Page 1 of 26
INFORMATION DISPARITIES FUELING GLOBAL DISPUTES: EXAMINING
CAUSES AND PROPOSING RESOLUTIONS
Introduction
Information disparities as threats to international security
Inequality in information or information gap, also refers to a situation where some
countries, groups or individuals have access to information while others do not have any access
to such information, has many implications that may pose a threat to world peace in the
following ways. First, and perhaps the most obvious, intelligence and military operations are
centered on the acquisition, processing, and use of information, so any divergence in knowledge
between two sides goes to the side with better information. For instance, a country with
intelligence gathering/espionage capacity or which has penetrated the communication networks
of the adversary has the advantage of understanding the military might/smerit of the rival, to
predict his action plan, to cover up its own actions, to disseminate fake information, etc. In a
similar vein, negotiation involves exchange of information on the position/interest/bargaining
capacity of each of the parties; lack of information makes it difficult to locate points of
convergence or to understand the intention and implications of the other party or what will
appease him. This condition leads to aspects of uncertainty that can cause eventual
miscalculations and lead to conflict situations. Many modern global challenges, such as terrorism
or epidemics, financial crises or climate change, or migration, require global collective action.
However, cooperation is diminished when some parties possess greater or equal access to and
different views on pertinent facts. The nature of the information that two allies receive may cause
them to have different threat perceptions and policy priorities. For example, in the initial stages
of the Covid-19 pandemic, inconsistent and conflicting information on the pandemic moves from
Page 2 of 26
China, WHO, and other national health organizations to the west and vice versa, affected a
common operating picture and slowed down the decision-making process regarding travel bans,
medical supply chain disruptions, information sharing, and other critical concerns etc. Hence, in
the realm of global health, there is a lack of effective coordination when everyone is not using
Unequal access to information within societies can also cause long-term socio-political
instabilities and eventually influence the geopolitics in an indirect way. Lack of knowledge about
government policies, fake news, and censorship as well as lack of openness on the part of
government can breed domestic unrest; and once internal tension erupts, it can go international
or open the door to outside influence. When information is power and war and when data can
cross geographical borders irrespective of political barriers within seconds, managing conflict
requires that disparities be treated.
Unequal access to critical data exacerbating global security tensions
These important resources are scarce and are stretching the relations between countries
and at the same time the world is becoming more interconnected and data provide and edge in
areas of economic performance, technological capabilities, and capability of security forces. The
capabilities of collecting, processing, and applying big data in promotion, analytics, prediction,
or weapon system advancement are significantly higher in the US, China, Russia, EU members,
and other developed countries. Developing nations on the other hand, despite being home to
large youth populations who are usually advanced in digital technologies use suffer from
inadequate financial might, technology, education feeder systems and legal frameworks that
would enable them leverage on data to the same optimal level as the developed nations. This
disparity of data access, which broadly reflects a similar division in the global economy between
the developed and the developing world, has the potential to exacerbate global instability should
Page 3 of 26
it continue unchecked. Those countries that cannot harness big data for improved governance,
upgraded infrastructure, enhanced urban planning, and the like could see state capacities eroded
and incipient civil unrest triggered should large numbers of youths continue to be unemployed
and frustrated. On the other hand, the countries that continue to suffer from asymmetric data
disadvantages triggered by global data multilateralism may provoke ideological rejection of the
Western-led data governance models promoted by the advanced democracies, but may instead
embrace authoritarian models that may promise such data prosperity as the China‟s state-
controlled data economic model. Finally, the dissimilar development levels of big data
capabilities continued into the national security domain and might significantly impair the
weaker developing states‟ capability to safeguard homelands against interior or exterior data-
facilitated threats, thus provoking more rogue actions from malicious state and non-state actors
perceiving opportunities to exacerbate the destabilization of isolated areas of the globe.
Advanced economies on the other hand could harness their superior data advantages for
malicious international actions that violate the sovereignty of other nations, secure in the
knowledge of their ability to cloak such activities in credible analytical camouflage should they
decide to mount disinformation campaigns, meddle in other countries‟ elections, stage sabotage
attacks on infrastructure or launch lethal drones attacks on foreign targets in the event of
diplomatic or military tensions. In sum, not only the present fairness of the global information
economy, but the very future of the planet may one day depend on whether and how the
presently widening chasm of tilted information access can be mitigated before it further erodes
cooperation, non-proliferation and peaceful coexistence between the information haves and
have-nots of the world. Constructive policy solutions can only arise when effective cooperation
between governments and enterprises from different countries is possible in the context of equal
Page 4 of 26
sharing of public and private data for the benefit of all with reasonable measures to protect
privacy and fair security cooperation, and not the beginning of a new age of digital colonialism
that will prepare the ground for a devastating war between the owners of data in the world and
their owners in the next decades.
