Comments on: Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:02:15 +0000

bp: Maybe the whole problem is that the UN is not a soverign state. As a collection of bureaucrats and the to a great extent the representatives of kleptocrats and dictators (the democratic nations can and do meet with each-other separately, in groups or individually, to hash out issues between them, without the "help" of the UN blob), I am not surprised that the UN is not treated as a "gentleman". (Nor am I at all convinced that governments dealing with non-friendly governments or pseudo-governments like the UN, should be gentlemanly.) Dave: The UN is not a "friend". Kofi Annan is not a "friend". They're not necessarily enemies, but they are not friends, either. At best they're disinterested neutrals with a penchant for self-aggrandisement and uncontrolled bureaucracy. At worst, simply the tools of dictators and murderers.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:59:05 +0000

I’ll leave it to Quiggin and Thymeme to argue over whether spying on one’s enemies does any better than spying on one’s friends, but sticking with the case at hand, I have to wonder what subterfuge the British should be worried about at the UN. Maybe I’m being a pollyanna, and have simply forgotten all those foiled car-bomb attacks under Boutros-Ghali, and Annan’s penchant for black-helicopter ops.

By: BP

BP — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:39 +0000

“And no one involved in the matter seems very surprised or offended by it, as can be read in this Washington Post article.” Surprised, no. Offended, probably – reading past the it’s-all-in-good-fun-chuckle hyperbole in the WaPo article, spending millions on anti-espionage is not something you do if the practice causes no offense. Powerless to chastize spying governments – yes. Which is why opportunities like this give the UN the chance to vent a little spleen, something Boutros Ghali, Blix and Annan seem to be doing.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:27:49 +0000

In any case, one of the lessons of these and other incidents is that you shouldn’t trust anybody under any circumstances and that Saddam was right in fighting and interfering with UN inspections. If UN personnel function in fact as collectors of information for the US intelligence services (and they use the information to try to kill you) then maybe denial and deceit are the best policies and every good government should behave that way.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:25:51 +0000

“however much they must be itching to reveal the truth as Thatcher must have been in 1983.” Yes indeed, if it vindicates them. And if not, not. They would then logically take Blair’s position. Funny how that works, eh?

By: Jake McGuire

Jake McGuire — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:25:04 +0000

Alex, you don’t seem to have responded to my point. Blair could perfectly well have denied that Short had seen any transcripts without compromising security. You’re missing the point. If you want “I can neither confirm nor deny” to mean anything other than “You’re right, but I’m not going to say so,” you need to use it as the answer to questions that you wouldn’t otherwise mind answering, even (especially) questions that not answering gets you in a little bit of trouble. And no one involved in the matter seems very surprised or offended by it, as can be read in this Washington Post article.

By: BP

BP — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:57:55 +0000

Beg to differ on two points. 1. Sovereign state or no, any spying incident would result in a big outcry from the White House. You think China would get a free pass for syping by reason of being a sovereign state? 2. This is a big news story. It’s on every major international outlet. Possibly what you meant was that it oughtn’t be a big news story, perhaps because you are blase about such matters, or perhaps because your loyalties do not particularly lie on the UN’s side. Which ever way, when a high (ex) government official publically reveals extensive spying operations, especially on non-hostile organizations, it is big news, and like any other spying operation revealed a big fuss is the most common outcome.

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:10:25 +0000

Granted, it’s no ‘shrug-and-accept-it’ affair. But why making a great fuss about it now, other than for political point-scoring against Tony Blair. His critics should attack him directly, not like this. Small point: The UN is no sovereign state, so yes this would result in a big outcry from the White House. Anyway, let’s not get distracted from the main point: This is hardly a big news story; it’s cheap politics on behalf of Clare Short in order to damage Tony Blair. I think Robin Cook, no friend of Tony Blair either, was entirely right to clearly distance himself from this sort of politicking.

