishing law enforcement” by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1999, he sold more than 900 copies to the “online” for US$120,000. Secret intelligence notified to Australia [36]. Canadian Navy Lieutenant Jeffery Delisle sold a large amount of military intelligence obtained from the “Five Eyes” intelligence sharing network to Russia from 2007 to 2012. It was not until the FBI discovered and notified Canada that it was cracked [37].
Currently, the most important non-traditional security threat comes from cyber theft. Beginning in 2006, the “Wikileaks” website created by Julian Paul Assange has continuously published sensitive information about the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Defense and other departments. ) Tens of thousands of secret files stolen from the intelligence database of the Department of Defense have led to scandals such as the indiscriminate killing of civilians and illegal interrogations by the US military in Iraq [38]. In 2013, the secret document information disclosed by former NSA employee Edward Snowden caused the most significant blow to the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” in its history. It not only triggered a wave of public opposition, but also led to the alliance with Germany and France. A crack appeared in his relationship [39].
3.2.2 The United States uses intelligence hegemony to force other member states to follow
As mentioned above, the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has exerted a positive influence on issues affecting common security interests. But at the same time, due to the inequality of internal power, the alliance will also put pressure on member states to act together, forcing them to make decisions that are not in the national interest. The United States often uses its dominant position within the alliance to require members to follow their own actions.
On the eve of the Iraq War, the US Central Intelligence Agency informed the remaining four countries that the Saddam regime possessed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and requested the five countries to take this as a basis for joint military operations to invade Iraq. However, Canada and New Zealand believe that there is actually no conclusive evidence to support the US claims, and they are unwilling to participate in the US military operations, while Australia chose to participate in the war[40]. Afterwards, the United States promoted Australia’s status in the alliance and granted it higher intelligence authority, while Canada and New Zealand were criticized by the United States and even threatened to kick New Zealand out of the alliance[41].
In the Huawei incident, the United States exerted pressure on member states to prohibit Huawei from participating in 5G network construction. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand have issued prohibitions. The United Kingdom has issued restrictions on the use of Huawei chips by some companies, while Canada is unwilling to follow the decisions of other countries lightly. In fact, Huawei has been deeply involved in the research and development and preliminary engineering of Canada’s 5G network. If the use of Huawei’s products and services is banned, it will bring more than 1 billion yuan to Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. The loss of Canadian dollars also seriously affects the deployment progress of the Canadian 5G network [42]. In September 2018, the director of the Canadian Cyber Security Center stated in a public response that “the use of Huawei equipment has not been found to pose a threat to national security and there is no need to prohibit Huawei from participating in 5G network construction” [43]. However, Canada was quickly retaliated by the United States. The “Meng Wanzhou Incident” was actually a punitive measure taken by the United States against Canada. The incident placed Canada in the center of the vortex of competition among major powers, and was in a dilemma.
3.2.3 Leading to barriers to cooperation with other allies
The closedness and exclusivity of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” has increased the mistrust between member states and other allies. After the “Snowden Incident,” relations between the Five Eyes and NATO member states were tense. The United States was exposed to long-term monitoring of European leaders, and the mobile phones of 125 senior EU officials, including the current Prime Minister Merkel, were monitored. Taking into account the Five Eyes Alliance’s intelligence sharing rules, this is tantamount to announcing that there are two intelligence networks within NATO, one is the Five Eyes Alliance and the other is another country. A rift has appeared in the security cooperation between the United States and Europe. The French and German governments are very dissatisfied with this, and advocate NATO to establish its own independent intelligence network. Recently, French President Macron even proposed to form an independent European force to “defend Europe from the threats of CN, Russia, and even the United States.” German Chancellor Merkel subsequently expressed support [44].
