By William Tucker
Contributor, In Homeland Security
The defector is a common character in any tale of spy-craft. Whether a defector is a conscientious objector or a traitor, however, is a matter of perspective.
Among the definitions of a defector, there are several common factors. Essentially, a defector is an individual who sells or gives away proprietary information to an adversary – a foreign country or a corporate competitor. Unfortunately, that definition is where the simplicity of defection ends.
All defectors have personal reasons for their betrayal. These reasons complicate our ability to understand defectors to the point where constructing an accurate psychological profile is almost impossible.
To be sure, intelligence services recruit certain individuals to fulfill their needs. But more often than not, a defector chooses to turn traitor for personal reasons. CIA officer Aldrich Ames, for example, became a spy for the Soviet Union because he was under extreme financial pressure. He was eventually caught and is serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison without the possibility of parole.
Why Do Some People Become Defectors?
In his article “The Psychology of Treason,” former CIA psychiatrist Wilhelm Marbes makes the profound statement that “nobody ever defected because he was happy.” We often think that people engage in betrayal for ideological reasons. While betrayal for ideological reasons may be true up to a point, it does little to explain the behavior that precedes defection.
Case studies of defectors show that personal crises have the most impact on someone’s decision to betray his or her nation or employer. What ultimately makes someone unhappy is personal, whether the unhappiness is due to emotions or circumstances.
The decision to betray often comes down to orders of magnitude. At what point does a disgruntled employee cross the line from being merely dissatisfied to turning traitor?
Everyone experience crises, but not all of those crises induce someone to behave in a treasonous manner. Furthermore, we cannot always anticipate what each individual’s trigger for betrayal may be, because people experience personal crises differently.
The Difference between ‘Defectors in Fact’ and ‘Defectors in Place’
When someone decides to betray his or her country or employer, the act of betrayal falls into one of two categories – the “defector in fact” or the “defector in place.”
The “defector in fact” opts to leave a country or employment permanently. He or she wants to sell important information in return for sanctuary.
This type of defector may feel endangered from a regime due to political or criminal activities. Often, these defectors need to make a quick exit, because they believe they are in imminent danger of being caught by authorities.
Their desire is to use information they have as a bargaining chip. Once a defector leaves a country or job, he or she also forfeits any further access to information. As a result, the defector’s value diminishes over time.
The “defector in place” seeks to remain where he or she is, intending to pass sensitive information to a handler in exchange for some form of payment. That payment may not always be monetary.
Many defectors hope that the betrayal of their government will bring about its downfall. They may also seek to satisfy some other personal desire.
A defector in place provides a stream of timely information. But as some cases demonstrate, this type of defector is prone to frustration. The motivation to betray clashes with the interests of the nation or entity he or she assists.
Additionally, defectors in place are under enormous stress, because their traitorous deeds can be exposed at any time. This stress often leads to erratic behavior, a warning sign that counterintelligence professionals specifically look for.
A good case officer who handles these defectors, who are considered intelligence assets, can properly manage a defector’s erratic, often unpredictable behavior. But there is always the risk that if these intelligence assets are caught by their governments, their lives would be in danger as well as the people in their intelligence network.
Defectors Unlikely to Cause Permanent Harm to Nations, But Do Damage Businesses
A defection rarely results in an existential threat to a nation-state, but it certainly damages diplomacy and military activities. Former FBI informant and Chinese spy Katrina Leung wrote political analyses for Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. While her spying activities on behalf of Beijing likely had some effect on U.S.-China relations, both nations survived.
The same lack of damage cannot be said for companies that lose proprietary trade secrets to an insider working on behalf of a rival.
Whether defectors are employed by a government or in the private sector, it is their behavior that exposes their intentions and activities. Catching an employee’s unhappiness in its early stages and making corrections goes a long way in preventing permanent damage.
Comments are closed.