The Conviction and Sentencing of Witness K

After tormenting the man for years, it became clear that the Australian…

What About The Other Secret Trial?

A few weeks ago, various Australian MPs were expressing their outrage at…

Wither Encryption: What Operation Trojan Shield Reveals

My, were they delighted. Politicians across several international jurisdictions beamed with pride…

Education and Political Interference in the Death of…

By Dr Stewart Hase In Ray Bradbury’s 1953 book Farenheit 451, Captain Beatty…

Australia’s competitiveness drops to lowest level in 25…

CEDA Media Release Australia’s competitiveness drops to lowest level in 25 years: WCY…

‘Band Together’: Refugees join stars from Midnight Oil,…

The City of Sydney, the Asylum Seekers Centre and Amnesty International Australia…

Mums For Refugees Urge All to join Home…

Mums4Refugees is calling all families in Sydney to join us on Saturday…

Explaining Media Inequality

As many of my social media friends and Twitter followers know, I…

«
»
Facebook

Dr. Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. He was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge. He is a contributing editor to CounterPunch and can be followed at @bkampmark.

The Conviction and Sentencing of Witness K

After tormenting the man for years, it became clear that the Australian authorities were willing to, for want of a better word, compromise. The more accurate word would be compromising. Instead of banishing former spy turned bean spiller Witness K to a cell and throwing away the key, there was preference for a softer, more hypocritical mode of punishment. He would be spared jail time, showing that the national security state can, when it wishes to sit in judgment, show some mercy.

For those familiar with the case, there was nothing merciful in the finding. A punishment had been levelled for exposing an unlawful operation against a friendly and fledgling state. In 2004, Australia’s then foreign minister Alexander Downer authorised the bugging of the cabinet offices of Timor-Leste by officers of the Australian Secret Intelligence Services (ASIS).

The surveillance of Timor-Leste’s negotiators was an act of economic espionage and fraud, intended to give the Australians the upper hand in discussions between the countries over their maritime boundary. At stake were the oil and gas-rich deposits in the Timor Sea. Unaware of the surveillance operation, the East Timorese went ahead to sign a treaty which distinctly favoured Australia: a 50-50 division of the Greater Sunrise fields.

Eventually, the truth outed. The operation was revealed. Former US ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, who was the chief negotiator on behalf of the Timor-Leste government, was stunned by Canberra’s commercial rapacity. “The whole experience of the negotiation from 2000 on and through this whole episode was to see a country that – yes, in many ways focuses on the public good – but where corporate greed was a big part of it, because the Howard and Downer government, they were shills for the corporations.”

This is where Witness K’s role becomes important. As the former head of technical operations at the agency, he felt sour by the prioritising of resources against Timor-Leste over other security matters. When he became aware of Downer’s consultancy with the multinational Woodside, who stood to benefit from a general divvying up of the Greater Sunrise fields, the red mist descended.

Exercised by the matter, Witness K made an internal compliant to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) about the bugging. Showing how such internal complaint mechanisms only serve to expose the complainant to retribution, Witness K’s saw his employment terminated. With the consent of the IGIS, Witness K secured the services of an ASIS-approved lawyer and former ACT attorney-general, Bernard Collaery. Collaery did some digging and came to the conclusion that the espionage operation was not only unlawful but probably a conspiracy to defraud the government of Timor-Leste under section 334 of the Criminal Code.

Timor-Leste, aggrieved by the bugging incident, went to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague intent on overturning the sham arrangement they had reached with Canberra. In 2013, aided by Collaery’s efforts, an invitation was extended to Witness K to give evidence. Disclosures regarding the surveillance operation were made in two affidavits. Alarmed, Australia’s attorney-general George Brandis sprang into action. Witness K’s passport was cancelled. The domestic intelligence service, ASIO, raided the homes of both men.

Brandis flirted with prosecuting both Witness K and Collaery. But it was only in May 2018, a mere two months after Canberra’s conclusion of a renegotiated treaty with Timor-Leste, that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions formally brought charges under section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, which criminalises the communication of any information or matter acquired or prepared by or on behalf of ASIS in connection with its functions or relates to its performance.

Law academic Spencer Zifcak, in writing about the matter with some horror, saw an “Alice in Wonderland quality about all this” (Kafka would have been more appropriate): the defendants in a criminal case were the very men who “acted in the national interest by disclosing alleged unlawful activity by Australia’s intelligence service.” The prosecutors were the very individuals who initiated the covert operation.

In 2019, Witness K suggested that he would plead guilty. On June 17, concealed behind a wall of black panels, he formally entered a guilty plea in the ACT Magistrates Court. The next day, magistrate Glenn Theakston concluded that the former ASIS agent would not face the bars of a prison and would be subject to a 12-month good behaviour bond. Adding his bit to the Alice in Wonderland farce, Theakston claimed that, “It cannot and should not be up to … former staff members to unilaterally depart from those security obligations” though he admitted that this “was not a breach that was going to go hidden for some time.” That said, it was “express” and “deliberate.” It compromised the agency’s effectiveness, safety and security and jeopardised Australia’s relationships and reputations.

While stern and rigid on the letter of the law – the proscriptions regarding ASIS were “strict and absolute” – the magistrate did note that Witness K had been motivated by considerations of justice, not those of personal gain. The former agent’s disclosures were part of an effort to participate in a “rules-based order of international relations.” (The bitter ironist will detect how this jars with Canberra’s incessant babble of about such an order even has it tries to upend it.)

Richard Maidment QC, representing the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, swatted Witness K’s efforts to secure a non-conviction order. His conviction would serve a lesson of deterrence. Whether it was “appropriate for him to breach the obligations, which had been brought to his attention many times, does not afford him mitigation.”

The criminals behind the Timor-Leste operation remain at large. The wrong man was convicted. Senator for South Australia Rex Patrick released a sombre statement claiming to be “ashamed to be an Australian.” Collaery, for his part, has refused to plead guilty. His fate, largely being determined behind closed doors, is likely to be a harsher one.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Wither Encryption: What Operation Trojan Shield Reveals

My, were they delighted. Politicians across several international jurisdictions beamed with pride that police and security forces had gotten one up on criminals spanning the globe. It all involved a sting by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, led in conjunction with a number of law enforcement agencies in 16 countries, resulting in more than 800 arrests. The European Union police agency Europol described it as the “biggest ever law enforcement operation against encrypted communication.”