Four, countermeasures and suggestions
4.1 Pay close attention to the evolution from intelligence networks to security alliances
The evolution of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” from an intelligence network to a security alliance reflects several important strategic adjustments of the United States. First, reducing the burden of the security alliance is highlighted by Trump’s fierce criticism of NATO and demanding a reduction in the proportion of U.S. funding sharing. Relatively speaking, the “Five Eyes” are smaller in scale, stronger in mutual trust, and more discourse in the United States. The United States intends to strengthen the position of the “Five Eyes” in its multilateral alliance system; secondly, to cooperate with the promotion of the Indo-Pacific strategy, the current United States’ allies and partners in Southeast Asia, Thailand, Singapore, and the Philippines are actually adopting “hedging strategies.” In order to balance the influence of China and the United States, India in South Asia also insists on strong independence, and the “Five Eyes” is the only American intelligence network that can be trusted and can cover the entire Indo-Pacific region; third, the fierce competition between China and the United States in science and technology, Obama is in power During the period, the United States began to accuse CN of stealing American intellectual property rights. After Trump took office, he launched a political, economic and judicial war against CN technology companies. Through the unique closure of the “Five Eyes”, the United States can use intelligence security as a reason. Forcing its allies to stop using CN’s network products and technologies without providing concrete evidence to the public and Congress.
In this regard, it is necessary to fully realize the particularity of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance”, whose internal mutual trust and closeness surpass most bilateral and multilateral alliances in the world. More measures should be taken to reduce the space of its activities: First, it is necessary to see the crisis of confidence between the United States and NATO, and to explore counter-terrorism intelligence cooperation with NATO in Africa, the Middle East and other places through NATO core member states such as France and Germany. Possibility to enhance mutual understanding and mutual trust between the two sides; second, to further expand bilateral and multilateral security cooperation with Southeast Asian countries, promote the conclusion and implementation of the “South China Sea Multilateral Code of Conduct”, and reduce the chance of the “Five Eyes” intervening in the South China Sea; It is a firm request that the United States and other “Five Eyes” countries provide sufficient reasons and evidence for prohibiting technology companies such as Huawei from entering the market, exposing the economic and political considerations behind their so-called “intelligence security.”
4.2 Learning from the development of CN’s international counter-terrorism intelligence mechanism
As the “Belt and Road” initiative continues to advance and deepen, counter-terrorism and the protection of overseas interests have become increasingly important topics. Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and other regions along the “Belt and Road” are high incidences of non-traditional security issues such as terrorism, cross-border drug crimes, and human trafficking. Islamic State, Uzbek Islamic Movement, Islamic Liberation Movement, Islamic Liberation Movement, etc. Extreme terrorist organizations such as prayer groups. On August 30, 2016, the CN Embassy in Kyrgyzstan was attacked by a car bomb, causing minor injuries to three embassy staff[45]. On November 23, 2018, the CN Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and two local policemen were killed. The Pakistani armed organization Baloch Liberation Army claimed responsibility for the incident[46]. In addition, the risk of the Islamic State’s return to Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia after being defeated is also increasing.
CN’s existing multilateral counter-terrorism intelligence cooperation mainly relies on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, including the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism signed in 2001, and the 2002 Agreement on Regional Anti-terrorist Institutions of the Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization “And the 2014 Shanghai Cooperation Organization Anti-Terrorism Convention[47]. Bilateral counter-terrorism intelligence is mainly through some cross-border counter-terrorism cooperation arrangements with Southeast Asian countries. The intelligence cooperation stipulated in the above agreements and arrangements is limited to specific intelligence products analyzed and processed by the parties, and does not include intelligence information that is not directly related, unprocessed original intelligence, intelligence acquisition technology, verification methods, etc.
However, due to the increasingly decentralized and proliferation characteristics of terrorism, in fact, it is far from being able to meet the needs of counter-terrorism by simply sharing “need to know” intelligence with relevant countries. In addition, some countries in South Asia and Central Asia have very limited counter-terrorism capabilities and resources, and relying on their own intelligence gathering capabilities alone cannot meet the needs of the current counter-terrorism situation. Drawing on the experience of the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance”, CN may consider reforms in the international counter-terrorism intelligence mechanism: First, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be used as a pilot to establish a unified counter-terrorism intelligence database with higher sharing authority and scope. “Knowing” is upgraded to “need to share”, so that the member states of the organization can obtain all kinds of original, fragmented, and indirectly related intelligence information in real time, and grasp the signs of threats through analysis; the second is to deepen the relationship with trusted partner countries Intelligence technology cooperation, by helping to improve the local intelligence level, increase intelligence support for the protection of CN’s overseas interests.
references
[1]Paul Waldie. Trudeau and keyallies condemn Russia’s role in cyberattacks, poisoning[EB/OL].2019–4–18. [2019–3–19].
[2] Robert Fife, Steven Chase. Five Eyes spy chiefs warned Trudeau twice about Huawei national-security risk[EB/OL]. 2018–12–17. [2019–3–21].
