The use of cognitive warfare by states showcases that a new avenue for contestation has emerged
This piece is part of the series, Technology and Governance: Competing Interests
The Enlightenment arguably brought about the greatest changes to human life. While initially limited to Europe, through means, both legitimate, such as trade and commerce; or illegitimate, such as colonialism, the ideas of this revolution have permeated world over, impacting thought processes and understandings of the world. An important distinguishing feature of the post enlightenment period is the emphasis upon individual free will, in addition to the ability to critically think and reason. Information became a resource for liberation. However, the human mind, akin to any machine in existence, can be “hacked”.
While such notions were initially conceived as mere science fiction, presented through the prism of cinema, the rise of surveillance capitalism has fostered a system where commercial entities are incentivised to track, personalise experiences, predict and continuously perform experimentation upon users through technologies such as behavioural analytics, ArtificiaI Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Big Data Analytics. Such technologies have been used by a variety of players, from commercial entities attempting to provide “creepy” specific personalised ads, to political parties in countries like Kenya and the UK, attempting to leverage technology to win elections. All of these have one thing in common: They attempt to colonise one’s ability to critically think, while selling one a narrative.
In recent times, these instruments have been utilised for electoral interference. However, the true extent of the use of such instruments in pursuit of state objectives against adversaries is much greater. In fact, such instruments are being exploited to shape the narratives of the citizenry of one’s adversaries through an individualised manner. Traditionally, a state, in the view of international law, consists of four elements: “a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”
In recent times, these instruments have been utilised for electoral interference. However, the true extent of the use of such instruments in pursuit of state objectives against adversaries is much greater.
The objective of this cognitive warfare or 6th generation warfare is the delegitimisation of one’s government by sowing discord and creating divisions amongst the citizenry to compel the adversary to accept one’s political will. In essence, this form of warfare aims at the third element of sovereignty, an independent government, free for foreign interference. By “conveying to a partner or an opponent specially prepared information” states aim to “incline him to voluntarily make the predetermined decision,” thereby, enforcing “reflexive control”. The ultimate objective of this exercise is the altering of the target’s core belief system and understanding of the world through interception of their ‘observe, orient, decide, and act’ loop.
While these subjects were in the domain of academia and the intelligentsia for a long time, events in recent years have revealed the extent of such operations. From harvesting massive amounts of foreigner data to a barrage of propaganda, these events have highlighted the importance of wielding these new “magic weapons” for states.
The states, which were caught off guard, had initially reacted in a reactive fashion. States resorted to ban the adversarial state’s technology services to evade the threat. However, states are increasingly understanding and adopting this strategic perspective into their strategies and doctrines with diverse rates of adoption but a clear strategic direction. Further, states also exhibit an understanding of these issues through the prism of sovereignty. For instance, even during the app bans or the defenestration of the 5G infrastructure, a clear rationale of national security was provided.
In recent years, countries as diverse as the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Russian Federation (Russia), the Republic of China (ROC-Taiwan), and Canada have, to differing degrees, either expressed acknowledgement of, or incorporated discussions of the battlefield of the mind in their security literature.
The PRC, a seasoned player in this domain, has a longstanding notion of the “three warfares,” established in its strategic thought. These “three warfares” include psychological warfare and public opinion warfare, in addition to legal warfare. Through the Gerasimov doctrine, Russia has similarly adopted an approach stressing that “the main battlespace is the mind and, as a result, new-generation wars are to be dominated by information and psychological warfare.”
Likewise, the ROC-Taiwan’s National Defence Report of 2021 incorporates a dimension of “Cognitive Warfare”, whose objective the report defines as to “twist the subject’s social ideologies, mentality, and the sense of law-and-order through cyber infiltrations and manipulation of mentality and public opinions.” The report notes that this is achieved by using “highly efficient modern computing systems, the internet, and social media.” The objective is that this “propaganda has to permeate “into the island (Taiwan), every household, everyone’s head, and ultimately individual’s mind.”
A Canadian intelligence report, for instance, noted that states like the PRC aim to extend methods created for implementing interior control to audiences beyond its borders. The PRC’s “long standing defensive effort to avoid political risk through information and information technologies”, is being “complemented” by an initiative to remould international perspectives and regulations to serve the PRC’s objectives and the “Party’s world-view”.
The UK’s MI6 Chief, Richard Moore, similarly warns against the PRC’s ‘debt traps and data traps’, arguing that the PRC has the ability to “harvest data from around the world” and this it is this “access to really critical data about your society, over time that will erode your sovereignty”. The US, too, has expressed concerns of other parties engaging in such data collection and its subsequent exploitation.
With increasing complexity in technology, and increasing geopolitical tensions, the weaponisation of the mind space is expected to increase in the coming year. With more and more states acknowledging the role of this new arena for contestation, increased exploitation of this space is also expected. The cost effective and simplistic approach to implementing such methods also mean that states are conversely expected to engage in “defensive” moves, such as limiting the adversary’s access to one’s info sphere. However, with proliferation of these methods, the states not engaging are expected to be compelled to do so. In addition, with surveillance capitalism still being the dominant business model, new techniques and methods to subjugate one’s adversary’s mind space are also likely to follow suit.
In recent years, countries as diverse as the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Russian Federation (Russia), the Republic of China (ROC-Taiwan), and Canada have, to differing degrees, either expressed acknowledgement of, or incorporated discussions of the battlefield of the mind in their security literature
Under such a geopolitical scenario, states are constantly unaware, whether they are under any cognitive attack or not. This might lead to more securitised states globally but might also lead to certain states exploiting this ambiguity to advance their own strategic objectives. In conclusion, the “battlefield of the mind” seems to be a permanent fixture of contemporary life now, impacting the citizenry and the leadership alike.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
