The China Daily spins this story as indicative of US and British deceit. But the subtext, which it never mentions, is the following question: can either Britain or the US trust former Chinese nationals to handle top secret material? Or are they fatally compromised by their pre-existing allegiance to China and Chinese positions on foreign affairs? Political correctness notwithstanding, is it time to reassess vetting procedures for recruits - especially those with links to hostile foreign powers - to the intelligence services?
A report in the British newspaper The Observer about Britain aiding the United States in conducting a secret and illegal spying operation at the United Nations (UN) prior to the Iraq War is more frightening than shocking. It raises new questions about how far the two countries had gone before pulling the trigger that launched the invasion of Iraq. The issue was brought to light during the trial of Katherine Gun, a translator formerly employed at Britain’s secret global listening facility. Gun was arrested for violating Britain’s Official Secrets Acts. Her disclosure of classified documents concerning attempts by the British secret service to bug UN delegates in order to help the United States better "negotiate" support for invading Iraq made a furor last March. For sure, Gun’s conduct embarrassed the US and British governments. A highly classified US National Security Agency memo outlined the operation, which included e-mail surveillance and taps on home and office telephones. Gun’s revelations may have been critical in denying the military strikes on Iraq a cloak of legitimacy. However, that did not prevent the war. The case is another example of illegal and immoral behavior by the United States and Britain concerning the war. It should not be a surprise, given US President George W. Bush’s clear-cut mentality at the time of the invasion, when he told the rest of the world community "You are either with us or against us."
| Actually, Bush said that in the wake of 9-11, when he declared the war on terror, not when he was preparing to invade Iraq. |
Nor is it surprising that a man who referred to the UN Security Council as "the so-called security council" treats such an august body with contempt. Based on the fact Gun is considered an expert translator of Chinese, there is speculation that China, a permanent Security Council member, was likely a target of the operation. The memo, dated January 31, 2003, stated the National Security Agency wanted to gather "the whole gamut of information that could give US policy-makers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises." The operation was ordered before deliberations over a second UN resolution and targeted the so-called "swing nations" on the Security Council -- Chile, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea and Pakistan -- whose votes were needed to proceed to war. The information was intended for US Secretary of State Colin Powell before his presentation on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to the Security Council on February 5, 2003. It was sent out four days after the UN’s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, produced his interim response on Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions. Such action was certainly a breach of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, which strictly outlaws espionage at the UN missions in New York.
| It doesn't "outlaw" coverage of the home countries, though. |
The Convention stipulates that "The receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes... The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable." In the wake of the Hutton report on the absence of WMD in Iraq and the establishment of inquiries into intelligence failures on both sides of the Atlantic, the Gun case has dropped yet another cluster bomb on US and British credibility over the Iraq War. It shows how far the two nations were prepared to go in their ultimately unsuccessful attempt to persuade the world of the case for UN support for their invasion. The Gun trial has reopened questions about the legality of the Iraq War. On March 8, 2003, the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the UN had started a top-level investigation into the bugging of its delegates by the United States. No results from that investigation have been made available. When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in 1971, he blew the whistle on the deceptions and lies of the Nixon administration and other forms of official misconduct relating to the war in Viet Nam. There are expectations Gun’s case will have a similar impact -- and unveil truths rather than tricks. |