5^th Generation Warfare focuses on psychological and cyber operations to undermine opponents through information and influence tactics. In Pakistan, while rights-based projects are not banned, lack of a structured system and donor pressures risk foreign aid serving strategic interests rather than developmental needs, highlighting the need for a central body to align aid with national priorities.

5^th Generation Warfare (5GW) represents the most contemporary and sophisticated form of conflict, distinguished by its focus on psychological and cyber operations rather than traditional military engagements. Coined by Robert Steele, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative, and his colleagues in early 2003, 5GW builds upon earlier generations of warfare but diverges significantly in its methods and objectives. Unlike previous generations of warfare, which relied heavily on physical force and direct confrontations, 5GW is characterized by its emphasis on information and influence, aiming to undermine an opponent’s morale, cohesion, and legitimacy. 
Key characteristics of 5GW include asymmetric tactics, where non-state actors such as terrorist groups, insurgents, cyber warriors, and sometimes even corporations are employed for unconventional strategies to exploit the vulnerabilities of more powerful adversaries. This form of warfare also heavily involves information and cyber warfare, with cyberattacks on infrastructure, data theft, and social media manipulation to spread false information or influence public opinion being central tactics.. 

Psychological operations play a significant role in 5GW, aiming to weaken the enemy's will to fight by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt through propaganda and fake news.

Psychological operations play a significant role in 5GW, aiming to weaken the enemy's will to fight by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt through propaganda and fake news. Additionally, legal and economic pressures are strategic tools in 5GW, involving sanctions, trade wars, and leveraging international law to isolate and weaken opponents. Hybrid warfare blurs the lines between military and non-military tactics, combining elements of traditional warfare with cyber, economic, and information warfare to create a comprehensive strategy that is difficult to counter.
The theoretical concept of 5GW can be traced back to historical narratives that illustrate its fundamental principles:
▪    The Serpent's Deception of Adam and Eve. In the biblical story, the serpent's manipulation of information serves as an early example of psychological warfare. The serpent undermines Adam and Eve's trust and leads them to commit the first sin by spreading misinformation and questioning the consequences of obeying divine authority. This narrative highlights the use of psychological manipulation and misinformation to achieve strategic objectives, a tactic still relevant in modern conflict scenarios. 
     The Qur'an offers a narrative similar to the biblical story of Hazrat Adam A.S, Hazrat Hawa, and the serpent's (Shaitan) deception. In this context, the serpent's manipulation can be seen as an early form of psychological warfare. The serpent sows doubt and distrust by spreading misinformation and questioning the divine commandments, leading Adam and Hawa to disobey. This ancient tale underscores psychological manipulation and misinformation, tactics that remain significant in contemporary conflict scenarios.
▪     The Quraysh of Mecca Against Muslim Forces in the Battle of the Trench (Ghazwa-e-Ahzab). During the Battle of the Trench, also known as Ghazwa-e-Ahzab, the Quraysh of Mecca and their allies employed a strategy that included misinformation and psychological operations against the Muslim forces led by Prophet Muhammad PBUH. The Quraysh, along with Jewish tribes and other Arabian clans, spread false rumours, exaggerated their numbers, and used psychological warfare to create divisions and weaken the resolve of the Muslim army. Despite facing a numerically superior coalition, the Muslims' unity and strategic resilience under Prophet Muhammad’s PBUH leadership ultimately thwarted the psychological and military tactics employed against them.
These historical examples demonstrate early psychological and information warfare tactics that resonate with the principles of 5GW. They illustrate how the manipulation of information, psychological operations, and the strategic use of misinformation have been employed throughout history to influence conflict outcomes, highlighting the enduring relevance of these tactics in contemporary warfare strategies.
Rights as a Weapon of Leverage
In 5GW, rights serve as potent tools of influence and leverage, exploiting legal and ethical frameworks to achieve strategic objectives without conventional military engagement. These rights, enshrined in constitutions and international agreements, are strategically manipulated to shape narratives, garner global support, and impose diplomatic and economic consequences on adversaries. By framing human rights violations (HRVs) as egregious offences, states and non-state actors mobilize international condemnation and justify punitive measures such as sanctions or diplomatic isolation. 