Addressing information gaps to enhance global stability and cooperation
People of different countries must be connected and information must be exchanged to
increase the level of cooperation for common goals. Lack of awareness of perception, bias,
values, and priorities, Lack of information exchange and lack of recognition of what is behind
the veil behind which decisions are made can cause conflict. This entails being prepared and
ready to look for better ways to communicate and to pass on vital information even if it can be
deemed as sensitive when it is required, to also appreciate other people and their views and
perceptions and also to teach and learn people about matters in the right manner. That is why
governments and leaders who have high ethical standards, who appreciate the principles of
accountability and respect the citizens‟ right to fairly be treated as well are more likely to make
reasonable decisions in the best interest of the citizens with regard to the multiple stakeholders.
Still, no state in the world has yet achieved the best optimal factor ratio between security and
economic concerns, altruism, and rationalism in international relations. Thus, there is an evident
opportunity to make further progress by questioning personal view, bias, and attempt to perceive
others‟ point. The use of new media in social transformations means that people are able to get
all sort of opinions but also fake news stories that create enmity between different parties. This is
especially so given that institutions and media, which people have faith in, are being tested by
new dynamics, it is useful that even if the facts have not shaken such beliefs, change is
acknowledged. It is also important to understand that none of the modern complex problems
Page 5 of 26
such as climate change or a global health threat or tensions between nations have a clear black
and white solution; however, when no information is available, it can be filled by representatives
of various organizations. However, states will always act in ways that seek to safeguard their
own interests first; therefore, it is possible to avoid negative relational deportment if states
understand the domestic level policy consequences and effect of foreign friends and enemies. In
this case, the two conflicting parties have honored each other‟s diplomacy and culture and both
have assumed the best of the other‟s intention when developing conflict.
Asymmetric Intelligence Capabilities Impacting Global Security
Developing nations lacking advanced satellite surveillance systems
There are always drawbacks when a country does not have the monetary and technical
resources to build or purchase sophisticated satellite monitoring systems, which may place them
in a precarious situation, not only in terms of trade but also defense. Due to lack of their own
advanced satellite systems where imagery, communication, and GPS among other important data
feeds are provided, developing nations have to pay for the services from the advanced space
nations. This not only thwarts indigenous space industries but means developing nations do not
own their own satellite resources or the data they generate. For instance, the acquisition of the
satellite images from the global suppliers imply that developing countries are not determining the
imaging needs or necessarily receiving the best quality images that are available in the market.
The absence of satellites from indigenous GNSS and positioning systems leaves developing
countries reliant on other governments for information as crucial as the one needed for national
development projects or military operations, to name but a few areas requiring such information.
It is good to note that satellite systems are also critical for the sovereignty of countries because
they enable real-time assessment of the security perimeter and identification of possible threats,
Page 6 of 26
and interaction between the national security forces. Countries lacking advanced satellites are
disadvantaged in terms of both rapidly resolving both man-made as well as naturally occurring
disasters and secondly, in terms of evaluating and handling long-term security threats within a
country‟s territory or region of influence. Satellite support is complex, capital intensive and time
consuming to conduct by any country on its own and therefore present further challenges to the
developing countries interested in building their own space monitoring systems. This can be
partially alleviated through the assistance of satellite systems and data sources that some
developing nations can partner or lease from international counterparts. However, risks of data
cutoff or restrictions from partners do exist Hence it is to the advantage of the developing
countries to strive to develop their superior space potentials wherever possible even if complete
reliance on other nations cannot be avoided in the near future. Another strategic objective in the
long term should be the efforts to overcome the „satellite divide‟ with the advanced space faring
nations.
Uneven access to real-time threat detection technologies
The advancement of such efficient threat recognition solutions as artificial intelligence,
enhanced biometrics, and accurate analytical policing in some states has given a brand-new level
of parity to a nation‟s intelligence that promotes International security. Countries that have an
advanced technology industry such as the United States, China, Israel, and most of the EU
countries spend a lot of money on creating such complex systems that can be mostly applied in
defense, intelligence, and law enforcement. First, such kinds of emerging technologies are
grossly distributed in a very unequal manner across countries, and it is evident that the
developing nations with low levels of RD will not be in a position to capture such technologies
with ease. This asymmetrical nature of intelligence capability because of better real-time threat
Page 7 of 26
assessment tools exacerbates the global power and security gap and stokes more conflict. To
elaborate on that, the countries that do not have sufficient funds to either build or purchase brand
new higher forms of AI security for watch and observe, analytical tools for crime prediction or
quick identification of criminals through DNA are likely to experience more and more crime and
terrorism on a daily basis. As for their security forces and as for the analog methods of
monitoring them, it looks as if they are something from the past, or if they are compared with the
latest technologies that are used in the developed countries to monitor the forces, they look
ineffective. Technologies that enable threats to be identified on real-time basis prove useful in
the matter of time that is taken to respond as well as the precision of the security responses. Such
places are deemed insecure and anathema to tourists, businessmen, investors and other
opportunity seekers hence they lead to losses in terms of economic activities. Furthermore, some
of the developed countries may offer their technology to the developing countries with intent of
dictating policy changes or with their self-interests in mind, therefore limiting the sovereignty of
those developing countries. This division could be reduced if the more Developed nations were
to collaborate on the sharing of the real-time threat detection with each other, but
competitiveness for the control of AI and other emerging technologies prevents such a chance.