The haul was certainly more than the usual: over 32 tonnes of an assortment of drugs including cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines and methamphetamines; 250 firearms, 55 luxury cars, and some $48 million in cash, both tangible and digital.

Operation Trojan Shield arose because of a grand dupe. It involved recruiting an FBI informant who had developed an adulterated version of the encryption technology platform Anom, to be used on modified cell phones for distribution through a range of organised crime networks. The platform included a calculator app that relayed all communications sent on the platform back to the FBI. “You had to know a criminal to get hold of one of these customised phones,” the Australian Federal Police explained. “The phones couldn’t ring or email. You could only communicate with someone on the same platform.”

The users were none the wiser. For three years, material was gathered and examined, comprising 27 million intercepted messages drawn from 12,000 devices. This month, the authorities could no longer contain their excitement.

While the criminals in question might well have been mocked for their gullibility, the trumpeting of law enforcement did not seem much better. A relentless campaign has been waged on end-to-end encryption communication platforms, a war against what policing types call “going dark.” To add some light to the situation, the agencies pine for the creation of tailored back doors to such communications apps as WhatsApp, iMessage and Signal.

Few could forget the indignant efforts of the FBI to badger Apple in 2016 to crack the iPhone of Syed Farook, the San Bernardino shooting suspect. Apple refused. The battle moved to the courts. In what has become something of a pattern, the DOJ subsequently dropped the case by revealing that it had “successfully accessed the data stored on Farook’s iPhone and therefore no longer requires the assistance of Apple Inc.” The DOJ then requested that a court order of February 16 demanding Apple create software with weakened iPhone security settings be vacated. By refusing to reveal how it had obtained access to the phone, government authorities had thrown down the gauntlet to Apple to identify any glitches.

In 2020, a number of international politicians with an interest in the home security portfolio released a joint statement claiming to support “strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.” A casual glance at the undersigned would suggest this to be markedly disingenuous. Among them were: Priti Patel, UK Home Secretary; William P. Barr, US Attorney General; Peter Dutton, Australian Minister for Home Affairs.

Having given nods of approval for encryption as “an existential anchor of trust in the digital world”, the ministers took aim at the various platforms using it. On this occasion, it was the “challenges to public safety” posed by the use of encryption technology, “including to highly vulnerable members of our societies like sexually exploited children.” (The battle against solid encryption is often waged over the bodies and minds of abused children.) Industry was urged “to address our concerns where encryption is applied in a way that wholly precludes any legal access.” This would involve companies having to police illegal content and permit “law enforcement to access content in a readable and usable format where an authorisation is lawfully issued, is necessary and proportionate, and is subject to strong safeguards and oversight.”

Cases like Anom demonstrate that there is seemingly no need for such intrusions, bells of alarm, and warnings about safety. The police have sufficient powers and means, and more besides. As with such matters, the danger tends to be closer to home: police zeal; prosecutor’s glee; a hatred of privacy. Joseph Lorenzo Hall, senior vice president at the non-profit Internet Society, is convinced of that fact. “When law enforcement agencies claim they need companies to build in backdoors to help them gain access to the end-to-end encrypted communications of criminals, examples like Anom show that it’s not the case.”

John Scott-Railton of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy makes the same point. “What this case shows is that global law enforcement is perfectly capable of mobilising a multiyear caper to get around exactly the kinds of problems about encryptions that they’ve been talking about without breaking the encryption of the apps that keep you and [me] private.”

The Australian wing of the operation had even greater extant powers of access to encrypted messages. The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 is one of those beastly instruments many law enforcement agencies dream about. It might also suggest why Australia, a nominally small partner, might have been asked by the FBI to be involved in the first place. When asked if this was the case, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison suggested that the question be put to US authorities. For him, the AFP’s hardly impressive technical efforts were to be praised.

None of this is enough for the Morrison government, which is intent on further pushing the surveillance cart in such proposed laws as the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, and the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 (IPO Bill). The former would permit the AFP and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to issue a new range of warrants for combating online crime; the latter would create a system by which Australian agencies would be able to access stored telecommunications from identified foreign communication providers in cases where Australia has a bilateral agreement.

Operation Trojan Shield has again shown that calls for weakened encryption are to be treated with due alarm. Almost silly in all of this was the fact that the FBI and fellow agencies made it a demonstrable fact, undercutting their very own arguments for a more invasive surveillance system. The next play is bound to come from the criminal networks themselves, who, wounded by this deception, will move towards more conventional encryption technologies. The battle will then come full circle. In countries such as Australia, where privacy is a withering tree, the encryption debate is a dead letter.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Publicity and Exploitation: Fortress Australia and the Family from Biloela

Australian officials and paper mad types are running out of ideas as to how to be cruel towards refugees. We need to give them some credit: for years they have tried to do what most autocratic and murderous regimes do in a heartbeat: ignore international law, treat it with disdain and use those feeble excuses in the service of sovereignty.

As with any system of harm and torture, the justifiers cite a hard form of kindness to prolong the depravity of their conduct. The drivel of humanitarian falseness abounds: We need to prevent people from drowning. We hate seeing children perish. So, lock them up. We do not want to see parents separated from their children. So, separate them. No Australian politician can ever be in a position to criticise any other country on this point, largely because they inspired the rash of demagogic policies that typify a shift away from the principles of the UN Refugee Convention. (The Danish parliament recently approved legislation that will enable the bribing of third countries to prevent refugees and asylum seekers seeking settlement in Denmark.)

The ways Australian governments of either conservative or Labor persuasion have pecked away and subserved international refugee guarantees are impressively thuggish. Legally excising the mainland to make sure that boat arrivals could never be settled as refugees under the Migration Act was particularly devilish. Then came the system of Pacific island concentration camps to ensure that applications for asylum could be kept in cold storage while deals with third countries could be brokered.

But something of late has changed. The jaded oppressors are fearing that the cruelty-is-good mantra is running its course. At the very least, it might permit exceptions. It centres on the fate of a Sri Lankan family, deported to Christmas Island after settling in the small Central Queensland town of Biloela. Nadesalingam Murugappan and Kokilapathmapriya Nadesalingam married in Australia after separately arriving from Sri Lanka by boat in 2012 and 2013 separately. They had two Australian-born children, Tharnicaa and Kopika. In Biloela, they made friends, cultivated relationships.

