The Cold War and Spies

Question 1
There are varying definitions for a nation-state and non-state actor. First it is important to understand what each one signifies to understand the differences. The nation-state, is a kind of unit that may join a political entity of a country. From such alignment, it aims to gain its political legitimacy. “…nation-state is a recent creation originating in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The nation-state can be seen as a construct formed by non-state actors to further specific group interests”[footnoteRef:1]. [1: Cedric Ryngaert, Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law: From Law-Takers to Law-Makers (Routledge, 2016), 14.]
The nation-state actor can do certain things because he or she is working for the government. They can compromise or disrupt target environments, persons, or organizations in order to gain access to important and valuable intelligence or information. They also can generate incidents that have global significance. They work towards the goals of a government and can be semi-hidden or visible. Or, they can be organizations that want to further a political agenda through specific actions. A good example of a nation-state actor is a Super PAC.
A Super PAC is an organization with the ability to raise unlimited funds from corporations, individuals, as well as other groups to defeat or support or a political candidate. The United States government allows them to donate a limited quantity of money to candidates, especially presidential candidates. Republic candidates often use these Super PACs to gain the money they need to run a successful campaign. “Restore Our Future raised $18 million from about 200 donors. For comparison, the Romney campaign would have needed to collect the maximum donation of $2,500 from 7,200 individuals to raise that amount”[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Conor M. Dowling and Michael Gerald Miller, Super PAC!: Money, Elections, and Voters After Citizens United (Routledge, 2014), 2.]
A non-state actor may have a lot of political influence, but it is not affiliated or linked with any state or country. Multinational corporations for example, are non-state actors that are for profit companies or organizations operating in various sovereign states. One notable company is Coca-Cola who is widely popular and can influence popular opinion. Violent non-state actors like drug cartels, can influence politics through actions like bribery and so forth, allowing their crimes to go unnoticed by the general public and gaining protection from facing legal action for their illegal activities. Non-state actors and their existence conflicts with realism’s assumptions as well as other black box theories concerning international relations.
Non-state actors can gain legitimacy by creating Super PACs that can then fuel the selection of key political candidates that will pass legislation that goes in line with their goals. A good current example of this is the Trump Administration and Trump’s cabinet. Some of those in his cabinet do not really have political experience or experience in political office, similar to President Donald Trump himself. Yet, they have key positions within the United States government that grants them great power.
These people were once non-state actors that then became nation-state actors and managed to achieve political legitimacy. Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillersn, is an Exxon Mobil president and chief executive. “The president and chief executive of Exxon Mobil would oversee a department that has centered on alliance building and globalism, which Mr. Trump has said he would dismantle”[footnoteRef:3] He donated to political candidates until one day, he was able to gain the right candidate in Trump who was then able to give him a legitimate position in the government, to which now has holds great power. [3: The New York Times, "Donald Trump?s Cabinet Is Complete. Here?s the Full List," The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, last modified December 15, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html?_r=0.]
These non-state actors turned nation-state actors blur the line and don’t really showcase the true difference between the two. That is why one must look at violent non-state actors to see a clear difference. While sometimes non-state actors may become nation-state actors, what separates them is the lack of allegiance on the part of non-state actors to any country or government. Introduce the element of violence and ISIS can be a good example of a non-state actor, marking the stark contrast between the two.
VNSAs are organized groups that have command structures which operate outside state control. They induct activists by force and are also able to attract volunteers. In exceptional situations, VNSAs enjoy territorial control, examples being the TTP controlling certain pockets of Fata in the past, the LTTE doing the same in Sri Lanka and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines. Such organizations have clandestine networks and to advance their narrative, they employ the latest propaganda techniques[footnoteRef:4]. [4: M. A. Babahel, "The nation state versus violent non-state actors - The Express Tribune," last modified August 28, 2015, https://tribune.com.pk/story/946017/the-nation-state-versus-violent-non-state-actors/.]
By violent non-state actors attempting to gain control through violence and disrupting the social fabric of society, they are viewed as not ones that aim to legitimize themselves politically, but rather, those that merely seek to create an environment suitable for their needs regardless of the laws in place in that region. ISIS often takes an area, places their rules in that area, only for the regime to be taken down when legitimate forces come and take back the area. Super PACs are subtler than that and aim to work from inside to gain the power that they want for their own ends.