Last the emergence of real time threat identification solutions using Artificial Intelligence,
Biometrics and analytical tools tilts the balance in favor of the „have‟ endangering global
security and puts it on a very fragile state.
Disparities in data analysis capabilities influencing security
In the last several years, technology has revolutionized the intelligence data gathering and
mining process in ways that have destabilized the international security system providing
intelligence agencies and militaries with unprecedented access to and control over large data sets,
Page 8 of 26
the capacity to make sense of them, and thereby gain competitive advantages, but these
capacities are not universal; the developed world has the upper hand in possessing strong data
analysis capabilities while less developed nations are in the opposite end and this is In point of
fact, dominant states such as the United States and China are pursuing advanced technologies
including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, enhanced sensors, biometrics and other
technologies in order to gather and analyze data to discover enemies‟ secrets, predict actions,
guide lethal autonomous weapons, enhance early warning systems, and outcompete adversaries
during crises most of the other weaker states do not have similar data analysis capabilities hence,
the mentioned glaring vulnerabilities and informational disadvantages intensify Moreover, while
guiding powers are targeting personal data, tapping communications networks, sowing
disinformation, and interfering in elections to weaken opponents short of armed attack, south
countries that lack comparable cyber and influence capabilities have few deterrent and defensive
tools. While all the countries encourage reasonable state conduct in cyberspace and other
domains, SNAF has been attributed to different norms and the ineffectiveness of weaker states to
implement policies enabling the stronger ones to operate with impunity. Therefore, policymakers
have to engage in arms-control approach regarding destabilizing uses of data while helping the
developing states enhance their capacities, or increasing divergence in national abilities will
deepen the tensions. In conclusion, it can be ascertained that increasing divergence between
fundamentally different levels of data analysis capabilities in the modern world is significantly
straining twentieth-century security paradigms, as leading militaries of advanced states are
equipped with highly effective asymmetric weapons, while most mid-tier and developing nations
remain not only vulnerable but also unstable.
Page 9 of 26
Information Silos in Transnational Security Cooperation
Incompatible intelligence databases hindering joint counterterrorism efforts
Autonomous intelligence databases between government agencies including CIA, NSA,
and FBI have posed a significant barrier to essential information exchange and cooperative
counterterrorism for many years. Still, gaps persist following the 9/11 experience that brought
about the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to promote interagency
cooperation, albeit unsuccessfully due to the persistent use of old legacy systems coupled by
proprietary software, operating systems, and data standards unable to effectively integrate with
one another. DHS itself also exhibit this within its own sub-organizations and divisions, as a way
of operation. Efforts have been made to establish general frameworks to ensure systems can
interact but due to differing security protocols compounded with cultural issues of not sharing
information even with other departments of the American government information silos continue
to evolve that do not allow analysts the necessary view they need to join the dots to foil terrorist
attacks. There has also been a lot of squabbling over who controls which resources and how
budgets are spent that has hindered technology consolidation efforts. Though agencies have
noted this glaring absence, simple integration of multiple databases with disparate protocols,
access rules, or security measures or total replacement of the systems have posed significant
challenges in practice so far. In the same regard, the result is still far too much intelligence going
to waste, unnoticed or lying dormant in disparate silos as agencies persist in focusing on the
collection and analysis of information that is relevant to them, rather than sharing intelligence in
the spirit of openness and collaboration. This has real costs in terms of opportunity loss to
apprehend suspects already in the system like several big domestic terrorist plots over the years
seemingly conducted by people whose threat signals were possessed by one agency but not
Page 10 of 26
available to others that may well have neutralized the menace if only there were better cross
database connectivity solutions. However, as in any large organizations, getting over mental
barriers related to an organizational culture in which different parts of the intelligence structures
were traditionally treated as silos with minimal interaction with one another remains a work in
progress in the United States.