Then, Fortress Australia intervened. Arguments by Nadesalingam and Priya that they would be put in harm’s way should they be returned to Sri Lanka as ethnic Tamils were rejected. In 2018, the family was removed from Biloela and detained in Melbourne. An attempt to deport them by the Department of Home Affairs to Sri Lanka was frustrated by a Federal Court injunction. The court processes were duly triggered; the family was then moved to Christmas Island in August 2019.

The legal issues have become needlessly, and brutally entangling. Current interest centres on the finding by Federal Court Justice Mark Moshinsky that Tharnicaa was not awarded “procedural fairness” when she requested permission to apply for a protection visa in September 2018. The decision was upheld in February by the Full Court of the Federal Court, though the judges were keen to point out that the Immigration Minister had no obligation to allow Tharnicaa to make that application for protection in the first place.

The poor conditions on Christmas Island were telling. Both children became vitamin D deficient. Bouts of infection followed. Tharnicaa, the youngest, had surgery to remove her decayed teeth. At the start of this month, she contracted pneumonia and a blood infection. Medical staff on Christmas Island proved indifferent: she looked “active and fine.” A contrarian and increasingly desperate Nadesalingam urged the prescription of antibiotics. With her condition eventually deemed critical, Tharnicaa was evacuated with her mother to Perth Children’s Hospital, Western Australia.

The most obvious point was, at least initially, avoided: return the family to the mainland. Various government ministers, including Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, raised the possibility that the family might be resettled in New Zealand or the United States. These options were then scotched by Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews. The arrangements with both countries were only in respect to refugees. “This family does not have refugee status.”

But certain politicians sensed a change of mood and wanted a new music sheet. The accountant types worried about the cost: AU$6.7 million over three years had been spent keeping a family on a remote island. The poor optic types feared the publicity, and the potential damage to votes, caused by a suffering family. Papers such as the West Australian ran headlines such as, “It only took 1198 days.” The chief executive of the Child and Adolescent Health Service claimed that the improvement of Tharnicaa’s physical and psychological wellbeing was dependent on family reunification.

Previously closeted government backbenchers came out. There was modest Trent Zimmerman, startling ABC News audiences barely able to get their coffee down on Sunday morning before realising the content of his suggestion. “This week or in the next couple of weeks, [Immigration Minister Alex Hawke] will be considering an application to use his powers to give an exemption to the normal requirements.” There was Ken O’Dowd, whose federal seat takes in Biloela, lobbying Hawke to let the family settle in Australia. He thought that “everyone’s just about had enough” and wanted “to move on.” He claimed to have “always been supportive of the family”, realising “from the word go that it was always going to be an issue.”

Having discovered her inner morality, Liberal backbencher Katie Allen wanted this to be resolved with swift urgency. “This has gone on for too long,” she tweeted. “We urgently need a timely resolution to a situation that is endangering the health and well-being of innocent children.” Typically, Allen’s morality encased itself with bureaucratic sensibility. She did not want to give the impression that she embraced opening the gates for any biblical flood of suffering. “We must look at alternatives such as Section 195A of the Migration Act to solve the legal impasse and give this family a chance.”

 

 

Priceless was the tittering contribution from Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, fair weather reactionary prone to soft moderations of tone and a radar for votes. “Tharnicaa and Kopika were born in Australia,” he observed with shattering obviousness. “Maybe if their names were Jane and Sally we’d think twice about sending them back to another country which they’re not from.” Throwing in the inevitable qualification, Joyce also wanted all to know that no “encouragement” was intended for “people smugglers to start their vile trade again.” We, he assured critics, were “a very humanitarian government.”

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack was visibly alarmed by this wobbliness on Fortress Australia’s ideals. In platitudes, he spoke of not wanting “to see the boats return.” He chided Zimmerman for not being “in parliament when some of those ships were lost at sea, some of those leaky boats were dashed up against rocks and all lives lost. I was. I remember the heartache, I remember the loss.” Poor, suffering McCormack.

The reliably spineless Labor Party, ever willing to criticise and simultaneously agree with the border protection regime, was also there. They had found a voice from the wilderness of irrelevance, despite most party members knowing they would have done precisely the same thing to such a family. Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese moralised. “I visited Biloela,” he tweeted in February. “This community isn’t interested in politics. They just want their friends back.”

 

 

On the morning of June 15, the Immigration Minister released a statement on his decision. The family would be able to “reside in the Perth community.” Hawke’s decision balanced “the government’s ongoing commitment to strong border protection policies with appropriate compassion in circumstances in children in held detention.” During the course of their community detention placement, the family would have access to schools and support services, with Tharnicaa able to receive medical treatment from the Perth Children’s Hospital as the legal disputes continued. But nothing here signalled a change to government policy. “Importantly, today’s decision does not create a pathway to a visa.”

Most obscene in this affair is that the decision makers, having fashioned a policy that has harmed, killed and ensured the mental ruination of boat arrivals, should now suddenly make this family an example of compassion. Former Liberal MP Julia Banks, disgusted by her party’s own policies, was in little doubt that this was an electioneering ploy. It was precisely electoral politics that created one of the world’s most hostile, antithetical refugee regimes. Electoral politics will now carve out an exception for this traumatised family.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Vague Alternatives and G7 Summitry: The Build Back Better World Initiative

Summits often feature grand statements and needless fripperies. In Cornwall, the leaders of the G7 countries were trying to position and promote their relevance as the vanguard of democratic good sense and values. They, the message went, remained relevant, valuable and essential to the order of the earth, despite challenges posed by the autocrats.

Never let contradiction get in the way of such a united front. Babbling about liberal democratic values matters little when it comes to crusty realpolitik. The UK and the US continue to supply armaments to their favourite theocracy, Saudi Arabia, even as they take issue with Russia and Chinese actions they deem aggressive, cruel or authoritarian. Germany’s position on dealing with Russia remains distinct within the grouping, not least on the issue of energy politics and the Nord Stream 2 gas project. Nor does the G7 necessarily share the same attitude in dealing with China, each having had its slant in coping with Beijing’s actions in recent years.

The China Syndrome has produced some form of united response at the summit. Welcome, then, to the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative. This will entail, according to a White House factsheet, “a values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership led by the major democracies to help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.” The initiative will also involve “the G7 and other like-minded partners” coordinating and mobilising “private-sector capital in four areas of focus – climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equity and equality – with catalytic investments from our respective development finance institutions.”

A senior official in the Biden administration told Reuters that, “This is not just about confronting or taking on China. But until now we haven’t offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business.”

