Honey trapping, a gendered manipulation that has been used as an espionage strategy for centuries, with its strategic use peaking during periods of war. Historically known for operating under a state of exception(wars), honey trapping adds a literal meaning to “all is fair in love and war”. A covert intelligence operation that has been frequently used World Wars and the Cold War, like the Mozhnos girls that were employed by the KGB to gather confidential information from foreign officials (Dobbs, 1987) or the infamous Porfumo affair that single handedly dismantled the conservative government of British prime minister Mac McMillan. The role of strategic sex or fabricated romantic relationships in executing intelligence operations that are crucial to the national interests of nation sates is attributed with less recognition than it merits. As for the recognition of the threat it poses, through Addressing the issue of Chinese intelligence services and the espionage threats to the united states, (U.S.-China | Economic And Security Review Commission, n.d.) the US government recognizes sexual entrapment as means through which the clandestine Chinese intelligence can possibly gather information from government officials. Sexpionage or strategic use of sex or romantic relationships makes it possible to extract information that conventional methods of espionage would not be able to acquire. As elaborated in my last blog post the unbridled weaponization of an act as intimate as sex and the transactional seduction that follows it bears with it security threats that men or women who are the misfortunate victims of honeytraps or sexpionage are subjected to. However, The security issue that honey trapping comes in aid to often concerns the national security of nations. In the context of honey trapping, the referent object is the nation state that conducts the operation to gather intelligence, exert influence, or manipulate the targeted individuals within another nation state(Murphy, n.d.) The threat object, on the other hand, is the individual from the targeted nation state who is trapped using honey traps. This individual is at risk of being compromised or blackmailed for the benefit of the referring nation state. Honey trapping raises plenty of moral and ethical issues, but since it primarily takes places in times of war, the most obvious illustration of a zone of exception the weak moral backbone of this strategic seduction is left unacknowledged or just outright ignored.
Mossad and Mordechai Vanunu: being seduced into imprisonment
Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear technician, whose name has been etched into the pages of history as the nuclear ‘whistleblower’, disclosed details about Israel's nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. Although he was born in Morrocco, Vanunu was an Israeli citizen in every way possible. He served in the Israeli Army and afterwards worked in the Negev Nuclear Research Centre in Dimona, Israel, as a nuclear technician. The scope of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was made public in 1986 by Vanunu, who gave the British publication The Sunday Times extensive information and photos. (n.d) This contained details of Israel's nuclear capabilities. Through breaching confidential national information, Vanunu expressed his disapproval of creating of weapons of mass destruction. Following Vanunu’s revelations about Israels nuclear program, Mossad, the intelligence agency of Israel employed Cheryl Bentov who posed as American tourists was successful in her endeavour to persuade Vanunu to join her on a trip to Italy. Vanunu’s romantic getaway proved to be more costly than anticipated, Cheryl through the virtue of being romantically involved with Vanunu was able to drug him and ‘smuggle’ him back to Israel where he was imprisoned for 18 years. In this instance, the Mossad used the speech act of security to securitize the matter of Vanunu's disclosures regarding Israel's nuclear programme, so providing justification for the drastic steps implemented to neutralise the threat and safeguard the nation's interests. The speech act of security was used to move the issue of Vanunu's revelations from the sphere of politics to the sphere of national security, thereby implying that all necessary means would be used to block the challenge to Israel's national security. Sex being used as means to meet an end resulted in the weaponisation of sex and seduction. Here, sex was used to bait a convicted ‘anti nationalist’. The process of making any breach of information into a national issue, immediately justifies any means to curb that source of insecurity. Inserting an issue in the realm of national security automatically equips it with paramount importance, which must be put to an end for the sake of the nation state.
The whistleblower’s insecurity
According to Hansen, the focus on speech acts as the basis for securitization creates difficulties in accounting for situations where the potential subject of security has no or limited possibility of speaking its security problem (Hansen, 2000), the infamous whistleblower faced imprisonment because he attempted to break the silence surrounding Israel's’ nuclear programme. Hansen contends that the "security as silence" issue is especially pertinent when the possible security topic is exposed to dangers or threats that become exacerbated if they speak up. Vanunu, being solely responsible for disclosing confidential information his nation’s nuclear program was drugged, kidnaped and eventually imprisoned. Giving him enough time to ponder his act of breaking ‘silence’ which came at the cost of 18 years of his life spent behind bars, all because he chose to follow a girl all the way to Rome. This ‘planned’ detour alongside Vanunu’s strategic seduction came to rescue of Israel's security threat.
India Pakistan- Cross Border Make-Believe Relationships
In 2019, India identified 150 social media profiles used by Pakistan to honey trap Indian army officers into spilling state secrets. (skyscape) The cases of honey trapping were only increasing by the day, with countless defence personnel and government employees giving away information crucial to the national security of India to Pakistani agents disguising as their lovers. With the dramatic increase of honey trapping cases endangering the national security of India- this necessitated taking drastic measures to limit the prevalence of Pakistani intelligence’s’ coquetry. Indian soldiers were asked to remove Facebook, Instagram, twitter, Tinder and other social media/dating apps as this cyber seduction was often initiated on social media platforms, beginning with a woman 'liking' a soldier's social media post and requesting more images of aircrafts and weapons. These online relationships escalated quick, where the pinnacle of intimacy would involve ‘seductively’ asking for defence secrets.