In 5GW, rights serve as potent tools of influence and leverage, exploiting legal and ethical frameworks to achieve strategic objectives without conventional military engagement.

This approach extends beyond traditional warfare tactics, encompassing media and information warfare to amplify rights-based narratives globally. Case studies, such as the United Nations’ (UN) investigations into human rights abuses and the European Union's (EU’s) imposition of sanctions for rights violations, illustrate how states use rights-based advocacy to bolster alliances and justify interventions. However, the strategic use of rights in 5GW also raises ethical dilemmas and challenges, including the politicization of human rights issues and the subjective interpretation of violations, which can complicate international efforts toward accountability and justice.
Definition of Rights in the Context of Warfare
In the context of warfare, rights refer to the legal and ethical principles that govern the treatment of individuals and groups, both during conflict and in peacetime. These rights are often enshrined in international humanitarian law (IHL), national constitutions, and human rights treaties, protecting against abuses such as torture, arbitrary detention, and discrimination. In modern warfare, the concept of rights has evolved beyond mere protections for civilians and combatants to become a strategic tool of influence and leverage. Nations and non-state actors leverage rights to shape narratives, garner international support, and justify actions against perceived violators, highlighting violations to mobilize diplomatic and economic pressures.

The Jammu and Kashmir conflict underscores the urgent need for transparent international scrutiny and concerted efforts to address human rights abuses in conflict zones despite geopolitical complexities and narrative management tactics employed by states.

