Semper Occu... UK Intelligence Chiefs - Open Testimony

UPDATE This post is from 2013, so before reading please read my 2014 piece for The Telegraph on 5 Reasons Edward Snowden is No Saint.

Yesterday, the agency Executives of the UK's three main civilian Intelligence services; the Security Service (domestic focus - aka MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (foreign focus - aka MI6) and Government Communications Headquarters (primarily foreign focus - GCHQ), provided open testimony to the UK Parliament's Intelligence oversight committee.

To guard against inadvertent leaks of classified information, the BBC's coverage was broadcast with a 2 minute delay.

Anyway, below are the points that I found most interesting. 

Sawers (Chief-MI6)

In response to a question about why SIS failed to predict the Arab Spring, Sawers reacted sharply - prediction is not the role of his agency, he said. Instead, Sawers offered a different strategic purpose for SIS:

 "We acquire the secrets that other countries don't want us to know... we are not all-knowing specialists in what's going to happen next month or next year."

This comment was interesting for two reasons. First, Sawers was clearly trying to emphasize the deliberate human intelligence focus of SIS. He wants to foster a realization that espionage is ultimately about state sanctioned theft - requiring a clandestine organization of necessarily secretive individuals. Sawers also wants to guard against the perception that SIS is an omnipotent force.

Sawers also spoke to the defining role of the UK Foreign Secretary as the authorizing Executive for higher risk SIS operations. This is an important but relatively unknown fact. Outside of exceptional circumstances (when the Prime Minister's authorization is required), the Foreign Secretary controls SIS operations. In functional terms, this arrangement affords SIS a measure of political cover. However, it also induces an inherent politicization of UK Intelligence operations.

Lobban (Director-GCHQ)

Speaking of a ''gradual darkening'', Lobban focused on the negative impact that he believes Snowden's revelations have had for UK Intelligence operations. Lobban is especially concerned by GCHQ's weakened ability to spy on the communications of UK adversaries. The Director insinuated that Snowden has caused UK Intelligence targets to harden their operational security measures- mitigating their vulnerability to monitoring. Although Lobban's comments are not surprising, his frustration illustrates the depth of anger that GCHQ in particular holds against Snowden, Greenwald, Booze Hamilton and the NSA.

In my view, Lobban's most important commentary was his defense of UK Intelligence officers. If these officers were required to unjustly monitor innocent citizens, Lobban said, GCHQ would have no staff. I have sympathy for this argument. Ultimately, the vast majority of UK Intelligence professionals are patriots who care deeply about their country. They want to prevent terrorists from killing British citizens. They care little for a random dating status on Facebook.

Parker (Director General-MI5)

Parker's testimony was pretty generic. He spent much of his time talking about the hard balance between UK collection requirements and civil liberties. Parker also went out of his way to emphasize the significant number of extremists that currently reside in the UK (this is a standard MI5-DG line, but an honest one). 

Leading MI5, Parker has a key sustaining objective in his political testimony - to reinforce the political/public understanding that his agency lacks the ability to intensively monitor every threat that it wishes to. In essence, as with Sawers-MI6, Parker wants us to understand that MI5 cannot guarantee total security. This is an evident reality. Nonetheless, the DG's discomfort in talking about the operational methodology of the UK's domestic Intelligence apparatus is noteworthy. In short, Parker wants to mitigate the populist-centric media scrutiny of his agency's extensive operations. Under the authority of the Home Secretary (in a similar vein to MI6-Foreign Secretary), MI5 has the authority to conduct aggressive surveillance. Conversely, in the United States, the FBI (lead agency for US domestic counter-terrorism) is a law enforcement agency that derives its power from judicial authority (unlike MI5, FBI wiretaps must be authorized by Judges). 

             Recognizing the particular arguments of each Executive, there was one theme that sustained throughout yesterday's testimony. Intelligence work isn't about PR. It's about PP. Public Protection.