Varying classification levels impeding comprehensive threat assessments
Different categorizations across countries and organizations may also lead to higher and
lower levels of classification of threats thus constraining the ability to develop threat perceptions
from a wide perspective of threat domains which in essence fosters information
compartmentalization that limits effective transnational security cooperation. If intelligence and
data are split into different classification levels and provided by different organizations, analysts
from various domains are not privy to all the intelligence relating to one threat. This hinders the
construction of an integrated conception comprising the diplomatic, informational, military,
economic, financial, informational, and legal and law enforcement components. For instance,
sigint of Country A about a terrorist organization‟s plan to conduct an attack may be at a level
that bars sharing it with Country B‟s police conducting an investigation of the same terror
organization‟s financial transactions. The problem is that if these pieces are not connected, then
neither Country A nor Country B gains an accurate understanding of the full threat context,
capabilities or intentions. Multi-domain, multi-source data integration does not provide a „single
source of truth‟ which forms cognitive seams between the partners. Disconnection in threat
perception then limits cooperation and unity of action. This problem does not only affect
bilateral cooperation which hinders the overall functionality of the multilateral security systems
like NATO, ASEAN, INTERPOL, as well as others in addressing complicated trans-regional
Page 11 of 26
challenges. Due to these barriers different classification categories need to regulate their
procedures, technologies, and protocols to facilitate responsible sharing through proper
computing facilities, and access mechanism. This can facilitate ingest of information from both
classified and unclassified sources without withstand compromising sensitive sources and
methods. It also necessitates the understanding of the classification methodology by the partners,
as well as the acceptable level of risk. This is because common standards and adherence to
security and data usage policies have been established create openness. Provisions that form the
foundation for any such executive direction and legislative action to mandate and resource such
initiatives, are laid. In the long run, the systems are integrated and the information sharing at
different levels can lead to a broader picture of threat sources and actors across the
administrative and geographical divisions. This results in collective action to address the gains
by the bad guys and increase stability.
Fragmented early warning systems weakening collective security
Collective security is a doctrine that focuses on the early identification of threats and
timely assembling of forces in a coordinated manner for the management of threats before they
are full-blown threats; however, any sign of fragmentation of these systems at national level or
due to incompatible systems erode this important ability, which in turn undermines agreements
based on collective security. Collectively, security pacts help the participant states to share
intelligence to paint a single picture of the strategic environment on behalf of the entities
involved; nevertheless, when early warning systems like satellites, radars, and surveillance
networks to the allied organizations are not integrated with each other due to the technology
differences, protocols, operating procedures, or data format differences, intelligence sharing
becomes a problem as vital data becomes locked up in the system or omitted during the human
Page 12 of 26
analysis The inability of the sensor data from different networks to join the dots between various
incidents across different regions or to identify trends and patterns which could be threats
ultimately provides an inadequate picture that leaves one with a blind spot. This fragmentation
also does not allow for quick coordination of allies‟ opinions on the indicators of the potential
threats or on how they will affect the environment, thus slowing down the timespan necessary for
the initiation of the coordinated deterrent processes. If observers give different meanings to the
strategic outlook depending on what they infer from the available pieces of intelligence passing
through their respective national security lenses, then confirmation bias can creep in on both
sides. These divisions cannot be solved by mere technologies that make systems interconnected
and integrate data; it also entails removing „gaps‟ in the conceptual frameworks that participant
states have about balance of power or threats; it also requires transparency, relationship-building
as well as harmonizing security cultures between allied countries – tasks that can be described as
incredibly complex even within long-standing alliances. In essence, collective security refers to
the ability of allies to identify a threat and act as one; this is where early warning systems
interferes with allies‟ perception and decision-making process at a crucial juncture by creating a
time lag, distortion and disconnection between allies‟ comprehensive appreciation of events,
threats and outcomes and the corresponding action.
Information Control and National Security Policies
State secrecy laws impeding international security cooperation
Unprecedented is the role that state secrecy laws play in hampering the flow of
information between governments, thus complicating security cooperation in an increasingly
globalized world. Secrecy laws that are put in place are sometimes excessive in that they limit
the manner in which intelligence and law enforcement agencies can share information or even
Page 13 of 26
cooperate across borders. Governments also have genuine legal interests in preventing certain
kinds of otherwise protected speech to some people, particularly regarding classified or
politically sensitive data such as intelligence assets and techniques. There is a fine line here that
must be drawn because the level of secrecy is too high and that is not good for governments to
develop trust based relations that would enhance cooperation. It also feeds the public‟s mistrust
and permits corruption as essential controls and democracy assurances could be eroded. On the
other hand, governments cannot share all details since this may lead to compromising the
operational integrity and civilians safety due to information sharing with wrong parties.. It is also
important to take note of the fact that there are valid differences between states with respect to
where lines ought to be drawn between the openness of government operations in managing
threats and the necessity to keep some aspects confidential. Meaning the key to addressing the
issue is more open communication and discussion of security clearances, information-sharing,
and common security initiatives rather than strictly guarded positions. It will be the actual state
of how state authorities assigned with the maintenance of liberty and security will understand
and adjust to each other that shall define how institutions that are to facilitate the partnership will
work. Should state secrecy laws totally prevent the sharing of such data across their borders that
are instrumental in tracking threats and apprehending criminals who exploit jurisdictional
shortcomings, the world will be the loser. However, it is still reasonable to protect some of the
„higher secrets‟ as long as it is conducted within the framework of the Constitution with
appropriate legal measures. Security and privacy on the one hand, with civil liberties and
openness on the other, have not been satisfactorily solved even today, and remain a delicate
matter in different political and cultural environments without universally accepted optimal
Page 14 of 26
solutions. However, new challenges that transcend national boundaries require states to sustain
further genuine efforts to build partner relationships and reach convergence.