istorical Context: How Rights Have Been Used in Past Conflicts
Throughout history, rights have played pivotal roles in shaping the outcomes of conflicts. During World War II, for instance, the Allies justified their war efforts against the Axis powers partly by defending human rights and combating totalitarianism. 
The Nuremberg Trials exemplified the post-war application of rights-based justice, holding individuals accountable for crimes against humanity. In the Cold War era, human rights became a central issue in ideological confrontations between western democracies and communist regimes, influencing international alliances and policies. Movements for civil rights and self-determination in colonized regions further underscored the role of rights in shaping global conflicts and political dynamics. These historical examples demonstrate how rights have been invoked to galvanize support, condemn adversaries, and justify interventions, reflecting their enduring significance in warfare and international relations.
Modern Examples: Case Studies Where Rights Have Been Leveraged
In contemporary conflicts, rights continue to be leveraged as strategic tools with profound implications. The UN and its agencies frequently investigate and report on human rights abuses worldwide, influencing global perceptions and prompting international responses. For instance, the UN's condemnation of atrocities in Syria led to diplomatic pressure and sanctions against the Assad regime, illustrating how rights-based advocacy can drive collective action. Similarly, the EU has imposed targeted sanctions on countries like Myanmar and Russia for HRVs, demonstrating the integration of rights considerations into broader foreign policy strategies. In the realm of information warfare, states and non-state actors exploit rights-based narratives to discredit adversaries, shape public opinion, and justify military or economic interventions. These modern examples highlight the multifaceted ways in which rights are utilized in contemporary conflicts to advance political agendas, uphold international norms, and influence global outcomes.
In the volatile context of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), longstanding allegations of severe human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary detentions persist despite international condemnation and documentation by reputable human rights organizations. India's response has been marked by a strategic communication strategy aimed at justifying its illegal actions under the guise of combating terrorism and safeguarding national security. This narrative control includes stringent media regulations, limited access for independent observers, and portraying the conflict as an internal matter immune to external scrutiny. 
India has dampened significant international pressure and sanctions by emphasizing sovereignty and deflecting human rights criticisms. However, this approach raises critical concerns about accountability and justice, highlighting how strategic communication and 5GW principles can obscure humanitarian issues and perpetuate HRVs under the guise of national security imperatives. The Jammu and Kashmir conflict underscores the urgent need for transparent international scrutiny and concerted efforts to address human rights abuses in conflict zones despite geopolitical complexities and narrative management tactics employed by states.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. military deployed a multifaceted strategy that aligns with 5GW principles, even though the term was not explicitly used in this context. This approach included extensive information warfare tactics, such as media embeds, press releases, and social media campaigns, aimed at controlling narratives and portraying military actions favorably. Psychological operations (PSYOP) were integral, targeting enemy morale, influencing civilian attitudes, and shaping local perceptions of the U.S. presence and objectives through methods like leaflet drops and radio broadcasts. Strategic communication was crucial in aligning military operations with broader political goals, such as nation-building and counterinsurgency efforts.
Additionally, the U.S. strategically encouraged and financed the creation of new television channels, radio stations, and media organizations. These efforts aimed not only to counter Taliban propaganda and misinformation but also to promote Western values like democracy and human rights among the Afghan population. By supporting independent media, the U.S. sought to influence public opinion, enhance transparency, and cultivate a favorable perception of their military presence and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. These strategies illustrate how modern warfare integrates non-traditional methods such as information dominance and strategic influence to achieve military and political objectives in complex conflict environments.
Implications and Challenges
The strategic deployment of rights as a weapon of leverage poses significant implications and challenges for global governance and conflict resolution. While rights-based advocacy can mobilize international solidarity and reinforce norms of behavior among states, it also risks politicization and selective application based on geopolitical interests. Furthermore, the effectiveness of rights as leverage hinges on the credibility of international institutions, the coherence of global responses, and the willingness of powerful states to enforce accountability. As conflicts evolve and new forms of warfare emerge, the role of rights in shaping international relations and conflict dynamics remains pivotal, reflecting ongoing debates about justice, sovereignty, and the ethical conduct of states in a complex global landscape.