[3] Jeffrey T. Richelson. The US Intelligence Community[M].
WestviewPress, 2015.
[4] Jeffrey T. Richelson. A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century[M]. Oxford University Press, 1997: 201–211.
[5] Liu Zonghe, Gao Jinhu. Information History of the Second World War[M]. Beijing: People’s Liberation Army Press, 2009:273–293.
[6] Gao Jinhu. History of Chinese and Western Information[M]. Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2017: 499–501.
[7] Ewen MacAskill, James Ball. Portrait of the NSA: no detail too smallin quest for total surveillance[EB/OL]. 2013–11–2. [2019–5–12].
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/02/nsa-portrait-total-surveillance.
[8]Scarlet Kim. Newly DisclosedDocuments on the Five Eyes Alliance and What They Tell Us aboutIntelligence-Sharing Agreements[EB/OL]. 2018–4–5. [2019–4–2].
[9] Lothian. Aide-memoiro to ThePresident from Lothian requesting interchange of secrect technical information with US, particularly in short wave radio[EB/OL]. 1940–7–8. [2019–4–9].
[10] FDR Letter toGeneral Marshall suggesting more information interchange between Britain and U.S.[EB/OL]. 1942–7–9. [2019–4–9].
[11] War Department. Agreement between British Government Code and Cipher School and US[EB/OL]. 1943–6–10.[2019–5–9].
[12] NSA. NSA National Intelligencerelationship with Canada’s Communication Establishment Canada[EB/OL]. 2013–4–4.[2019–4–9].
https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.org/greenstone/collect/snowden1/index/assoc/HASHadcc.dir/doc.pdf.
[13] Embassy of the United States of America, Canberra. Letter to Minister for Foreign Affairs. 1998–6–6. [2019–3–17].
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4443926-2017-12-04-Production.html.
[14] NSA. New UKUSA Agreement[EB/OL].1955–5–10. [2019–4–9].
[15] NSA. Appendix J, UKUSAArrangement Affecting Australia And New Zealand[EB/OL]. 1961–2–13. [2019–4–9].
[16] Amy L. Catalinac. Why NewZealand Took Itself out of ANZUS: Observing “Opposition for Automomy” inAsymmetric Alliances[J]. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2010, (6):317–338.
[17] Martin Rudner. Britain Betwixt and Between: UK SIGINT Alliance Strategy’s Transatlantic and EuropeanConnections[J]. Intelligence and National Security, 2004, 19(4):575.
[18] Department of Foreign Affairsand Trade, Australian Government. Australia-United States MinisterialConsultations Joint Communique 2004[EB/OL]. [2019–4–5]. https://dfat.gov.au/geo/united-states- of-america/ausmin/Pages/australia-united-states-ministerial-consultations-joint-communique-2004.aspx.
[19] Jamaki Kremmer. Australia gains from US intel[EB/OL]. 2005–10–17. [2019–4–2].
https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-32619799/australia-gains-from-us-intel-prime-minister-howard.
[20] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government. Australia-United States MinisterialConsultations Joint Communique 2005[EB/OL]. [2019–4–5].
[21] Adam DM Svendsen. TheGlobalization of Intelligence Since 9/11: The Optimization of IntelligenceLiaison Arrangements[J]. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence,2008, 21(4):664.
[22] Policy Exchange. Steven Harper’sSpeaking[EB/OL]. 2018–6–27. [2019–4–1].https://policyexchange.org.uk/pxevents/the-importance-of-the- five-eyes-in-an-era-of-global-insecurity/.
[23] James Cox. Canada and the FiveEyes Intelligence Community[EB/OL].Canadian Defence & Foreign AffairsInstitute, December, 2012. [2019–3–23].
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloaddoi=10.1.1.357.5576&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
[24] Policy Exchange. Donald McKinnon’sSpeaking[EB/OL]. 2018–6–27. [2019–4–1].
[25] Chris Uhlmann, AngusGrigg. How the “Five Eyes” cooked up the campaign to kill Huawei[EB/OL].2018–12–12. [2019–4–6].
[26] FBI. The FiveEyes Law Enforcement Group and the Future of Crime Fighting[EB/OL]. 2016–4–21.[2019–4–8].
fighting.mp3/view.