By: BP

BP — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:02:38 +0000

I’m not denying that there is no international legal regulation of spying, I’m pointing out that spying is not a shrug-and-accept it affair for any government on the planet. If the UN had bugged the White House you won’t be hearing many “it’s all in the game” remarks, let me tell you.

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:40:54 +0000

I’m not talking old-fashioned Cold War-type spy stories here. Some of the news agencies reported that UN staff regularly check for physical bugs and check translation and communications staff. However, the most widely used source is non-human intelligence, eg satellite (for mobile phones) or cable bugs (for landline). If you want to have a bug-free UN, then you should relocate the UN’s HQ out of the reach of Echelon (ie somewhere not on this planet). By the way, I doubt that Clare Short as Development Secretary has seen any real secret transcripts. (She probably has read only transcripts from Kofi Annan’s communications with British government officials). Finally to bp: Yes, that’s true for diplomats. But there’s no international legal regulation at all with regard to the work of foreign intelligence services.

By: BP

BP — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:53:15 +0000

“Everyone in the diplomacy and intelligence community knows about this and kind of accepts this.” That’s not really true. When foreign diplomats are caught spying they are booted out of the country. Foreign nationals without diplomatic immunity caught spying face prison time (or these days, possibly an indefinite stint at Guantamo Bay). There’s no “acceptance” here: spies are dealt with harshly. The question is, of course, what the UN administration should do with spies. Intern ‘em in a gulag somewhere? Shoot them? Is this acceptable quid pro quo?

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:52:38 +0000

I don’t know what the fuss is about. Clare Short’s “revelation” isn’t really news. Show me one high-ranking UN diplomat who (a) thinks that he isn’t bugged and (b) who isn’t bugged by the Americans, French, Russians and Chinese at the same time. That’s normal business. Everyone in the diplomacy and intelligence community knows about this and kind of accepts this. So why now the fuss about this? Some journalist should ask Presidents Chirac and Putin whether they can deny to have spied on Kofi Annan…

By: alex

alex — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:52:00 +0000

My point is that, on the assumption that Clare Short did actually see some sort of transcripts, it is not entirely clear what her main charge is. The suggestion seems to be that we directly bugged the Secretary-General’s office, although she seems to have no evidence that this is the case – presumably Kofi Annan doesn’t only have conversations in his own office. In the circumstances that she has not been totally clear about what she is accusing of, the only ‘denial’ that would be of any use in satisfying anyone is for the Government to reveal what those particular transcripts were (although I notice today that Robin Cook among others who presumably would have seen them as well is openly saying he finds it a bit unlikely). For the Government to reveal what those transcripts were in any of the circumstances I gave would clearly compromise either a) security or b) confidentiality (in the case of the Americans). Of course I have to qualify this by accepting that you don’t believe any bugging should happen but there we are. I only quoted the Belgrano example to show that there is genuine precedent for the defence of ‘not commenting’ that the Government is employing, however much they must be itching to reveal the truth as Thatcher must have been in 1983

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:14:24 +0000

Alex, you don’t seem to have responded to my point. Blair could perfectly well have denied that Short had seen any transcripts without compromising security.

By: alex

alex — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:15:06 +0000

I’ve treated Clare Short’s allegation as fact, since Blair hasn’t denied it. His claim that he can neither confirm nor deny it for security reasons doesn’t hold up. In 1982 the British Navy sunk the Argentine ship Belgrano. Thatcher was accused by all and sundry on the left of a war crime – the Belgrano was heading away from battle, not posing a threat etc. etc. Even today there are people who think worse of her for that incident. Next year there will finally be a top secret intercept published showing that the Belgrano, far from being a threat was under orders to help launch a pincer movement on the British fleet. The fact that the Government refuses to publish intelligence information that might help their case is not evidence that they don’t have that evidence. Have you considered that these might be American intercepts, given to the British? That these Annan ‘conversations’ could have been conducted anywhere in New York; the Syrian embassy, the Chinese embassy, a phone intercept from the other conversationalist’s telephone? Clearly to release any information of this nature to dissect Clare Short’s accusations would prejudice Security. Get into the real world.