My take on US-UK intel. cooperation can be found here. Other related writings (under 'Other' section)

Photo: BBC

Merkel and the NSA - Analysis

Accusations that the NSA has listened in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations are not conducive to positive German-US relations. Interestingly, the fact that the White House is saying that they 'are not' monitoring and 'will not' monitor Merkel, suggests that 'they have' monitored her in the past. To be sure, as I noted yesterday, there are worthwhile reasons behind US intelligence collection operations in Europe. Still, targeting the phone of a close ally (especially a head of state and especially one as friendly as Merkel) is a dangerous gamble. It risks significant blowback in terms of personally alienating a valued American friend. The NSA will have known this. Correspondingly, I assume that Merkel was targeted for a short time and in pursuit of specific information. Perhaps in regards to her position during a conference/financial negotiations (international meetings are a playground for intelligence officers).

There's another point here; as Marc Ambinder (a top journalist on the NSA) notes, if Merkel was indeed targeted, then why wasn't her position as an intelligence source more highly classified? Ambinder hints at the larger truth. If she was monitored, Merkel was effectively a deep cover source. In that regard, it's truly ridiculous that Snowden was able to gain access to such an operation. He was a contractor, not the Director of the NSA. As I've argued before, the US Government has a serious problem with its protection of its highly classified sources.

Of course, all of this raises the broader question as to what other information Snowden might have given Greenwald. Does he have agents/officers details? The British certainly think so. Based on what's happening at the moment, we must assume that Greenwald is upping the ante. This may signal how he'll conduct himself at Omidyar's new media endeavor. Ultimately, this is what will most concern the US Government - signal intelligence programs can be reconstructed. Humans cannot.

Related links.

A delicate dance: France responds to the NSA

Following their earlier reporting, Le Monde is now claiming that the NSA targeted French diplomats at the UN and at the French Embassy in Washington (the BBC has a de-emotionalized summary).

Are we supposed to be shocked?

Look, I get that the French Government is angry. As a result of Snowden's leaks, President Hollande is being forced to navigate a tripartite political minefield - expressing dissatisfaction to sate populist anger, but doing so in a way that averts damage to the US relationship and avoids undesired attention from flowing towards DGSE SIGINT programs. This last point is of critical importance. French Intelligence doesn't simply collect on security/foreign policy related targets, they attempt to siphon data from US Intelligence platforms and they aggressively target private companies - engaging in industrial espionage of the type that characterized the KGB. They also monitor French citizens with zealous alacrity. In short, their behavior is far from sanctified.

But let's be clear, the NSA related accusations are far from surprising. Informational awareness is a cornerstone of international diplomacy. It makes sense and it's nothing new. As Susan Rice (apparently) put it, ''[NSA activities at the UN] helped me know... the truth, and reveal other [countries'] positions on sanctions, allowing us to keep one step ahead in the negotiations.'' As I've noted before, the US has understandable reasons to spy on European allies - interests align at certain junctures and separate at others.

All of this speaks to a broader point. No alliance is perfect. The US-Israeli intelligence relationship provides one such example of this truth. Ultimately, deep trust is contingent upon a long term, proven relationship. Like that of the 'five eyes' community (and specifically the US-UK intelligence alliance). Even then, complications are still present.

In the end however, defining interests define a relationship. As was the case with Brazil, this minor scandal will die down. Its perpetuation serves neither France nor the United States.

London Counter-Terrorism Arrests, Snowden and UK Intelligence

My latest audio blog- I offer my thoughts on the interrelationship between the London counter-terrorism arrests, UK Intelligence, Snowden and the US Government.

Also... Links to my related post (please see 'Other' section)

GOP prospects in Midterms, Putin bored with Snowden, Peace in Burma and Colombia, Fmr. President HW Bush, Neptune's new Moon

1) Respected pollsters Nate Silver and Harry Enten are predicting that the GOP has an increasingly strong chance of re-capturing Congress in the 2014 midterms. However, there are risks here for the GOP. As the pollsters note, if the GOP picks odd candidates (as occurred in 2012), prospective electoral victories may implode. At the same time, even the very prospect of a GOP takeover carries problems. As more intransigent Republicans realize that victory is possible, their arrogance will likely grow. Believing that power shortly awaits, they'll increasingly oppose bi-partisan compromise. I'll be writing on this issue for The Week.
 