Since 2013, President Xi Jinping’s multi-billion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has niggled the sphere of influence watchers. While the developed world went into something of an investment coma after the Great Recession of 2007-9, notably in developing economies, China took its wallet out. Attached conditions to the investment would be few; questions about human rights, freedoms and business transparency would not be obstacles. As this was happening, high-income states went into chatter mode while keeping their shut purses, formulating principles for quality infrastructure investments.

The BRI infrastructure program, currently featuring 2,600 projects, is China’s geopolitical bridge to developing states, linking Beijing through an assortment of road, maritime and rail projects. These include the $100 billion China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, and the $62 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor. Over time, the initiative has moved into 5G technologies and fiberoptic networks.

The BRI initiative is also a way of jostling out countries long presumptuous about keeping their backyard free of competition. (Australia, for instance, has shown alarm that its long-standing position as Pacific bruiser and charity giver is facing dethroning.) And it has worried recipient states initially warmed by Chinese offers of investment. In 2016, Pakistani Senator Tahir Mashhadi, chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Development, issued a warning. “Another East India Company is in the offing; national interests are not being protected. We are proud of the friendship between Pakistan and China, but the interests of the state should come first.”

The G7 states have been doing much head scratching as to how to rival and blunt the BRI. In 2019, the Trump administration, along with Japan and Australia, suggested their own counter: the Blue Dot Network, the principles of which underpin B3W. The BDN initiative seeks to promote “equality infrastructure investment that is open and inclusive, and transparent, economically viable, financially, environmentally sustainable and compliant with international standards, laws, and regulations.” The inaugural meeting of the Blue Dot Network’s Executive Consultation Group took place on June 7.

While not specifically referencing the BDN (anything deemed worthy by President Donald Trump is to be assimilated rather than acknowledged), US President Joe Biden has been making regular sprays about, as he told reporters in March, establishing “a similar initiative coming from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world.”

In April, Biden and his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, met to discuss “practical commitments” in establishing an alternative to BRI projects. There was a special emphasis on promoting and protecting “the technologies that will maintain and sharpen our competitive edge” based on “democratic norms that we both share – norms set by democracies, not autocracies.”

Cornwall has become the site for similar assurances. The B3W is all about, as the Biden administration claims, “offering a higher-quality choice.” The choice will be offered “with self-confidence … that reflects our shared values.” Kaush Arha, who worked as the US G7 sherpa for the Blue Dot Network in 2020, sees the way paved “for BDN to earn the endorsement of the G7” and feature at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties in November.

The details of this new plan, for all its claims to transparency, remain opaque. In the first place, it places strong emphasis on private sector contributions that are supposedly drawn in an open, accountable manner. Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Centre’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States asks the question “whether this is going to be actually new funding, new capacity to build infrastructure in the region, or is this a repurposing and repackaging of resources that are also available.” Eventually, the participating powers will have to show the money.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Less Freedom, More Money: Tony Blair’s Vaccine Passport

Sincere Tony is again on the stump, promoting his vision of how best to return to a lovely, unruffled world of capitalist endeavour, circuit lecturing and summit meetings that no longer need to be held online. And when Blair has visions, they are bound to be highly selective and keen in terms of his own bank account, not to mention his PR services.

In February this year, he told BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster that a digital health certificate or passport of some sort covering vaccination and testing status was bound to happen. It was a matter of “national security.” Never mind the deaths and the illness, it was “the damage to our economy and the global economy” that proved “massive.”

This month, Blair went one step further. In Less Risk, More Freedom, a report authored by his firm the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the authors remark that “vaccine status matters.” They write of a “robust Covid pass” that could be used to facilitate virtually unhindered mobility. In terms of international movement, “we propose that anyone who is fully vaccinated should be free to travel to and from any country currently designated green without any quarantine or testing required.” In terms of domestic settings, the authors proposed “that any venue or setting that wants to admit only those who have been vaccinated be permitted to do so.”

The report, and the spruiking of the vaccination pass, exude a striking creepiness. The gist to all of this: It was time to start discriminating between vaccinated and the unvaccinated. On the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Blair insisted that discrimination was unavoidable. So far, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his cabinet seem cold to the idea.

Some of the government’s advisers are also sceptical. Professor of social psychology John Drury, who is also a member of the Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) also takes issue with “creating a division between those who have the passport and those who do not,” a state of affairs that was bound to “reinforce and reproduce existing group inequalities.” Drury also noted other factors that would militate against the use of such a pass: the large number of people yet to be vaccinated, including “those unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, those not on the priority list, those who haven’t found the opportunity, those who are hesitant, and those who are anti-vaxx.” Sod them, Tony seems to be suggesting.

Another member of the SPI-B, Susan Michie, also suggests keeping such passes on ice. “The idea of vaccine passports when not everyone has been offered the vaccination and when there are disparities that have not been adequately addressed is very problematic.” An increase in “social divisions between different sectors of society” was bound to arise.

It is little wonder Blair wants to get moving, meeting and greeting. In 2014, for instance, it was revealed that he earnt £41,000 per month from the Saudi oil company PetroSaudi, in addition to a 2% commission on any deal secured through his services. In 2016, the Guardian obtained access to documents on how various Chinese political leaders heaped praise upon Blair for his efforts to forge business deals with them and PetroSaudi.

In doing so, the line between making contacts, and actually overseeing deals, was blurred. The bank, co-owned by Prince Turki bin Abdullah – had itself insisted in discussions about retaining Blair’s services in November 2010 that the former British Prime Minister do more than “just make the intros” – he would also “help deliver transactions.” Because doing so might fall foul of the Financial Services Authority, Tony Blair Associates would “assist in delivering transactions but cannot have it on paper that this might be the case (which no doubt still causes potential problems with the FSA).”

For the time of its operation, the TBA client roster was extensive, spanning Kuwait, Vietnam, Peru, Colombia, the Abu Dhabi investment fund Mubadala, and the authoritarian government of Kazakhstan. All of this suggests a curious take on the mumbo jumbo that is often spouted in Whitehall about a “rules-based order,” which, as ever, affords rules in accordance with how money and services change hands in the opaquest way possible.

In 2016, the cloak of controversy regarding TBA and its advisory services was getting so heavy, Blair decided to cut and run. In closing the advisory firm, he told staff that he would keep a number of private clients, including the investment bank JPMorgan. But there would be a renewed focus on charity work. “It is now time to expand to a new level,” Blair said in a statement. “I want to expand our activities and bring everything under one roof. I also want to concentrate the vast bulk of my time on the not-for-profit work we do.”