[27] Five EyesIntelligence Oversight and Review Council. Charter of the Five EyesIntelligence Oversight and Review Council[EB/OL]. 2017–10–2. [2019–4–2].
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/External/Signed%20FIORC%20Charter%20with%20Line.pdf.
[28] Andrew Rettman.EU commission keen to set up new counter-terrorism office[EB/OL]. 2011–3–31.[2019–3–3].
https://euobserver.com/institutional/32104.
[29] Shlomo Shpiro. TheCommunication of Mutual Security: Frameworks for European-MediterraneanIntelligence Sharing[EB/OL]. NATO, 2001. [2019–3–10].
https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/shpiro.pdf.
[30] Glenn H. Snyder. Alliance Politics[M]. NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.
[31] Department ofDefence. Defence White Paper[EB/OL]. 2016–2–25. [2019–4–9]. http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/.
[32] Department of National Defence. Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada’s Defence Policy 2017[EB/OL].[2019–4–3].
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf.
[33] War Department.Memorandum for the Chief of Staff: General Interchange of Secret Technical Information between the United Stated and Britain Government[EB/OL]. 1940–7–19.[2019–3–29].
[34] Dupont Alan. TheVirtues of the US Alliance[C]. The Sydney Paper, 2007, 19(4):55.
[35] Policy Exchange. DouglasLute’s Speaking[EB/OL]. 2018–6–27. [2019–4–5].
[36] Jeffrey T. Richelson. The US Intelligence Community[M]. Westview Press, 2008:346.
[37] Steven Chase. HowCanadian spy Jeffery Delisle betrayed his country for cash[EB/OL]. 2012–10–10.[2019–4–3].
[38] Harriet Alexander.Who is Chelsea Manning and why is she being released from prison?[EB/OL]. TheTelegraph, 2017–5–17. [2019–3–6].
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/chelsea-manning-released-prison/.
[39] Eric King. Snowdenspyware revelations: we need to unmask the five-eyed monster[EB/OL]. TheGuardian, 2013–11–25. [2019–3–26].
[40] Andrew O’Neil. Australia and the’Five Eyes’ intelligence network: the perils of an asymmetric alliance[J].Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2017, 71(5):538.
[41] Newshub. FormerCIA analyst says New Zealand should be kicked out of Five Eyes alliance[EB/OL].2018–5–26. [2019–3–28].
[42] Sean Silcoff. Canadiantelecom giants estimate $1-billion cost to rip out Huawei gear[EB/OL].2018–12–9. [2019–4–7].
[43] Robert Fife. Noneed to ban Huawei in light of Canada’s robust cybersecuritysafeguards, top official says[EB/OL]. 2018–9–23. [2019–4–9].
[44] Guy Chazan. Merkel supports Macron’s “European Army” proposal [EB/OL]. Financial Times, 2018–11–14. [2019–4–9].
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001080221?archive.
[45] Xinhuanet. Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Deeply shocked by the attack on the embassy in Kyrgyzstan [EB/OL]. 2016–8–30. [EB/OL].
http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2016-08/30/c_1119481408.htm.
[46] Phoenix.com. The Consulate in Pakistan was attacked [EB/OL]. 2018–11–23. [2019–4–9]. http://news.ifeng.com/a/20181123/60171486_0.shtml.
[47]Lan Lihong. Research on International Cooperation in Anti-terrorist Financing Intelligence Cooperation among Member States of Shanghai Cooperation Organization[J]. Journal of Intelligence, 2018, 37(7):7–15.
[1] The official documents of the United States, Australia, Canada and other member states are generally called “Five Eyes Network” or “FiveEyes Intelligence Community”, neither of which is equivalent to “Alliance” Or the meaning of “alliance”. However, it is generally translated as “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance” in China, and this article uses the domestic translation.
[2] “The third party” in the agreement refers to all individuals and political entities other than the United States, the British Empire and their dominions
Article source: “Information Magazine” August 2019; editor of WeChat public platform for scholars of national relations, politics and diplomacy
Author: Liu Jiang Yun Huang Zifei, Dr. Department of International Relations and Graduate School of Public Affairs Shanghai International Studies University
The article is reproduced from WeChat public account: Dingba Intelligence Analyst’s Toolbox (Public Account ID: dingba2016)
Originally published at https://shahrukhathar.info on August 19, 2020.