Selective information sharing straining alliance trust dynamics
The concept of trust is a fundamental building block when it comes to any partnership
that may exist between two or more countries, organizations or persons, which is important to
note that when information is being exchanged between partners in an organizational relationship
then the effect of getting selective in sharing information with the partner has the possibility of
eroding the trust in the relationship in the long run. It is always possible for there to be some
grounds, albeit for the restriction of information sharing – there may be issues of national
security, business competition, or the privacy of some individuals that may make people close
up. However, this selective sharing can put a lot of pressure and negatively tilt the scales of trust
if one of the partners feels the other is withholding vital information on purpose, which may find
that important data that can affect common goals, strategies, and results is being concealed from
them. When distrust replaces trust, it hinders communication and particularly teamwork since
people cannot rely on each other. All partners take comparatively more time in making
assumptions rather than focusing on the achievement of mutual objectives. This strained
relationship prevents the possible synergy of what the two companies and group could achieve
together. The partner that is withholding or withholding the information can always have what
can be described as a rational for withholding the information even as they seek to respect the
spirit of team work. The other side being unable to see that rationale puts them at a disadvantage
in understanding the arguments in the broader perspective. Rebuilding goodwill means also
establishing direct channels of communication – This is an important area where the selective
partner should sit down and provide a rationale why they have been withholding information
Page 15 of 26
from the other while assuring them of their full commitment to the partnership. They need to
ensure that the audience understands that when there is an information constraint, this is in no
way aimed at misleading them. Similarly the questioning partner requires an attitude that states –
I understand it‟s not possible to be completely open – I am working with people across countries,
culture and operating environments. If the partners progress in an empathic manner, slowly and
incrementally increasing the degree to which the formerly unseen areas are exposed as comfort
levels allow, the partnership can still be successful. Though it means recognizing that the ego‟s
selective sharing happens, it involves knowing how you think, him think, and finally centers the
work on the larger commonalities irrespective of the discrepancies on details. The partners may
still avoid certain hot buttons of data and yet they can still drive towards end goals by building a
compromised trust, patience, and perspective.
Whistleblower protections varying globally, affecting intelligence flows
Whistleblower jurisprudence varies across nations which affects intelligence collection
and assessments. Those countries, with strong legal protections for the whistleblowers exposing
corruption and other vices are likely to attract more people to do the same. They do this in order
to increase the raw data that inform patterns of concerns, that is, the basic material that forms the
basis of a puzzle. Nonetheless, the lack of, or even the presence of penalties for whistleblowers,
thwarts more individuals who are willing to come forward, even if they find themselves in
regimes where they have directly observed serious wrongdoing. In societies where free speech is
valued and, especially, in democracies, revealing shortcomings or abuses of institutions is
considered a service to the public. Countries such as the United States have gone further and put
in to place whistleblower rewards programs that offer monetary compensation. However,
autocracies as well as authoritarian governments tend to see citizens seeking answers from
Page 16 of 26
authorities as posing threats. The kind of revelations also elicits varying reactions – while
regimes may allow some disclosure on petty corruption but Calderoni and Castells mention that
they attack disclosures concerning human rights abuses or threats to those in power. The global
variance implies that intelligence collectors working within the framework of the whistleblower-
protecting countries can obtain more raw information than their counterparts who operate in the
countries with limited similar sources. Yet even among allies, differing standards lead to
asymmetries: For instance, a U.S. analyst may access media articles of well-guarded British
insiders who are not accessible to Canadian counterparts who lack the same legal shield. In the
future, technology could widen the gap as whistleblowers could securely send documents
electronically to other countries rather than physically manifest in their home country. However,
by stating that the provision of broad digital asylum may not necessarily harm source
authenticity but provide raw data, it only negates the means to determine such a claim. To open
flows, nations could seek both wider shields and cooperation on vetting as a way of
strengthening the bids. But holes appear to remain when distinguishing between oppressive and
liberal societies, in addition to being inconsistent among partners, favoring some spies over
others.
Security Sector Digital Literacy Disparities
Varying cyber-defense competencies among national security agencies
At the same time, one can distinguish significant variations in the levels of cyber-defense
preparedness and readiness between the agencies belonging to the US National Security System.
Some companies and agencies such as the NSA and the US Cyber Command have very
advanced capabilities in cyber defense although there are those that are still in the process of
developing theirs. Some of the difference can be attributed to the established mission of each
Page 17 of 26
agency – those centers with particular emphasis on the cyber task are more proactive in the
development and employment of defensive and, at times, even the aggressive cyber capabilities.