In responding to COVID-19 Blair, through his Institute for Global Change, evangelises with characteristic zeal. “As the world works to defeat COVID-19, we have dedicated our 200-strong team to the fight.” The firm’s “Government Advisory Practice is directly supporting leaders in their on-the-ground fight against COVID-19, and our Policy Futures unit is delivering analysis and advice to help countries mitigate economic impact, source essential equipment, harness the power of technology and position themselves for the rebuilding to come.” The sound of money in the making.

For any readers in doubt about the value of Blair’s advice on matters of pressing concern, a dip into the Chilcot Report should suffice. Covering the reasons why Britain invaded Iraq, along with the United States and its allies, it found that the prime minister reached a decision based on “flawed intelligence and assessments.” Saddam Hussein and his fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction “posed no imminent threat.” This would be a decent summary on Blair’s attitudes to a vaccine passport: views uninformed by advice and marked by a certain flawed intelligence.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

ET, You Bore Me: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and the Pentagon

Those of you drawing sustenance and stimulation from the traditional acronym UFO best brace yourselves. The less exciting and dull term accepted by the defence clerks – unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) – is renewing its march into the extra-terrestrial hinterland.

On June 25, the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force will release a declassified report to Congress that will do little to shift ground or alter debate on the nature of such phenomena. For those exercised about green creatures, ancient aliens and that roguish charlatan Erich von Däniken, nothing would have changed. For sceptics, it will be a case of tired yawn before returning to work. There will be many “I told you so” moments and no one will be any wiser.

Since 2017, various eyewitness accounts and videos have been circulating in such measure as to worry members of Congress. This came a decade after Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) first began tooting the horn on the subject, a measure that led to the creation of the $22 million Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. That program, along with the even lesser known Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, saw the involvement of such proponents of extra-terrestrial life as billionaire Robert Bigelow.

Such programs were hardly the first. From 1966 to 1968, the University of Colorado’s UFO Project, which lead to the publication of the tome heavy Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, was funded by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Led by physicist Edward U. Condon, the report, totalling almost a thousand pages, covered 56 “cases” (UFO sightings), of which 33 were suitably explained as “normal phenomena.”

The unexplained cases were not sufficient for Condon and his co-authors to encourage further government study or scientific investigation of UFO sightings. The words of the report are unequivocally damning: “nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record … leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”

Decades after, with interest rekindled, the Pentagon was duly pressed by US lawmakers into compiling a report examining UAP sightings. Legislation passed in December stipulated that the resulting work should contain “detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence” gathered by the FBI, the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. The latter was created in August 2020 on the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist. It was done so with a view to improving “understanding of” and to “gain insight into the nature and origins of UAPs. The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalogue UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to US national security.”

The focus of the report is bound to be workmanlike, given the DOD’s concern about “the safety of our personnel and the security of our operations.” Emphasis is placed on the potential risks posed by “any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace.” “This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing.”

So far, news outlets have veered between panting anticipation and bemused interest. The BBC suggested that, “The review of 120 incidents is expected to conclude that US technology was not involved in most cases.” The Hill, not quite grasping the meaning of secrecy, concluded that this fact “effectively rules out any secret government operations conducted by the American government”.

Both the New York Times and Washington Post went for common ground. The Times reported that senior administration officials briefed about the report found no evidence that the sighted objects seen over the past decade by Navy pilots were not of this planet. But these same officials “still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military.” US technology, it was confirmed, was not involved in the sightings. The report, according to the Post, “finds no proof of extraterrestrial activity, but cannot provide a definitive explanation for scores of incidents in which strange objects have been spotted in the sky.”

 

Image from abc7news.com

 

The Post goes on to make some broad claims, detecting a shift from “fringe conspiracy theory” to the “mainstream.” To justify the assertion, they cite such figures as Luis Elizondo, a former military intelligence official who told reporters on an April roundtable call that many objects recorded in the videos under review had “baffled pilots, military and intelligence officials for their apparent defiance of known laws of flight and gravity.”

Fox News, for its part, can call upon the observations of former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe. Those interested in the report would read of “objects that have been seen by Navy or Air Force pilots or have been picked up by satellite imagery that frankly engage in actions that are difficult to explain.”

The minds of former presidents are also being tickled with interest. “[W]hat is true, and I’m actually being serious here,” Barack Obama claimed in May on the Late Late Show With James Corden, “is that there are, there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are. We can’t explain how they moved, their trajectory.”

A good number in the scientific and sceptical fraternity have been much cooler to this excitement. “Recently,” a reproachful Andrew Franknoi, astronomer at the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco observes, “there has been a flurry of misleading publicity about UFOs [based on military reports]. A sober examination of these claims reveals there is a lot less to them than first meets the eye.”

Science writer Mick West, who has viewed much UAP footage released by the US military, affords a good perspective for debunkers. Most sightings can be put down to distortions in the image or problems in the instruments themselves. For all that, he admitted that unidentified objects appearing “in restricted airspace” presents “a real problem that needs solving.”

UFO sceptic Robert Sheaffer sees no reason for a Damascene conversion. “There are no aliens here on Earth, and so the government cannot ‘disclose’ what it does not have.” With a measure of unflagging confidence, he suggested that government sources knew “less on the subject than our best civilian UFO investigators, not more.”

Another good reason for dampening any excitement around the UAP Report is the motivation of the Pentagon. Instances of costly bungles are many, from the vast expenditure in such failed conflicts as Afghanistan to the $1.6 trillion debacle over the F-35. Perhaps, writes Matt Stieb, the DOD “simply wants a flashy reason to demand more money.”

Reid, for his part, expects little but urges continued interest in funding ventures in UAP investigations. “I don’t think the report is going to tell us too much. I think they need to study it more and not just have one shot at it.” Condon and his research team might have set him straight.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Denmark Offshores the Right to Asylum

This has been a fantasy of Danish governments for some time. There have been gazes of admiration towards countries like Australia, where processing refugees and asylum-seekers is a task offloaded, with cash incentives, to third countries (Papua New Guinea and Nauru come to mind). Danish politicians, notably a good number among the Social Democrats, have dreamed about doing the same to countries in Africa, returning to that customary pattern of making poorer states undertake onerous burdens best undertaken by more affluent states.

The government of Mette Frederiksen has now secured amendments to the Danish Aliens Act that authorises the transfer of asylum seekers to other countries as their applications are being processed. The measure was secured on June 3 by a vote of 70 to 24, though critics must surely look at the absence of 85 MPs as telling. The measure is not automatic: the Danish government will have to secure (or bribe) the trust of third party states to assume their share.

