US Intelligence Collection: Understanding the Role of Counterintelligence(Strategic Comparative Analysis)

What other countries/regions of the world are concerned with this same threat issue?

Which countries/regions of the world do not place a high priority on this threat issue?

What are some of the current policies being employed by these other states/regions in regards to the threat?

What have been some of the successes and failures of the various alternative policies around the globe?

What areas of joint communication/operation/cooperation exist or should exist across countries dealing with this threat issue?
This is part III in the development of your analytical skills. Having chosen a threat and completed its assessment and then critiqued current policy towards said threat, you will now engage in part III ? analytically comparing alternative approaches, theories, ideas, and policies around the world on your chosen threat..

Below are part 1 & 2, please use these as the guide to asking the question for part 3….

Counterintelligence continues to be one of the United States security strategies in preventing security issues facing the country. To effectively execute this, the United States uses the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a body charged with the responsibility of collecting, analyzing and exploiting information with the aim of identifying the security issues. To effectively prevent foreign threats affecting the country, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation uses the National Security Threat List strategy that was adopted in 1992. The strategy was a two-way approach to execute categories of issues with the same level of importance. These issues are under the country list and the issue threat list. Under the county`s threat list are countries and organizations, whose intelligence activities are issues of concern to the national security of the United States justify a response from the country (DIANE Publishing Company, 1997).
According to DIANE Publishing Company (1996) report, any intelligence activities from foreign countries or organization that amount to a significance threat are reviewed at the end of every year. These threats include; any intelligence activity from foreign countries or organizations that amounts to a significant threat is categorized by the United States security agency as a security threat. Any foreign intelligence activity that involves that proliferation of special weapons of mass destruction is also a threat. Any foreign intelligence activities aimed at gathering of the United States industrial economic information and technology information that would result in the undermining of the countries strategic position is also a threat. Another threat is any foreign intelligence activities that involve the collection of information related to defense establishments. Any foreign intelligence mission that involves the collection of information from the country, with the aim of sharing the information with other foreign powers and organizations is also perceived as a threat. Finally, any foreign intelligence activities targeting the United State organs and its officials are also considered as a threat.
The main objective of the issues threat list is to help identify countries and organizations, whose activities pose a threat to the country and neutralize them. Issues addressed in the threat list are acted upon based on the recommendations of the intelligence community and the National Security of United States (DIANE Publishing Company, 1996). The following three issues are considered to be the most important threats facing the United States. These include; special weapons proliferation, proprietary economic information and critical technology.
This paper will focus on the special weapons proliferation threat, which has become an important issue for the nation to neglect.
Special Weapons proliferation Threat
The United States under realized the magnitude of the threat posed by the access by other bodies other than the government to the weapons of mass destruction. This led to the state under the administration of George .W. Bush to convince the international community to deny terrorist access to weapons of mass destruction. The United States was then aware of the importance of preventing bodies other than government?s access to the destructive weapons. The state proceeded to start a proliferation security initiative with the aim of persuading the United Security Council to take their request into account in facilitating the toolkits available to states meant to help them prevent the spread and weapons and terrorist groups (Byers, 2004).
Political consequences of the threat
There are entities that have some relation to the federal government. These entities are referred to as quasi-governmental organizations. Quasi-governmental organizations in the united-states includes the United States includes organizations such as Institute for peace, overseas Private Investment Co-operation and the RAND co-operation. Globally Quasi-governmental organizations have been known to facilitate weapons of mass destruction activities. This has been achieved through the role and involvement in the security-related issues that should primarily be a preserve for the state. A case of the Iran`s Revolutionary Guard Corps involvement in With Hezbollah and other terrorist groups points to the significant role of quasi-government organizations in weapons of mass destruction activities (Najdi & Karim, 2012).
New actors to the threat
The government focus on terrorist groups and the prospects of them using weapons of mass destruction has led to the rise of other types of violent non-states actors. Factors such as the unstable international politics and globalization have provided these groups with a thriving environment for their operations. These violent non-state armed groups have a large and effective network that enables them to dominate the human trafficking drugs and guns trade industries (Risse-Kappen, 1995).
Consequences of the threat in states
The violent non-state actors are capable of destabilizing state around the world. This is due to the power gained through the monopoly of certain sectors leaving governments without physical control of its territory and inability to control the legitimate use of force. Countries under the actors are not able to provide reasonable public services, make collective decisions and cannot interact with other states as well full members of the international community. The rising number of failing states could therefore be attributed to the dominance and control of the violent non-state actors around the world (Russell, 2006).
Consequences of the threat if left unchecked
Different parts of the world but mostly Africa, has seen actors that execute social and political control using military means in an area together with or in defiance of government power. Such groups as well as groups that aim at achieving political objective through threats and violence will expand their operations to other parts of the globe and facilitate the proliferation market for weapons of mass destruction. The operation of these groups will be influenced by both the demand as well as the supply of the weapons of mass destruction proliferation market. In future, the terrain may demand not only weapons of mass destruction, but also a manufacturing plant for weapons giving rise to bigger threats and concerns (Winner, 2005).
Proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction has been enhanced by the entry of new players other than the terrorist groups. The actor players present bigger challenges for states especially due to their mutation and control of the weapons of mass destruction syndicate. To be able to effectively handle this threat, a clear and concrete understanding of the actors and how they operate is required. The laws set by George W. Bush administration should be viewed as the first step in the move to eradicate this threat. Governments through the help of the international community need to be more supportive in the fight to end the dominance of the actors.
Part 2