However, the cyber threats do not hold back from targeting any mission-oriented entity and
therefore every governmental organization must have a minimum level of network defense.
Measures should be made to ensure that the competence levels in every area are raised. An
executive order that directs agencies to adhere to basic cyber hygiene could make certain that all
agencies aim at fundamental measures such as MFA, timely patching, monitoring of networks
and detection of intrusions. The other strategy that could be implemented by the DHS is to be
more proactive in audit and offering expertise in cyber protection to other departments. It is
called CISA that already provides penetration testing, risk and vulnerability assessments, and
incident response assistance to any agency. But not all networks are under their charge today.
Cloud adoption could give specific concerning cyber defense a certain economy of scale. When
agencies have moved their on-premise infrastructures to the FedRAMP-authorized environments,
it is possible to have the constant monitoring of the systems, as well as security controls.
The cloud does not remove the attack surface or relieve an agency of having to consider
cyber threats. It does set the precedent for any agency upward by having rigid security measures
and policies that have already been piloted. There is a need to increase the resources for the
purpose of enhancing the level of cyber competency between the agencies. Alone, cybersecurity
is expected to be below three percent of the current IT budgets of most agencies. The lawmakers
in the Congress should earmark specific appropriation for the agencies to expend only on cyber
for the FY2023 budget proposal. However, money in the form of grants is not enough by itself –
agencies need qualified CISOs and supporting staff to spend that money wisely. Some features
require enhancement of talent management programs of the federal CISO Council for the
Page 18 of 26
construction of cyber leaders and their placement in different agencies. As competencies are
raised, volatility in the implementation of best practices and more information sharing within the
federal network owners, the security status of the nation is enhanced. It is a systemic issue that
will require systemic remedies involving the deployment of budgeting, training, standards, and
organizational leadership priorities as identified by Douglas & Judge [2]. Hence, the gap should
be closed only by the combined strategies that imply the collaboration of all the parties
interested.
Social engineering vulnerabilities exploited in less tech-savvy
Social engineered deals with deception tricks by wrong people in an attempt to gain
confidential information or get people to carry out certain activities that are unhealthy to
security. These strategies rely on basic instincts and behaviors, such as obedience to authority,
overemphasized desire to help, and inability to critically think about dubious commands. Those
with low computer literacy, including those within security organizations and forces where such
disparities are often observed, are most at risk of social engineering. Security staff typically have
broad permissions but they are not always technically sophisticated and are not trained to
recognize or counter fraud attempts regarding systems or information. Slightly sophisticated
tactics include using emails that appear to originate from the organization‟s executives, fake
technical support calls, or messages that are designed to create the impression that they are of
dire importance are simple strategies that hackers employ fully knowing that many personnel do
not possess sufficient digital literacy to detect the traps and avert from them. Possible
repercussions include – armed response teams might be deployed as a result of fake alarms,
financial transactions might be made without considering the implications, or unauthorized
access to critical networks might be pioneered via malware installation. Influence of the clock
Page 19 of 26
whereby the society expects instant obedience to the authority figures when they make certain
directives can deprive group members the ability to reason during pressured times. Moreover, the
learning needs of security sector professionals and security policies often emphasize digital
literacy on cybersecurity rather than digital risks to people. Obligatory periodic updated training
that focuses on social engineering checklists and the proper way to report an event is crucial to
ensuring staff is capable of recognizing and addressing manipulation incidents. Pretexting and
actual phishing or vishing call-outs can therefore provide an organization with the human risk
trend. Procedures for moving money from one account to the other, alerting services for
emergencies, accessing information, or initiating software updates must be set and observed.
These should also be technical controls, such as specifying that a particular action must be
approved a second time. In the end, organizations have to make their system blameless so that
people can report any cases of potential policy violation without getting into trouble themselves.
Meaning there is a need to constantly assess and enhance the social engineering robustness
among the security sector employees to strengthen the human shield.
Uneven AI adoption in defense sectors creating
The rates and extent of AI integration have been exceptionally varied across the defense
sectors of different countries, with certain nations actively advancing and incorporating AI in
their military systems while others are significantly trailing behind. This growing gulf is
producing massive digital literacy and technological differential between the advanced defense
and security organizations of the modern and the more traditional defense-oriented organizations
that are heavily dependent on legacy defense programs. Currently, the leading militaries that
incorporated AI into their operations include the US, China, Russia, Israel, and some European
countries; their defense ecosystems have developed the ability to process big data and make
Page 20 of 26
decisions using artificial intelligence, model threats based on learning from them, and use
unmanned lethal autonomous weapons systems. Nevertheless, the majority of the world‟s
militaries in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Arab nations do not have sufficient
pooled funding, digital infrastructure, and the human capital, not to mention bleeding-edge AI
partnerships with private tech firms, to incorporate even rudimentary forms of automation and
algorithmic processing into current operational environments. These contrasting patterns in the
utilization of AI armed systems, cybersecurity, intelligence, and logistics systems imply that
security sector AI literacy may be creating new divides in geostrategic relations that could alter
this system in the next decade. While the major strategic warfare stakeholders are fine tuning
their „swarm intelligence‟, „informationized warfare‟ and „cognitive electronic combat,‟ these
instrumentalities remain mostly beyond the reach of the developing world‟s military
establishments thereby creating a complex asymmetry that potentially worsens conflict.