Government spokesman Rasmus Stoklund left few doubts as to what the new law entailed. “If you apply for asylum in Denmark, you know that you will be sent back to a country outside Europe, and therefore we hope that people stop seeking asylum in Denmark.”

Stoklund’s language of warning evokes parallels with Australia’s own campaign of discouragement, marked by a highly-budgeted effort featuring such savage products as No Way. You Will Not Make Australia Home. In the video, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, then chief of Australia’s effort to repel naval arrivals known as Operation Sovereign Borders, is stern in threatening that “if you travel by boat without a visa you will never make Australia home.” Other delights involve a graphic novel, translated into 18 different languages, promising trauma and suffering to those who end up in a detention centre in the Pacific, and the feature film Journey, where an Iranian mother and her child seek sanctuary in Australia. The Danish propaganda arm will have some catching up to do.

Who then, are the third country candidates? Denmark already has a memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan government that covers migration, asylum, return and repatriation. Its purpose is to target an asylum system which supposedly gives incentives to “children, women and women to embark on dangerous journeys along migratory routes, while human traffickers earn fortunes.” When it was made, Amnesty International’s Europe Director, Nils Muižnieks could see the writing on the wall, calling it “unconscionable” and even “potentially unlawful.” But for Rwanda, just as it is with Pacific island states such as Nauru, money is to be made. Such countries effectively replace demonised people smugglers as approved traffickers and middlemen.

The response to the legislation from those in the business of advocating for refugees and the right to asylum has been uniform in curtness and distress. Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, voiced strong opposition to “efforts that seek to externalise or outsource asylum and international protection obligations to other countries.”

UNHCR spokesman Babar Balloch could only make the relevant point that the legislation ran “counter to the letter and spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention.” Moves to externalise “asylum processing and protecting of refugees to a third country… seriously risk setting in motion a process of gradual erosion of the international protection system, which has withstood the test of time over the last 70 years.”

Balloch is evidently not as attentive as he thinks: those wishing to externalise such obligations have well and truly set this train in motion. The 2018 EU summit went so far as to debate the building of offshore processing centres in Morocco, Algeria and Libya to plug arrival routes via the Mediterranean. The UK government is also toying with the idea of an offshore asylum system.

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Division distils the relevant principle being sacrificed. “By sending people to a third country, what you are essentially doing is taking what is a legal right and making it a discretionary political choice.” It is an increasingly attractive, if grotesque policy, for wealthier countries with little appetite to share the burdens of sharing the processing claims under the UNHCR’s Global Compact on Refugees.

Unfortunately for Frelkick and their like, the Danish government is proving derivatively consistent. It has been opting out of the European asylum system since the 2000s, doing its bit to fragment an already incoherent approach in the bloc. The centre right government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, just by way of example, was proud to reduce the number of asylum seekers and those wishing to settle in Denmark. In 2004, 1,607 people were granted asylum compared to 6,263 three years prior.

The approach of the current government is to negate the very right to seeking asylum in Denmark, aided by third countries. And there is not much left to do, given that the country received a mere 1,515 asylum applications in 2020, its lowest in two decades. Of those, 601 were granted permits to stay.

Lurking, as it always does in these situations, is the Australian example. The right to asylum is vanishing before the efforts of bureaucrats and border closing populists. The UN Refugee Convention, like other documents speaking to freedoms and rights, is becoming a doomed relic.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Of Plagues and Rodents: Australia’s War Against Mice

Not a day goes by these days without a casual remark about animal extermination in Australia. Mice have moved to the front of the queue in terms of animal species Australians would most like to liquidate. The language used has various registers: sombre and regretful; grave and scientific; panicked and bloody.

This is all ordinary fare and is characterised by ignoring the anthropogenic nature of the problems. Behind every pest outbreak on the Australian continent is a human hand operated by a muddled mind. In Australia, that hand has been particularly busy in negligence. Since the eighteenth century, animal species have been introduced inadvertently or through design affecting and in many instances devastating the continent’s ecosystem.

Some have been introduced with the purpose of neutralising other designated pest species, the most calamitous example being that of the cane toad. Introduced by agricultural scientists of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations in 1935, the toad’s intended target was scarab beetles whose root-feeding larvae delighted in commercial agriculture, notably sugarcane crops. Famously, the toad preferred different sources of food and proceeded to prey on other species with gusto, including native predators. The species flourished.

The humble house mouse is said to have arrived with the British First Fleet in 1788 but some speculation abounds that the introduction might have come via Dutch ships charting the coast of “New Holland” in the 1600s. A 2011 study on that question found that “a British Isles origin of Australian mice is the most reasonable interpretation of our results.”

Mice populations have recently soared, notably in New South Wales and southern Queensland, given drought breaking rains. Crops have been attacked and animal food reserves contaminated. There have been instances of infection, notably leptospirosis. As Danica Leys of the Association of Rural Women sees it, “It is an economic and health crisis. From the contamination of food and water by mice, to the diseases they spread, this pest is affecting more than crops, not to mention the stress it causes.”

The rise in numbers has made an impression on foreign press outlets. The London-based Express wrote of an infestation of tens of millions of mice. Australians had “reported the mice terrorising their lives, creeping over their faces as they sleep, biting them, invading classrooms and even nibbling at patients in their hospital beds.” It did not take long for these militant rodents to be seen as a threat to Australia’s most populous city. Channel 10 News Sydney had warned about a potential mice “march.”

The hearty solution, as always with the next pest, is mass extermination. Australia’s deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack expressed the widely held view that, “The only good mouse is a dead mouse.” To that end there is seemingly no end to the devilish applications of human ingenuity in destroying or regulating a species. Modern mice killers try to sound like educated middle managers, flirting with scientific rationalist inquiry. Can we be more modern in the ways we massacre them? Take, for instance, the next generation of “gene driven” technology, with the New South Wales government promising AU$1.8 million for the venture. (The total mouse control package comes to AU$50 million.)

The most important feature of this technology is inducing infertility, a soft, tender gloved version of dispatch. This form of extermination is clean, avoids killing other species on route, and sits well with the bio-controllers. “We have modelled it already,” Paul Thomas of the University of Adelaide states, “and it should cause the population to crash over time.” Thomas is also delighted by the “X-shredder” approach, which involves targeting the X chromosome carrier, namely, the sperm of the mice.