2) Putin is getting bored of Snowden. Though I dislike the Russian leader, in this particular case, I understand his pain. Snowden is an insufferable ego-maniac (I think he sees himself as a modern day Jesus- suffering the persecution of the powerful in order to bring salvation to the masses). I find Putin's discomfort interesting. I suspect that Snowden is refusing to play ball with the Russian intelligence services. As a result, his presence in Moscow is little more than a political liability for the Kremlin. From their perspective, he offers nothing but an angry American Government. Snowden will probably end up in Venezuela - another bastion of effective government. 

3) Burma has promised to release all political prisoners by the end of the year. Similarly, in Colombia, the FARC rebel force is finally bending to a peace process. From both states, this is very welcome news. The evolution of Burma from a brutal military regime into a graduated process of democratization is proceeding successfully. The rulers of this country have realized that detachment from the international community is a path to ruin. Comparatively, for FARC, the relentless pressure of the Colombian Government (primarily under former President Uribe) has been too much to bear. In short, they've been brought to their knees and then to the table. As outlined in Robert Kaplan's excellent book, Imperial Grunts, the United States (and especially the Bush Administration) deserves joined credit for this outcome.

4) The capture of Miguel Morales is a major milestone for the Mexican Government. The Zetas cartel are a particularly brutal organization. Hopefully this success will spur President Nieto to continue the work of his predecessor in confronting Mexican narco-terrorists. These gangsters are not resistance fighters or simple criminals, they're individuals who have no qualms about setting fire to casinos and in kidnapping, torturing and killing bus loads of civilians. They cannot be allowed to intimidate Mexico into submission.

5) Fmr. President George HW Bush was recognized at the White House yesterday. This decent man deserves the praise he received. He's a great American.

6) NASA just found out that Neptune has another Moon. It's tiny, but this latest news just provides yet more evidence to the case that I made last week - Space deserves our attention.

 

US Spying on EU

The Guardian is reporting that the US has been spying on major European allies. These reports follow similar accusations by a prominent German news magazine. Safe to say, the reaction will be interesting. Although the reports are significant, they shouldn't be shocking. The US has vested interests in monitoring the activities of the EU. The Lebanese Hizballah offers one good example, Iraq 2003 offers another. The simple truth? When it comes to states like France, US interests don't always align with those of our foreign partners. In some cases, these diverging interests are highly significant - there's a rationale for our understanding of these divergences.

In another regard, it's also worth noting that these latest leaks suggest that the US has not spied on the UK or Germany. Again, this is unsurprising. In the UK's case, espionage action would be construed as a major breach of the longstanding US-UK intelligence alliance. The blowback of such an operation would be catastrophic. This being said, though strong, the US-UK intelligence relationship is not without its challenges.

More important is the fact that Snowden has leaked this information. From my perspective, this particular leak is Snowden's most serious so far. It offers the prospect of seriously jeopardized US relations with historic allies and it will likely lead to a termination of active collection efforts. At a basic political level, it's also terribly embarrassing (imagine the calls that Obama is going to have to make over the next few days...). But the leak also points to another concern for the US Government - how was Snowden (who was a contractor not a government employee) able to access such a wide array of specially compartmentalized intelligence materials? This leads to another question - one that will greatly worry US Intelligence - what else does Snowden know and who else has he given that knowledge to? The US must expect that Russian intelligence officers from the FSB are conducting compliant interrogations of Snodwen. As a result, US Intelligence must protect intelligence assets that Snodwen may have compromised. 'May' is the operative word here. The US Intelligence community cannot afford to risk Snowden only knowing some things - they must guard against all those things he could possibly know. And, to borrow a Rumsfeld quote, they likely don't know what he knows. 

The flowing consequence of all this - major intelligence operations may have to be shut down or reformed. That's why Snowden has annoyed so many in the US leadership.

Finally, it's worth examining why these reports surfaced today. I wonder whether, as he sits in limbo at Moscow's airport, Snowden is attempting to increase his support base re- prospective asylum. Perhaps he thinks that Iceland might offer him a passport? Certainly US influence over extradition arrangements will be weakened.