Reducing the gaps in AI literacy regarding security sector modernization may reduce these
disparities through workshops to self-organize best practices, multilateral table-top exercises are
based on vulnerabilities related to AI, and funding assistance that enables more countries to
integrate machine learning in retraining of military officers. While defense sectors need to learn
to contain the allure of secrecy and discretion while weighing the benefits of AI as the strategic
technology with the predictability of stability that arises from elevating the position of machine
learning in organizations that are still grappling with their digital transformation. Artificial
intelligence literacy gaps widen to form a source of instability as the heterogeneous advancement
in artificial intelligence adoption in the defense and security industries across the world becomes
available at an irregular rate. Limiting the exponential force multiplication effect capable of
being delivered by AI to a few select nations in global affairs generates skewed power relations.
Page 21 of 26
Although the aim of further equal AI adoption is still an idealistic goal, defense establishments
should try to eliminate these evolving asymmetries that are negative for equity.
Information Warfare in International Security Dynamics
Disinformation campaigns undermining global peacekeeping efforts
The phenomenon of disinformation as the intentional provision of the public with
unreliable data is a threat that directly threatens peacekeeping activities; it generates discord and
distrust at a time when cooperation is most crucial for peaceful interaction. Government and non-
governmental agents and all forms of media and other social media platforms spread
inflammatory fake news in record time that seeks to create hatred, fear, and division within
societies, communities, groups, and between nations especially those in the process of
negotiation or reconstruction from war. Thus, using such „suitcase psychological irritants‟ and
targeted information warfare, the manipulators can set hatred and resentment between people
which a peacekeeping mission is supposed to bring back together, disrupt the social
reconciliation and political liberalization processes by making different parties deny or become
suspicious of the outside mediators and peacekeepers, whom they are now seeing through their
red, pre-programmed, website-fed lenses as biased or deceitful, and therefore, not This
deterioration in the constructive communication channels increases restlessness on the grounds
that while the peacekeepers can only act as moderating factors without the voluntary cooperation
of the warring factions, their perceived relevance and utility are discredited and maligned by the
aforementioned actors through further manipulation of the narrative. In addition, countries that
contribute to peacekeeping may rely on domestic and international cooperation for sustaining
peace where conflicts have arisen, and disinformation campaigns that trigger angry protests or
political backlash against “inept” or “ineffective” peace keeping missions can pull out nations
Page 22 of 26
before lasting peace is established. Intentional disinformation surges also provide the opportunity
for the initiators of destructive actions to safely camouflage or facilitate their destabilizing
military operations under a veil of uncertainty or skepticism across the world as to the legitimacy
of the proportionate measures taken by the targeted countries. Given that even under the best
conditions, peace is not easily sustainable, constant and complex antagonizing disinformation
efforts could significantly imperil global peacekeeping efforts if left unaddressed.
Cyber espionage escalating tensions between rival powers
Cyber espionage or computer espionage involves surveillance of other people‟s
computers in order to gain unauthorized access to information, which has become a worrying
factor in today‟s world as emergent superpowers use hi-technologies to enhance inter-state
rivalry by using sophisticated weapons to attack opponents‟ computers. According to Pentagon,
the world‟s most developed countries including the United States have sophisticated cyber troops
who are able to penetrate foreign systems to steal information, spy and embezzle ideas. And as
the resolution of these countries‟ virtual capacities intensifies, there is a war being waged on the
internet right now today, one notch below an actual war. For instance, America has claimed that
both china and Russia have involved themselves in cyber spying on American enterprises,
organizations and computer systems for economic and tactual gains. In response, China goes on
aggressively denying state-sponsored cyber espionage, although the Chinese cyber actors have
hacked several western corporations and Russia has used such viruses as the Warhol to spy on
domestic activities. The cyber operations have maintained tension in diplomacy and elicited
public‟s anger as the states blame each other of unlawful hacking and preparing cyber domain.