You might be forgiven for thinking that a daring experiment for the betterment of humanity was in the offing. “Mice arrived in Australia with the first fleet,” trumpeted the NSW Minister for Agriculture Adam Marshall, “and from then until now the best control methods we have been able to come up with have been baiting and trapping.”

The less modern aspect of this inspired strategy is the use of a particular poison, bromadiolone, which has been likened by Marshall to the use of “napalm.” (Should we be worried?) The factsheet of the National Pesticide Pest Centre is cheery about its effects. “Unlike some other rat poisons, which require multiple days of feeding by an animal, bromadiolone can be lethal from one day’s feeding.”

With such sinister war metaphors involved, even the bio-control boffins are concerned that this was going too far. Species murder is acceptable, but, as with some genocidaire types, it comes with ceremonial restraint. Killing mice with such poison would insert the substance into the food chain, endangering predators.

Peter Brown, who heads the rodent management research team at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), notes that “anti-coagulants can accumulate up through the food chain, and so birds of prey or other animals can be feeding on dead mice and they could potentially get a lethal dose themselves through secondary poisoning.”

Evidence of bird deaths arising from the ingestion of poisoned bait has already been found in the central west of NSW. And that’s in connection with the less toxic and commonly used zinc phosphide. Kelly Lacey, a volunteer for the NSW Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Services (WIRES), found 100 dead galahs in a cemetery in Parkes at the end of last month. It was particularly galling for her, seeing as she had been involved in rehabilitating and releasing a good number of the birds around the area.

Bait poisonings of household pets and working animals have also been recorded. Peter Best, a veterinarian based in South Tamworth, estimated that one in 15 admissions to his practice had involved poisoned animals.

Such facts could only make another researcher at the CSIRO sigh. “If it’s used properly,” observed Steve Henry, “it should be a very, very low risk that a bird should find one of those grains of zinc phosphide and eat it.” The bait was sound. The same could not be said for those using it. “Why birds start falling out of the sky is [that] people do inappropriate things.” Such people used the bait in ways “not described on the label, or people make up their own baits.”

When asked about her attitude to the problem, Healthy Rivers Dubbo convenor Melissa Gray suggested, with no detectable irony, that everybody wanted “the mouse plague gone, but there’s no silver bullet.” No silver bullets, maybe, but virtually everything else in the armoury of extermination. For the president of the NSW Farmers Association, the mayhem caused by such a poison as bromadiolone was worth the effort. Showing the somewhat patchy wisdom of his forebears, he accepted the lethal calculus. “It will cause poisoning in animals that eat the dead mice.” That, however, “was the lesser of two evils.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Suicidal Games: Tokyo’s Coronavirus Olympics

A pandemic crisis. A state of emergency. Overwhelming public opinion bristling with alarm. Notwithstanding these factors, Tokyo is still on track to host the Olympics that was cancelled last year in response to the global pandemic. The first sports team – Australia’s softball crew – has touched down. Is all this folly, bravery or self-interest?

On a daily basis, the tally of reasons against holding the games grows. Currently, the Japanese capital and nine other regions in the country labour under a declared state of emergency, one that will extend, at the very least, to June 20. Overseas fans have been barred and some 600,000 tickets refunded. Travel warnings have been registered, none more unequivocal than the US State Department’s advisory: “Do not travel to Japan due to COVID-19.” As the grave Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga warned, “The next three weeks are an extremely important period in achieving results in infection prevention and vaccine inoculation, a two-pronged strategy.”

An important point here is the sheer porcine obstinacy of the administration wonks whose very existence depends on an event that takes place every four years. They form what can only be described as the “show must go on” brigade, given the billions of dollars at stake regarding television rights. These furnish the International Olympic Committee some 75 per cent of its income, with the US broadcaster NBC being the major contributor.

The President of the IOC, Thomas Bach, has shown little concern as to what Japan is facing in terms of public health. “We have to make some sacrifices to make [the games] possible.” World Athletics President and IOC member Sebastian Coe is convinced that competitors will be “hermitically sealed from local people”.

The IOC vice-president John Coates, filled with the lunatic spirit of the Light Brigade, insists that the games proceed as scheduled. “The Prime Minister of Japan said that to the President of the United States two or three weeks ago,” Coates told reporters after the AOC annual general meeting in Sydney. “He continues to say that to the IOC.” Coates felt that the “playbook” of health regulations covering participants was an adequate “guide for a safe and successful games.”

Administrators such as Coates have taken it upon themselves to assume some depth of public health knowledge. Regarding the situation in Japan, he was happy to prognosticate. “The numbers [of infections] are very small, particularly amongst the elderly. And so as the vaccine is rolled out in Japan, I think that will improve.” It was incumbent, he urged, that Japanese authorities reassure the public that all was well and that the safety measures were more than adequate.

The much touted Tokyo 2020 Playbook has had a few iterations. As it stands, an extensive testing regime will be in place both before, during and after the event. Social interaction will be limited. Eating is to take place in designated areas. The use of public transportation and sightseeing is prohibited. Athletes must abide by various rules or be barred from competing: undergo testing at least once every four days, maintain a distance of 6 feet apart, eschew high-fives, hugging or sex. The latter injunction is to read alongside the odd promise to distribute 150,000 free condoms, a classic example of absurd committee logic.

Seiko Hashimoto, President of the Tokyo Olympic organising committee, is almost blithe in assuming that the crisis will plateau. With pandemic restrictions in place, there was an expectation that “the infection situation” would “improve.” “Once the state of emergency is lifted, we will assess how many spectators we can allow in.”

Tokyo 2020 CEO Toshiro Muto, in response to objections being levelled at holding the games, considered it “natural” that “different media organisations have different views.” As with other organisers, he felt that the “stringent measures” that had been put in place by national and local governments would improve the situation.

In the face of all of this is a clamour for the game’s cancellation. This is the position taken by the Japanese paper Asahi Shimbun, an official Games sponsor which has called upon Prime Minister Suga to “make a calm, objective assessment of the situation and make the decision to cancel this summer’s Olympics.” The editors also took issue with the “self-righteous” disposition of Coates and other IOC Committee leaders, rebuking them for being “out of step” with Japanese public opinion. “Saying ‘yes’ without demonstrating any clear grounds for it once again drove the self-righteous image of the IOC.”

