Published on July 12, 2019.
Presented as a chapter originally published on May 6, 2018, this passage discusses the threats of opinion manipulation, election interference, and information warfare by Russia and China, centering on NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre.
It clarifies the essence of modern information warfare, in which all instruments of state power are coordinated to shape public opinion, and sounds a sharp warning about Japan’s lack of awareness of the danger.
2019-07-12
To understand key counterparts and engage the target, actions using all means of state power are coordinated with plans and messages.
What follows is a chapter I published on 2018/5/6.
The following is from an article by Keiko Iizuka, European-based editorial writer, published on page 7 of today’s Yomiuri Shimbun under the title, “To Win the ‘Arms Race’ of Opinion Manipulation.”
On the right side of the main road leading from the airport to the center of the capital, a dark blue flag flutters high.　
The flag with a white compass rose in the center belongs to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.
Its research institution, the “Strategic Communication” Center, was proposed by Latvia, one of the three Baltic states of Eastern Europe, and was launched in the capital Riga in 2114.　
The center is small, with about 40 full-time staff members, and strictly speaking is an affiliated organization of NATO.
However, inspections and study visits have increased sharply over the past year or so.
The reason is that this is a core base that studies in multifaceted ways Russia’s manipulation of public opinion and interference in elections in Europe and the United States, and proposes countermeasures.　
To begin with, what is “strategic communication”?　
According to military specialists, the term itself already existed in the early twentieth century.
It is said to have come into common use in the field of security only in the past ten years or so.
Of course, this is not a matter limited to Russia alone.　
The U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, revised in 2016, defines it as follows.　　　　　　
“Focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.”　
The center’s director, Jānis Sārts (45), explains, “It costs less than military action, yet its influence is great. Russia has taken advantage of advances in computer technology and ‘weaponized’ it.”　
Certainly, Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Facebook, testifying before the U.S. Congress in April, also referred to this as “an arms race” in connection with the fact that Facebook had been used as a principal means of Russian election interference.
It can also be said that NATO stepped in precisely because Europe and the United States had begun to grasp the situation in a military context.
Mr. Sārts, who served as Latvia’s Undersecretary of Defense until 2015, predicted, “In the near future, China will become the strongest player in this field.”
“Russia is now merely weaponizing the platform that the United States created. China, on the other hand, handles enormous volumes of data and makes enormous investments, and it may create a platform that surpasses conventional Western technology.”　
When that happens, where will China’s target be?—
As I was turning the matter over in my mind, Mr. Sārts said, “Just recently, a delegation connected with the Tokyo Olympics came here from Japan.”
The Olympics, as a global event, “will become a testing ground for measures against information operations and public-opinion manipulation.”
“The places least aware that they are being targeted suffer the greatest damage. Japan’s current situation may be even more serious than that of Europe and the United States.”　
Latvia became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991.
At the end, Mr. Sārts smiled and said this.
“For the first 18 years of my life, I was a Soviet citizen. I understand their way of thinking very well, so I am not easily deceived. At the same time, I also understand very well the value of democracy. That is precisely why this facility was created here.”　
In the end, is not the fortress in this battle one’s system of values and power of judgment as a human being, beyond technology and weaponry?
Japan, too, must begin to sound that warning clearly and seriously.