Rights have been integral to constitutions worldwide, establishing fundamental principles of governance, protecting individual freedoms, and ensuring governmental accountability to citizens. The incorporation of rights into constitutions can be traced back to the Enlightenment era, influenced by philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who advocated for natural rights against arbitrary state power. However, the foundational "mother document" that has profoundly shaped modern constitutional rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1948. The UDHR sets forth a comprehensive framework encompassing civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, serving as a universal standard for national constitutions and international human rights treaties. Inspired by the UDHR, countries adapt and codify rights within their constitutions to reflect specific historical, cultural, and legal contexts. By enshrining rights, constitutions aim to institutionalize democratic values, promote social justice, and provide citizens with legal safeguards against abuses of power, thereby fostering stability, accountability, and equitable development within societies.
Constitutional rights provisions exhibit similarities and variations globally, reflecting diverse legal traditions, cultural norms, and historical contexts across countries. While many constitutions guarantee fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion and protections against discrimination and arbitrary detention, the specific articulation and emphasis of these rights can differ significantly.
Similarities in rights provisions often stem from international standards set by the UDHR, which serves as a foundational reference for human rights norms globally. These include rights to life, liberty, and security; equality before the law; freedom of expression; and the right to a fair trial. Countries often incorporate these principles into their constitutions to align with international expectations and commitments.
However, variations in rights provisions arise due to factors such as cultural values, historical experiences, and political systems. Some constitutions may emphasize certain economic and social rights, such as the right to education, healthcare, or housing, reflecting social welfare and development priorities. Others may include specific protections for minority groups or indigenous peoples, addressing historical injustices or unique societal contexts.
While there is a broad consensus on core human rights principles globally, the specific formulation and scope of rights provisions in constitutions vary to accommodate national circumstances and aspirations. This diversity underscores the dynamic nature of constitutional law and the ongoing evolution of human rights frameworks in response to changing societal needs and global challenges.
Civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often adopt an advocacy-based approach to highlight human rights issues and social injustices. This approach involves raising awareness, lobbying for policy changes, and mobilizing public opinion against perceived violations. While the intention behind such advocacy is usually to promote accountability and positive change, it can also have significant repercussions for the state's image and position. Domestically, constant scrutiny and criticism from these organizations can erode public trust in government institutions, portraying them as corrupt, ineffective, or oppressive. This undermines the state's legitimacy and authority, creating an environment of distrust and dissent. Internationally, these advocacy efforts can attract negative attention from global media, human rights bodies, and foreign governments, leading to sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and a tarnished reputation. The relentless focus on a state's shortcomings, often without acknowledging any progress or positive efforts, can paint an unbalanced and damaging picture, reducing the state's ability to engage on the global stage effectively and weakening its overall influence.
The following table summarizes the basic rights mentioned in the Constitution of Pakistan, along with the relevant clauses, and how civil society organizations work to raise awareness. It also includes their activities, expected outcomes, impact on the national security narrative, the 5GW context to weaken the state narrative, and relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The table below provides an overview of how civil society in Pakistan engages with constitutional rights, aiming to improve awareness, ensure state accountability, and influence policy. It also highlights the potential use of these activities within the framework of 5GW to weaken the state's narrative. Each right is connected to relevant SDGs, emphasizing the broader global context of these efforts.
Several countries have imposed restrictions or outright bans on the operations of NGOs and international government organizations (INGOs) within their borders. These actions are often taken under the pretext of maintaining national security, pre serving cultural values, or preventing foreign interference. Some of the notable countries that have taken such measures to control include:

Pakistan has not outrightly banned or restricted the use of rights-based projects or initiatives by civil society organizations, INGOs, and NGOs. This leniency is largely due to pressures from donor countries, which often require host countries to adhere to certain frameworks for these projects. The new regulations filtered non-performing and dubious organizations from the system.
Typically, the practice involves the host country requesting assistance based on thematic areas and geographical needs, allowing for more control and creating result-oriented projects. However, Pakistan lacks a structured framework or institution to determine these projects' precise needs and scope. Without such a system, financial and technical assistance often leads to implementing strategic projects rather than those aligned with development objectives.

Pakistan negotiates its foreign funding and projects through the Economic Affairs Division (EAD) of the Government. The EAD is responsible for overseeing and managing international financial and technical assistance agreements, including cooperative agreements, financial, and technical assistance arrangements.
In this role, the EAD facilitates the negotiation of terms and conditions with donor countries and international organizations, hoping that the funding and projects align with national priorities and strategic interests. This division plays a crucial role in formalizing agreements, managing resources, and coordinating the implementation of development initiatives.
The effectiveness of this system, however, is contingent on several factors, including the ability of the EAD to ensure that foreign-funded projects address genuine developmental needs rather than serving the strategic interests of donor countries. Without a robust framework for evaluating and prioritizing projects, there is a risk that foreign assistance may be redirected towards initiatives that do not necessarily contribute to Pakistan’s long-term development goals or that could be used to exert external influence.
In the 5GW context, the strategic deployment of foreign funding and technical assistance can have significant implications. Donor countries may leverage their financial contributions to influence Pakistan's development priorities, impacting its sovereignty and policy autonomy. The negotiation and management of these agreements by the EAD are thus critical in ensuring that foreign assistance supports Pakistan's development objectives while safeguarding against potential external manipulation or strategic interests that could undermine national control and effectiveness.
The strategic use of rights-based approaches by donor countries and institutions represents a sophisticated tool for exerting influence and control over host nations. Unlike traditional forms of warfare, 5GW focuses on undermining adversaries through non-military means such as economic pressure, political manipulation, and social engineering. In this context, the strategic deployment of rights-based projects becomes a powerful instrument for donor countries/agencies to achieve their geopolitical objectives.
The lack of a robust framework or institution in Pakistan to assess and guide the implementation of rights-based projects creates a vulnerability that donor countries can exploit. By positioning themselves as champions of human rights, climate change, and development, these donors can push for projects that align more closely with their strategic interests rather than the actual developmental needs of the host country. This practice not only diminishes the state's control over its own development agenda but also diverts resources and attention from critical national priorities.
Moreover, the emphasis on rights-based approaches often places host governments in a precarious position, where they are compelled to conform to external demands and standards. This can result in a public perception of governmental ineptitude or failure, as donor-driven projects may be perceived as misaligned with local needs or ineffective in addressing pressing issues. The portrayal of a government as incapable or corrupt can serve as a tool for external actors to further their strategic goals, discredit the host nation, and weaken its domestic and international position.
In the 5GW framework, such dynamics are crucial in shaping the geopolitical landscape. By leveraging the narrative of human rights, climate change, and development, donor countries can create conditions that serve their broader strategic interests, often at the expense of the host nation's sovereignty and developmental autonomy. This strategic manoeuvring undermines the host country's control over its own resources and policies. It reinforces the power dynamics favouring the donor nations, further entrenching their influence and diminishing the host nation's ability to pursue independent and effective development strategies.
In the context of the 5GW and rights-based developments, establishing a Donor Assistance and International Support Agency (DAISA) in Pakistan is imperative for effectively managing foreign funding and international aid. In 5GW, friends and adversaries leverage non-military means such as economic pressure, political manipulation, and social engineering to influence and destabilize target nations. Pakistan must adopt a strategic approach to foreign assistance to counteract these tactics and maintain its sovereignty.
DAISA could serve as a central body responsible for negotiating with donor agencies and countries, ensuring that foreign aid is allocated based on a needs-based approach aligned with Pakistan's national priorities. This strategic centralization would enable Pakistan to exert greater control over the aid process, mitigating the risk of donor-driven projects that may be designed to serve external strategic interests rather than addressing genuine developmental needs.
The agency’s role would extend beyond negotiation to include oversight of the entire project lifecycle. By managing the implementation process and enforcing transparency, DAISA would ensure that aid projects are executed efficiently and effectively. Crucially, DAISA would require comprehensive impact analyses from donors and implementing partners, preventing the duplication of efforts and mitigating the risks associated with working in silos. This approach would not only streamline foreign assistance but also enhance accountability and efficiency, thereby reducing vulnerabilities to strategic manipulation by external actors.
In the 5GW environment, where adversaries use sophisticated methods to undermine national stability, DAISA would help safeguard Pakistan’s national security sensitivities. By maintaining stringent oversight and alignment with national objectives, the agency would protect against potential external influences that seek to exploit aid for geopolitical leverage. This proactive and centralized management would reinforce Pakistan’s ability to navigate the complexities of 5GW, ensuring that international support strengthens rather than undermines its sovereignty and developmental goals.
While a rights-based approach to foreign aid and international assistance often keeps the host nation under scrutiny, shifting the perspective from rights to responsibilities can offer a more empowering strategy. In the context of the 5GW, where external and internal actors may manipulate perceptions to undermine national stability, adopting a responsibility-focused framework can significantly enhance the state's strategic leverage.
By emphasizing responsibilities, the state can foster a more inclusive approach to development, where citizens actively contribute to and benefit from aid projects. This shift aligns aid initiatives more closely with national priorities and empowers the populace to play a proactive role in delivering value and accountability. It enables the state to demonstrate its commitment to development through tangible results and collaborative efforts rather than merely responding to external critiques.
Focusing on responsibilities in the strategic environment of 5GW, where perception management is a key tool for adversaries, allows the state to reclaim the narrative and reinforce its sovereignty. It transforms aid from a tool of external influence into a means of building internal resilience and capacity. This strategic choice strengthens the state's position, mitigates the risk of manipulation, and enhances its ability to achieve meaningful and sustainable development outcomes.

The writer is a global expert in competitiveness, risk assessments, and development. He leads Mishal Pakistan, the country's partner institute of the World Economic Forum, and serves as a senior expert with UNESCO's Inclusive Policy Lab. His expertise spans narratology, strategic communications, and AI policy, supported by academic credentials from Harvard Law School, MIT, Tufts University, Stanford, LKY School of Public Policy, National Defence University Islamabad, and Harvard Kennedy School. 
Email: [email protected]
X: @amirjahangir