The APT groups collect intelligence from the open network and make attribution very difficult
thereby allowing the hostile powers to deny the effect after they have systematically caused it. In
Page 23 of 26
the absence of properly laid down acceptable behavior and taboos on spying, cyber spying goes
on unabated and, thereby, enables spying in a manner that is unparalleled. As the wheels of
energy to the health sector to the finance sectors are getting connected online more frequently,
the advanced hacking tools sponsored by the rival states are the economic, political, and national
security threats. Attempts to coalesce the common understanding of cyber actions are hindered
by divergence as to sovereignty in the cyber space as well as spying methods acceptable to some
and prohibited to others. The probability of the armed conflict between the two countries remains
high according to the experts since the chances of the escalation through the incidents or hybrid
warfare with the help of cyber threat tools are also high. Besides the issue of defining rules that
would guarantee the proper behavioral patterns of states within the context of cyberspace, one
has to admit the presence of the clash of giants taking place behind the curtain, which leads to
the increase in the level of mistrust between states in the rapidly militarizing sphere.
Information manipulation tactics influencing arms control negotiations
Strategic management of information has remained a significant factor in the
international relations with regards to arms control for a long time. On one hand, propaganda,
media censorship, and restriction of communication channels help states to manage and
manipulate the public‟s perceptions of the weapons programs and demonstrate their sturdiness in
negotiations; thus, they may gain more concession from the counterparties. But over-control of
information also leads to public ignorance and it allows governments to indulge in dangerous or
provocative arms policies as the public remains uninformed. In addition, media today have
gained an international coverage hence making it difficult for regimes to conceal some of the
activities related to weapons. The population is now armed with satellite images, and journalism
has become more independent, so it is virtually impossible to remove all negative observations.
Page 24 of 26
However, it has been seen that states continue to use it very effectively in managing its domestic
opinion and smoke-screening its accurate arms capabilities. In conclusion, information
manipulation will remain as a tactic which will be used in the arms control talks, however, reality
control and censorship of information is no longer possible due to internet. However, the most
significant task for the future will be to respond to the aggressive propaganda of states conveying
to the population militaristic discourse and aggressive military postures that do not envisage
steps towards the reduction of armed forces. Some regimes are willing to invent threats in state-
controlled media to justify weapon accumulations or non-observance of treaties that are
potentially able to discredit existing arms control approaches. Nevertheless, it is hard to contrast
this type of propaganda, using different means of influencing public‟s consciousness, without
using the same approach. Maintaining the critical distance and providing the analyses that point
out the discrepancies in the official narratives may be the most benevolent strategy, but most
autocratic states are actively pursuing efforts to discredit and muzzle independent media.
Information manipulation has always been a part of arms control, especially when it comes to the
relations between the warring nations. The reality control has become more challenging to
regimes due to new technologies while on the other side, new technologies have offered more
means of manipulating public on issues to do with weapon programs and threats. This high-stake
modern context requires reason, moral, and ethical approaches from the journalist and civil
society organizations that work towards the achievement of proportional arms control.
Conclusion
It is argued that there is a need to also address the issue of balancing the distribution of
information especially when it comes to security since; the denial of equal SECURITY
information poses a serious threat to the safety of the vulnerable groups and only intensifies their
Page 25 of 26
sufferings. It is imperative for the global security sectors to adopt the digital competencies to
create common reference points and set out the basic levels of skill, knowledge, and language
that are usable securely between nations and organizations. As advanced persistent threats
expand across borders in cyberspace, a lack of standardized competencies brings in considerable
likelihoods of misinterpretation, inaccurate evaluation of threats, and poor coordination of
responses among security stakeholders. Setting up norms that are interoperable with international
standards will guarantee the agencies‟ synergy in terms of cyber readiness while at the same time
offer a universally higher bar in terms of digital literacy, cyber hygiene, network defense, and
data protection focused on the security domain. In addition, the improvement of international
safety, which is promoted by information equity, is promising since timely access to critical data
can help save lives and improve the efficiency of governments worldwide. Special caution
should be taken while making such information public in order to avoid disclosing information
about security threats that can be exploited by malicious actors. The use of OSINT and the
availability of data analysis tools is a two-sided sword – it helps to monitor and oversee all
processes, but at the same time, it is an opportunity for scammers. Nevertheless, regional
cooperation in order to achieve more openness of the threats without the disclosure of operation-
sensitive information will enhance security. To ensure that the market becomes more level, there
is a need to introduce commonly acceptable competencies, ensuring that ownership of data is
genuine and responsible, and promoting frameworks that can reduce the attack surface area of
today‟s threat actor groups who take advantage of the vulnerabilities within today‟s global digital
environment.
Synchronization of readiness of nations, sharing of threat intelligence, and
implementation of collective defense strategies are invariable to providing equal access to the
Page 26 of 26
information resources necessary to effectively respond to complex attack scenarios that are
beyond the capabilities of any one country or organization. Due to increasing interdependence in
essential systems and commerce, protection of companions overseas influences homeland
security: internationally, the security needs to be lifted uniformly to ensure that no country has a
significantly higher or lower capability level than others. By having a collective endeavor to
ensure all are taken to the barest minimum the level of cybersecurity adeptness and having the
interoperability frameworks in place, the global structure would be stronger against attacks that
are directed at specific areas of vulnerability in the security structure.
