List of Intelligence Agencies of Different Countries, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/intelligence-agencies-of-different-countries/

• Agencies:

  • R&AW (Research and Analysis Wing) – India

    • Established September 1968

    • HQ in New Delhi

    • Created following intelligence failures of Sino-Indian War

      • To have a dedicated wing for foreign intelligence

      • Before this the Intelligence Bureau was responsible for gathering internal and external intelligence

    • Originally formed with the objective of gathering intelligence in West/East Pakistan and China

  • CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) – USA

    • Established in 1947

    • Created to gather intelligence relating to national security

    • HQ in Virginia

  • Mossad – Israel

    • Established December 1949

    • HQ in Tel Aviv

  • ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) – Pakistan

    • Established 1948

    • HQ in Islamabad

  • MI6 (Military Intelligence Section 6 or Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)) – UK

    • Established in 1909

    • HQ in central London

    • Responsible for collecting secret foreign intelligence concerning Britain’s interest

    • Governed by the Intelligence Services Act 1994

      • Placed MI6 on a statutory basis for the first time

    • Foreign secretary is answerable to Parliament for the work of MI6

  • GRU (Main Intelligence Agency) – Russia

    • Strategic functions

      • Political intelligence

      • Scientific and technical intelligence

      • Illegal intelligence

    • Under command of Russia’s Ministry of Defence

    • Are believed to conduct cyber, disinformation, propaganda and assassination operations

  • MSS (Ministry of State Security) – China

    • Established 1983

    • HQ in Beijing

    • People’s Republic of China’s main civilian intelligence and counter-intelligence service

    • Mission:

      • Protect PRC’s national security

      • Secure political and social stability

      • Implement National Security Law

      • Protect state secrets

      • Conduct counter-intelligence

      • Investigate people/organisations perceived to endanger national security

 

Handbook of European Intelligence Cultures, edited by Graaff, Bob de, et al., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/soton-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4525020.

Introduction

• In 1943 William Donovan, head of the OSS, stated that the OSS had learned much from the aid of the British SIS (MI6) and began modelling their own methods upon what they learnt. But they had to make accommodations to account for their own country’s characteristics

  • OSS was an American wartime intelligence organisation

  • All intelligence agencies can adopt methods/structures from other countries but inevitably they must be made to suit their own

    • Each country has their own intelligence culture

    • The reaction of the British public to the Snowden revelations were not as severe as other countries

      • Britain had not ever dealt directly with a dictatorship government, as was the case with Germany, and they also still carry the imprint of a monarchy, unlike USA

  • Characteristics of the American intelligence community

    • Large resources, size and technical capabilities

    • Weak internal cohesion

    • Relative openness

    • Scientific and empirical orientation

• A lot of literary analysis on intelligence agencies across the world focus on America, the UK and Russia

  • They presume all other agencies act much the same way

  • Exceptions include: ,

• The book aims to give a clear overview of each of the intelligence communities throughout Europe

  • With the intention that once that is done there will be clear similarities and differences

    • A model that is entirely different to that of the American, British and Russian agencies may be found and may even be more commonplace than people think

• The most clear driver of differences between intelligence communities is the country’s history of political regimes

  • Non-democratic states emphasize internal intelligence

    • In these states security services are often counter-intelligence states

• Organisation and culture of a nation’s intelligence/security services is usually determined by what is seen as national or collective social traumatic events

  • In these events it is often seen as an intelligence failure and so major changes within the intelligence communities are made

  • This was the case with the Boer War, which resulted in the UK establishing a new intelligence service

  • The solution chosen in these events is influenced by political culture of the nation as well as other countries’ models

    • The Soviet Union influenced a lot of Eastern Europe

    • UK and USA influenced Western Europe, as well as Eastern Europe after the Cold War

• Over time all countries have shown a tendency towards decolonisation, thus rejecting models from other countries such as USA or Russia, and establishing their communities on their own terms

• In all countries there is a separation between civil and military services

  • Also there is often a separation between intelligence and police

    • This has become blurred in some cases

    • Weak linkages between services, such as police, and intelligence agencies is seen as a major problem in all countries

• Some countries have recently had major reforms in their intelligence agencies

  • Particularly Eastern Europe after communism

  • Some have seen adaptions to the democratic model: Romania

  • Others have seen little change: Ukraine (this book was published before 2022)

  • Some have had a large delay and frustration around a lack of progress: Serbia

  • Transparency has been important during these reforms

• In the 20th century agencies and foreign agents were less restricted and seen as needed for national security

  • In the 21st century this has become a more controlled environment and oversight of today’s intelligence services is carried out and can cross boundaries

    • It can be difficult to find a balance between too much intervention and too little

• A characteristic of all intelligence agencies is that they are dynamic and are in a perennial state of reorganisation

  • Some view these reorganisations as window dressing, to make it seem as though a lot is going on

  • The reforms are often just reinventing themselves in a way that is similar to what they were before

  • These reforms rarely have a positive impact