Nigel Inkster on US policy

Nigel Inkster appeared on BBC World News today.  He’s former senior British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and currently works for the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Inkster caught my attention as today he opened by defending Gitmo, claiming that some of the intelligence collected there might have turned out to be useful.

This immediately caused the alarm to sound, given the human rights catastrophe Gitmo has turned out to be. I was curious to know if Inkster is a regular voice of the propaganda machine.

I was surprised to read that some of his writings have been quite sensible, e.g., Inkster and Whalley (2009) wrote:

“… for Europeans Pakistan, in contrast to Afghanistan, is not part of a designated combat zone. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that a European intelligence service had access to location intelligence on senior al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, passing such intelligence to the Americans in the knowledge that this would result in a lethal attack might render them liable to prosecution as accessories to an unlawful killing.

“… there is in Europe a strong though largely unspoken concern that, in the event of another successful al-Qaeda terrorist attack against the United States, the Obama administration may be unable to resist an upsurge of domestic pressure to adopt a disproportionate response such as deploying US ground troops against al-Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

“[Europe is reluctant] to be associated with what many see as a disproportionate response to the attack on the twin towers in the years that have followed. Washington may feel justified in arguing that this response has had the effect of making European states safer. But for many Europeans the perception is that US behaviour has inflamed opinion among their Muslim minorities and further afield and made them more vulnerable to attack.”

I do wish he had said more of this on the news today.

I also wonder if the UK had killed Bin Laden, whether it would have been illegal, as Inkster and Whalley appear to be saying here. In which case, isn’t it odd that Cameron is so in favour of the assassination.

Reference

Nigel Inkster and Robert Whalley (2009).  Law and Order.  Survival, 51(3), 55–61.

What is Matt Waldman playing at?

You might have noticed an LSE discussion paper by Harvard Carr Center research fellow, Matt Waldman, The Sun in the Sky: the relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan insurgents, feature on the news.  Its abstract:

Although the Taliban has a strong endogenous impetus, according to Taliban commanders the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence, the largest intelligence service in Pakistan] orchestrates, sustains and strongly influences the movement. They say it gives sanctuary to both Taliban and Haqqani groups, and provides huge support in terms of training, funding, munitions, and supplies. In their words, this is ‘as clear as the sun in the sky’.

Directly or indirectly the ISI appears to exert significant influence on the strategic decision making and field operations of the Taliban; and has even greater sway over Haqqani insurgents. According to both Taliban and Haqqani commanders, it controls the most violent insurgent units, some of which appear to be based in Pakistan.

Insurgent commanders confirmed that the ISI are even represented, as participants or observers, on the Taliban supreme leadership council, known as the Quetta Shura, and the Haqqani command council. Indeed, the agency appears to have circumscribed the Taliban’s strategic autonomy, precluding steps towards talks with the Afghan government through recent arrests.

President Zardari himself has apparently assured captive, senior Taliban leaders that they are ‘our people’ and have his backing. He has also apparently authorised their release from prison. The ISI even arrested and then released two Taliban leaders, Qayyum Zakir, the movement’s new military commander, and Mullah Abdul Raouf Khadem, reportedly now head of the Quetta Shura, who are among the three or four highest ranking in the movement below Mullah Omar.

[...]

Many academics do research on these kinds of things. What struck me as particularly odd was the media coverage of Waldman. He spoke with the authority of a government foreign office spokesperson, despite being a mere  non-governmental academic research fellow. I found it difficult to see how what he was doing differs from what the intelligence services do.

He wasn’t given an easy ride by all the media.  Here’s Al Jazeera:

The interviewer rightly pushed the point that the report showed absolutely no evidence for the claims, other than the hearsay of anonymous sources.

All this media coverage reminded me of an article by a journalist explaining how important sounding people working for SIS would take him out for drinks, give him a spot of “Really enjoy your work… important that the people know what’s really going on… shouldn’t really be telling you this… but I’ve seen evidence that Iraq has WMDs [or whatever it was at the time]…” Being at a relatively early stage of his career and flattered by the attention, he went off and wrote the obvious article, citing anonymous senior intelligence service sources.

Just how does someone who worked for Oxfam, and who was a LibDem foreign policy advisor, gets personal access to people who can provide, on the face of it, material of use to the intelligence services?  Why him?

And the final paragraph of the abstract:

Pakistan’s apparent involvement in a double-game of this scale could have major geopolitical implications and could even provoke US counter-measures. However, the powerful role of the ISI, and parts of the Pakistani military, suggests that progress against the Afghan insurgency, or towards political engagement, requires their support. The only sure way to secure such cooperation is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India.

The message to Pakistan seems to be: continue to (allegedly!) misbehave and the US will come and get you… but the US also needs you and in return can help with India.

But why is the delivery being done by an academic research who formerly worked at Oxfam?

In other news:

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

Alex Allan back apparently

See here. Apologies, it’s a tabloid.

Datamining to catch terrorists

Apparently it wouldn’t work, say the following groups of the US National Academies:

• Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ)
• Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)
• Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB)
• Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS)
• Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE)

in this book: Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Assessment.

[via The Register]

Buried news

What ever happened to Alex Allan—former head of the JIC who on July 3rd was found in his apartment unconscious and covered in blood? The last news reports about Allan around July 10th noted that there were “positive signs of recovery” (BBC News, July 10) after he had been in a coma for 10 days, and that there was no sign of foul play (Daily Mail Online, July 11). Whitehall sources suggested that he had contracted pnuemonia, however (Telegraph, July  6):

Dr Keith Prowse, chairman of the British Lung Foundation, said: “If it’s pneumonia it is likely to be secondary to something else. And a significant quantity of blood is more likely to come from the gut than the chest.”