Current Policy
The threat issue in investigation is the Proprietary economic information threat. The policy that has been put in place to manage this threat is the Intellectual property policy (IP). Under this policy, there was the passage of the American Inventors protection Act that was enacted in1999 that was constituted in order for the key figures in the country be capably advised of the national issues and the international policy matters that could affect the operations of the united states including the protection of IP protection in the other countries (Lemley, 2015). The United States patent office has also attained authorization from the American investors protection act in order to be in a position to provide the necessary guidance, carry out programs and studies and also interact and communicate with the other international IP offices in the other countries through their inter-governmental organizations concerning issues that involve the protection of the property rights.
Existence of policy and amendments
The policy has been in place since 1999.The changes that have so far taken place in the development of the IP patent policy that anew programme on ombudsmen was launched on the 6th of April 2011.The policy program is meant to ensure that the applicants and representatives with any problems that could not be amicably solved with the normal channels are provided with the necessary resources to do so. This is through implantation of a phone response service that was initially not in place to enable solving the issues within one working business day.
The major changes that have also been debated for the policy include issue like an extension period in order to allow the inventors of the patent to be able to test the market that they seek to operate in order to determine whether their inventions have a market worthy share before they can officially begin their operations (Lemley,2015).. This is one policy review that is still under process with most of the people arguing that the one year time frame that was accorder to the inventors for market testing is not adequate a period to effectively do so.
There is also an ongoing trade agreement under negotiation which is the ?Anti -counterfeiting Free trade Agreement.?This agreement is one that has been initiated by the united states with the other international countries around the world in order to come up with an international treaty that will help to fight Intellectual property crimes citing that there is need for a more robust framework in capturing the activities of those that re involved in theft of intellectual property (Flynn,et al,2015).
Effectiveness of the policy
The current policy has been effective in curbing the current threat issues in the sense that it has been actively involved in advising the president through use of the commerce secretary and the federal agencies in place to deal with the issue on how to deal with the problems of both domestic and international intellectual property issues through use of the treaty of the united states obligations (Lemley, 2015).. The policy has also been sufficiently able in the formulation of policies in the United States, both domestically and internationally in order to ensure that there is clear protection and adequate enforcement of the intellectual property rights in the country and internationally. It is through the policy that the development of intellectual systems, for property rights both locally and internationally, has been able to be enforced successfully (Lemley,2015)..
Most of the nationals of the United States have therefore been able to enjoy the long stretch of the policy in the protection of their intellectual rights both locally and internationally. The policies have also been very effective in ensuring that the office liable to represent the trade activities in the country have been supported in the consultation activities, negotiation procedures, drafting of the intellectual property rights obligation, thorough review and hence effective implementation, in both the bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements of the country that the company is involved in(Lemley,2015).. The policy has been adequate in the provision and participation of assistance technically and in the aspect of capacity building where foreign governments are concerned. This is due to the fact that the policy aims to develop and improve the property right enforced and to ensure that the level of expertise in those involved has also been increased .Last but not least, the effectiveness of the policy has also been felt through the fact that it has been very active in the examination of adequacy and effectiveness of the rights and there consequent protections as stipulated under the special provisions in 301 of the1974 trade act (The United States patent and protection office ,2015).
On the other hand, the policy has been characterized by a couple of short comings which have been documented in the published report of the 2010 National trade estimate as far as foreign trade barriers are concerned. For instance it has been alleged that the policy has limited penalties for copyrights that have been violated in Australia .Additionally, there is also the case that moat of the products are pirated against especially software, movies and music due to limited policy stipulations and protection rights, leading to further erosions of intellectual protection of properties especially for the pharmaceutical goods that are made in Bolivia (Repurposing pharmaceuticals: does united states intellectual property law and regulatory policy assign sufficient value to new use patents ,2012).
There have been various opinions raised that the policy is insufficient when it comes to the protection of pharmaceutical products and against the use of data testing especially in Brazil, with limited copyright reforms in Canada. There has also been other issue raised like violation of intellectual property rights issue in china with the terns that the Chinese governments in most cases is encouraging the locals to carry out innovation at the expense of other foreign companies and technologies especially through the use of procurement procedures by the government. There has also been the issue of free trade policies adapted by the developing world making it very hard for their products to effectively compete in the market.
The current policy has had the following ramifications:
It has led to the existence of geographical indications thus aiding in the identification of the product source with a guarantee of quality for the product. It has also been noticed that most of the world trade organization members are continuously recognizing the fact hat through rise of the geographical indications that also apply as trade market, a country can ably market it products in the global economy. A short term ramification is that most of the property owners have come to the realization that IP in no longer just a domestic affair .It should be noted that in the long run, most of the IP owners will endeavor to ensure that they add value to their goods both locally and internationally through use of the geographical indicators (Epstein, 2015).
Allies and adversaries
One of the adversaries of the United States in the intellectual property rights issue is the Chinese governments and the companies in China. There have been a majority of cases about the issue of intellectual infringement evident from the disputes of apple and Samsung, Kodak and Fuji film among others. The operations and policies of the Chinese government have also been retaliatory as far as the property rights issues is concerned due to the fact that they endeavor to promote local business at the expense of the foreign technologies. The allies of the united stes in this aspect could be the European countries and specially the United Kingdom and most of 1st world/developed countries (Albanesius,2012)