Question 2
The present world has its challenges. With continual influxes of technology and a proliferation of all forms of media, including social, it can be difficult to understand the threats out there and the level of these threats and how to deal with them accordingly. While things have changed for better or for worse since the Cold War, depending on who does the research, it is safe to say that the United States government has had to adapt to the changes. These changes have led to an evolution of the Intelligence Community and has created an interesting environment from which to assess.
Intelligence played a key part in the Cold War. The Cold War lasted decades and brought with it a need to collect information quickly and effectively. With the collapse of the Soviet Union as well as the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Cold War ended, and the United States was on the winning side. What got it to the winning side, the Intelligence Community (IC). Intelligence allowed for the prevention of a ‘hot war’ and the preservation of hope for those that struggled for liberty. But with the win came a fundamental change in the world and the country which the IC was created.
The Intelligence community exists as a federation of thirteen Executive Branch organizations and agencies whose foundations was recognized through the National Security Act of 1947. “A U.S. intelligence capability in peacetime reflected a commitment to prevent another surprise like Pearl Harbor by keeping an eye on developments like the continuing Soviet military build-up after World War II. The Act recognized the need for both civilian and military intelligence elements”[footnoteRef:5]. The IC served its purpose several times over especially in the 1950’s and 60’s when the height of Cold War saturated the minds of Americans with fear through Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis. [5: Library, "The Intelligence Community," UNT Libraries: CyberCemetery Home, last modified 2017, https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/intelexe.html.]
From there, it roughly stayed the same because technology did not rapidly progress even with the introduction of the personal computer decades later. It was not until the 90’s and the introduction of the internet, that the IC had to learn to adapt and adopt new techniques to collect and handle intelligence. 1990 brought the introduction of the World Wide Web via Tim Berners-Lee and people could then use the internet to send and receive information that would take days or hours to do via mail. Although phones were used, they were not often a reliable means of safely communicating because of wire taps and so forth[footnoteRef:6]. Therefore, when the internet came along, it became a secure means of delivering secret information and thus the IC had to grow to combat it and use the internet for their ow purposes. [6: Floribert Baudet et al., Perspectives on Military Intelligence from the First World War to Mali: Between Learning and Law (Springer, 2017)]
The IC is composed of various parts. “The IC workforce is composed of civilian and military personnel who are part of the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) or Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA). The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) heads the Intelligence Community at large, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)”[footnoteRef:7]. These parts can work together more effectively thanks to the evolution of communication brought on by the internet and other technological breakthroughs seen in the 1990’s and past that. With the advent of the internet, more and more technological breakthroughs came like an affordable personal computer and the smartphone to make it easier and at the same time more difficult to do the job of the IC. [7: Library, "The Intelligence Community," UNT Libraries: CyberCemetery Home, last modified 2017, https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/intelexe.html.]
The IC was relieved to not have to worry about the Cold War anymore. But now that technology has grown and proliferated and be made accessible cheaply for the masses, the job of the IC is more complex. For example, the classic task of spying was simple back then. Cold War spies would go to Russia for example, and collect intelligence on the activity of certain political officials. Then, they would send the information they gathered via letters or through delivery person and if they needed to record conversations they had apparatuses at the bottom of their shoes that could then be transferred to someone who would give it to a government official[footnoteRef:8]. There are plenty of documents and even manuals detailing this. [8: Floribert Baudet et al., Perspectives on Military Intelligence from the First World War to Mali: Between Learning and Law (Springer, 2017)]

However, in today’s world with the use of street cameras, body cams, and secret cameras the size of pins, it has made it difficult and easy to collect and transmit intelligence because of both the ease of vulnerabilities of communication systems. For instance, going back to the spy example, if a spy had on her a body camera that could record a secret conversation, she may be intercepted by someone seeing her on a street camera. She could transmit that data to someone through an anonymous email server through the TOR browser, but she could also be traced as well if she uses her smartphone or any WIFI connection.
To say that the Cold War was just the beginning of the IC is no joke. The IC built upon what was learned during the Cold War. But now, it is constantly evolving today to encompass all the different strategies and holes in security that exist in today’s modern world. This world is filled with too many possibilities to create a true conundrum for the IC.