Also the Telegraph reported that:

Government sources suggest Mr Allan was “too high profile” to be a target for foreign intelligence agencies but others have suggested this is exactly what could make him vulnerable.

There could be many innocent explanations, but the silence is very odd.

On eco-toffs and spies

According to IndyMedia, an employee of C2i International tried to infiltrate Plane Stupid, a direct action group opposed to aviation. (See also this Times article.) I love the comment here:

I recognise him – he’s often hanging out in bars in Fulham pretending to be important.

He recently tried to chat up one of my girlfriends. When she asked him what job he did, he said ‘security – but I can’t say anything more, it’s all hush hush if you know what I mean’ But two minutes later he was telling me that he had been ‘working undercover’ and he had been ‘infiltrating an extremist group that posed a threat to national security’.

True/false who knows. (Note also Ian Bone‘s amusing take on eco-toffs.)

Wow, Mark Thomas has been spied on by one of his friends, the whole operation organised by Evelyn Le Chêne (described in the Times as a “grandmother from Gravesend” — no rhetoric there then). Moral for activists? Have loads of friends who are bored by politics and treat with suspicion those who share your interests?

Turns out that councils can spy on you, e.g., to check whether you’re lying about where you live to get your kids into a better school. Check out, e.g., this BBC News article — especially the video footage of the council guy where he’s very careful not to describe the issue as one of better/worse schools, and the guy from Liberty who only just about manages to avoid screaming “CAN’T YOU SEE THIS IS COMPLETELY CRAZY?”. The Guardian lists some examples of notes taken by the council spies:

“female and three children enter target vehicle and drive off”

“curtains open and all lights on in premises”

Worrying, yes?

Katharine Gun

Interesting elaboration of the story over at Newstatesman.

The Lords discussion around the time of the discontinuation of the case is helpful for picking up the context (over at Hansard). I found this intriguing, from Lord Wright of Richmond:

“I believe I am right in recording that following the Ponting case a counsellor was appointed to help individuals in the intelligence and security agencies—I think I am right in remembering that that included GCHQ but it may not have done—faced with crises of conscience about intelligence matters. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether that post still exists; whether the counsellor was used in this case; and whether Mrs Gun consulted him? If not, I suggest that the existence of a counsellor, if he is still in post, is brought to the attention of all employees in the security and intelligence agencies.”

Not sure what this counsellor does? Is the idea that you go with a crisis of conscience and he gives you a dose of CBT to cure it?

SIS and Harrods

Some great stuff in the transcripts for “Miss X”‘s testimony on the information SIS keeps on people, how it’s stored, who has access, etc. Okay, it’s not terribly revealing. But my favourite bit:

65

…
2 Q. Was there any trace of SIS having sources or contacts or
3 others employed at Harrods?
4 A. No, there were not.
5 Q. I think you did have a number of hits.
6 A. Yes, I did, in relation to gift hampers.
7 Q. Yes. I suppose we can infer then that SIS bought
8 hampers from Harrods.
9 A. Where people had purchased Harrods gift hampers, yes.
10 Q. I do not know if that will give comfort to Mr Al Fayed
11 or not.

Update. Others here:

• ‘E’, ‘I’, ’4′, ’6′, Statements of ’1′ and ’5′
• Statement of ‘F’ and Sir John Adye (former director, GCHQ)
  
• ‘H’, Gerald Posner
• ‘Miss X’
• ‘A’
• Sir Richard Dearlove (here and here)
• Richard Tomlinson (here and here)

The phrase "economic well-being"

Appears all over British government documents, e.g. the Intelligence Services Bill.

I found an interesting quote on a parliament web page:

“There is the provision for action—the tasking of our intelligence agencies—in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Those who have followed these matters know that that is a well-worn provision. It is in existing legislation, and is provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights. It sometimes causes puzzlement as to what it can mean.

“Examples of where it might be useful are where there is instability in a part of the world where substantial British economic interests were at stake, or where there was a crisis or a huge difficulty about the continued supply of a commodity on which our economy depended.

“The House will notice that the Bill restricts the activities of the SIS and GCHQ for safeguarding the economic well-being of the country to the acts or intentions of persons outside the United Kingdom. [...]

“The examples that Douglas Hurd gave are clear. One is coded speak for oil—

the continued supply of a commodity on which our economy depended.“

Craig Murray on the intelligence services

Over here.  Key bits:

• “There are some very right wing people in the security services. It is essential for our democracy that they are not allowed to interfere with our lawmakers.”
•  ”Commentators are generally puzzled by the government’s refusal to make bugging material admissible as evidence in court, and tend to take the view that this is a last vestige of liberalism. [...]  In fact this is the opposite. Bugging material is in fact used in court, sanitised as ‘intelligence’, and given in tiny out of context clips to judges in camera to justify continued detention without trial or control orders. [...] The defence and the ‘suspect’ are not shown the “intelligence” or even given any hint what they are supposed to have done.”
• “… The same is true, incidentally, of the so-called liquid bomb plotters, some of whom were also bugged for over a year, revealing no plot to bomb up airplanes. Not helpful to have all that in court if you are trying to hype the terrorist threat.”