Through banning social media presence of Indian soldiers, the government attempted to create ‘docile’ soldiers which advertently disciplines and controls bodies of soldiers, moulding them into obedient beings by regulating their exposure to potential security threats. While the social media ban was implemented to ‘protect’ soldiers, it also severely restricted their agency, freedom of expression and accesses to information; limiting their identities to that of just soldiers.
In the case of Mordechai Vanunu honey trapping acted as enabler of national security whereas in the case cross border India Pakistan- fabricated relationships, it acted as a disabler of national security, rendering the state vulnerable as confidential information was being shared through practices of strategic seduction. It helped imprison an ‘anti nationalist’ nuclear technician in Israel and it led to the eradication of defence personnel from social media in India. Honey trapping has been used as a tool to come to the aid of the national security of nations. It weaponizes sex to gain access to information on people who would not be fooled by conventional methods of espionage, making honey trapping a manipulation game where the seducers emerge triumphant, capable of destroying or restoring national security.
References
1. Case Study - 24: National security and Honey Trapping. (n.d.). Drishti IAS. https://www.drishtiias.com/ethics/case-studies/case-study-24-national-security-and-honey-trapping
2. Foucault, M. (1990, April 14). The History of Sexuality. Vintage. http://books.google.ie/books?id=v8cGvgEACAAJ&dq=history+of+sexuality+michel+foucault&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api
3. Hansen, L. (2000, June). The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(2), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290020501
4. Murphy, C. J. (n.d.). Dangerous liaisons: the British guide to avoiding a honey trap. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/dangerous-liaisons-the-british-guide-to-avoiding-a-honey-trap-71416
5. U.S.-China | Economic and Security Review Commission. (n.d.). U.S.-China | Economic And Security Review Commission. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%203%20-%20China’s%20Intelligence%20Services%20and%20Espionage%20Threats%20to%20the%20United%20States.pdf
6. Pakistan Using Honeytrap To Target Indian Army Officers, Says Minister6ndtv.co. (n.d.). ndtv.com.
7. P., & P. (2022, October 22). Honey trapped, govt employee still to come to terms that woman he loved was Pakistani agent. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/honey-trapped-govt-employee-still-to-come-to-terms-that-woman-he-loved-was-pakistani-agent-1155949.html
8. S. (n.d.). Dangerous Liaisons: Honey Trap Spies. https://spyscape.com/article/dangerous-liaisons-honey-trap-spies
Hi Ishi! This was a fascinating exploration of the complex dynamics surrounding the strategic use of sex in intelligence operations. Your discussion of the moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in honey trapping, as well as its impact on individual freedom and agency, adds depth to the analysis. It prompts critical reflection on the trade-offs between security imperatives and civil liberties, highlighting the complex intersection of state power and personal autonomy.
Furthermore, how do we reconcile the tension between the imperative for national security, which sometimes necessitates covert intelligence operations like honey trapping, and the fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and freedom from manipulation for individuals caught in the crossfire?
Hello Ishi!
This article is a really good exploration of honey trapping, as both an historical and contemporary espionage tactic, for understanding and analyzing its gendered nature and significance in times of War.
Mordechai Vanunu’s case serves as a real-life example to illustrate how sex can be used as a weapon to serve national interests.
Furthermore, the discussion on cross border relations between Pakistan and India is a really useful example for understanding the changing nature of honey trapping in the Digital era.
Hello Ishi,
A wonderful blog I must say!
However, there were some issues that I found in the theoretical part of the blog. In my opinion, the threat object is not just a state. We need to take into account non-state actors such as militant groups, business communities, even scientific communities in some cases. Even though sometimes sexpionage might be carried out by non-state actors on behalf of the state, it is not always the case. The same goes for the referent object. An individual might be the direct target. However, sexpionage activities also affect that person's familial life (and hence affecting other individuals in the family), their community, and the organization or institution they are affiliated with. Sometimes it…
Hi Ishi, your blog was a fun read. Could you please elaborate more on historical precedents of honey trapping, such as the cases of Mata Hari and Betty Pack, inform our understanding of securitization and its potential vulnerabilities in our society?
Hey Ishi, it was an interesting read. I just wanted to know how this situation of honey-trapping comes to encompass a ‘state of exception’. Moreover, I wanted to inquire if there are any feminist discourses regarding the practice of honey-trapping. For example, does honey trapping operate in the reverse scenario where men attempt to honeytrap women? In such a case, how can we apply Lene Hansen’s conceptualisations of ‘security as silence’ and ‘subsuming security’? Lastly, given that the institution of the armed forces works according to the basic premise of disciplinarity, how have these preventative measures against honey-trapping given shape to a new discourse of biopolitics and governmentality?