Others have been even more acid in their comments. The chief of the Japanese online retailer Rakuten, Hiroshi Mikitani is baffled by the determination of administrators to proceed with the event. “The fact that we are so late for the vaccinations, it’s really dangerous to host the big international event.” To hold it would be tantamount to staging “a suicide mission.” Chief executive of the Softbank Group, Masayoshi Son, has issued dire warnings about 100,000 people from 200 countries descending “on vaccine-laggard Japan.” The arrival of mutant variants could see the loss of more lives, the need for subsidies and more economic losses. “If we consider what the public has to endure, I think we could have a lot more to lose.”

Most troubling of all for concerned Japanese citizens is the way Suga’s government has ceded authority to the IOC in what can only be regarded as a disgraceful abdication of responsibility. Last month, the prime minister went so far as to defer authority to the sporting body: “the IOC has the authority to decide.” No wonder Bach and Coates are so confident.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

That Old Story: Spying on Friends

One has to be repeatedly reminded that the theatre of international relations knows no friends and only national interests, whatever those might be. Intelligence services, being an expression of those interests, do not necessarily discriminate in targeting their quarry. The revelations of Edward Snowden in 2013 about warrantless and unwarranted surveillance by the US National Security Agency was revealing on this point, though it merely confirmed centuries of understanding in politics: In our friends and foes, we mistrust.

Having spilled such valuable beans, Snowden readied us for what should have been regarded as banal, even farcical. As Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists summarised, “The rule is that everybody spies on everybody – except when they have an agreement not to.” And, just in case you were in doubt “they may still do so.” In terms of the United States, he was not shy: “We are photographing and listening to the entire globe.”

The entire globe naturally includes peeking into the affairs of one’s allies. “Even among friends,” a serious Charles Kupchan of Georgetown University said in 2013, “a lot of espionage takes place, and some of that espionage is targeted against national security.” Kupchan sees this as solid bookkeeping. “There is more mundane day-to-day intelligence gathering, which is focusing on intelligence that would be relevant to American statecraft: who is likely to be the next foreign minister, what’s Germany’s position on negotiations with Iran?”

Snowden showed how the NSA exploited its partnership with various intelligence networks to get a leg up into the surveillance of various allies. One of these partnerships involved Denmark. The relationship with the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste or FE), it transpired, involved conducting surveillance upon senior officials in Sweden, Norway, France and Germany. This says much about the Danish political experiment, a small establishment in search of a relevant, collaborative purpose. To that end, the FE-NSA enterprise involved using XKeyscore, an NSA-developed software tool revealed by Snowden, which intercepts calls, texts and chat messages received and sent from the phones of the officials.

The 2013 exposure prompted an internal investigation into the Danish Defence Intelligence Service codenamed “Operation Dunhammer.” The findings of the Dunhammer report were then aired in selective form across a range of media networks: Danmarks Radio, NRK, SVT Nyheter, NDR, WDR, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde.

When asked to comment on the issue, Danish Defence Minister Trine Bramsen reiterated with bone dull tediousness “that this government has the same attitude as the former Prime Minister expressed in 2013 and 2014 – systematic wiretapping of close allies is unacceptable.”

As always with such disclosures, there is much ventilating fury, feigned surprise and naïve implausibility. This lies in the residue of desperation and misplaced expectation: fidelity undermined and compromised.

On such occasions, the outraged claim they had no idea, even in the face of news that was old news. Peer Steinbrück’s words of hurt to the German broadcaster ARD were angry but rehearsed for the occasion. It was, claimed the former Social Democratic Party candidate for chancellor, “grotesque that friendly intelligence services are indeed … spying on top representatives.” By way of contrast Patrick Sensburg of the commission with oversight over Germany’s intelligence services, barely bats an eyelid. Denmark, he assumes, had not deliberately intercepted the communications of top politicians. A sweet suggestion.

France’s Europe Minister, Clément Beaune, stayed to the script in strolling fashion, calling the findings “extremely serious,” though his views should be taken at a pinch. According to Beaune, “We need to see if our partners in the EU, the Danes, have committed errors in their cooperation with American services.” But this came with a neat, even comic caveat. “Between allies, there must be trust, a minimal cooperation.” Clearly, the minimal aspect prevailed here.

Towards the northern European states, the Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist could hardly be said to be outraged in an interview with SVT Nyheter. The behaviour of such figures before scandal is to treat it as an interlude of interest. He acknowledged the Danish response that such eavesdropping on allies was “unacceptable,” which was mighty fine of him. He was also adamant that espionage activity from his country was not directed at Danish or Norwegian politicians (the Germans and French do not warrant a mention), suggesting that the Swedes are just that much better in all of this.

Deafening silences have followed in Washington and Copenhagen in the intelligence community. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the NSA, and the Danish Defence Intelligence Service, have declined to comment. Former chiefs of the FE, Lars Findsen and Thomas Ahrenkiel, are keeping mum about the matter.

As with President Barack Obama before him, Joe Biden will face a few questions on his visit to Europe in a fortnight. He was, in Snowden’s view, “well-prepared to answer for this when he soon visits Europe since, of course, he was deeply involved in this scandal the first time around. There should be an explicit requirement for full public disclosure not only in Denmark, but their senior partner as well.”

 

 

The only thing of interest that may come of these meetings is the cold realisation that espionage reduces all relationships to those of adversaries. Misnamed friends cannot be trusted in the business of gathering intelligence.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Laying the Bear Trap: Orbán visits No 10 Downing Street

His comments would not have fallen on deaf ears. While metropolitan London would have been aghast at his pedigree and remarks, a Brexit-audience in the rustbelts and areas of deprivation, would have felt a twang of appreciation. For them, migration has not been a boon and glory. For Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, it has been an opportunity to make valuable enemies and court new friends.

The meeting between UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Orbán on May 28 did more than raise eyebrows and prompt head scratching. The statement released by No 10 was anodyne enough, filling space and not much else. “The leaders discussed the importance of the UK and Hungary working together bilaterally to increase security and prosperity in our countries and to address global challenges such as climate change.”

Johnson is also said to have “raised his significant concerns about human rights in Hungary, including gender equality, LGBT rights and media freedom.” In terms of foreign policy, Johnson saw his Hungarian counterpart as a man of influence. “The Prime Minister encouraged Hungary to use their influence to promote democracy and stability.”

The critics, notably those drenched in the juice of Britannic values, were bemused and baffled. Labour MP Alex Sobel outlined Orbán’s resume ahead of the visit: “a renowned anti-Semite, fuelled violence against the Romany, clamps down on the LGBT and Muslim communities.” He had also “suppressed democratic norms and press freedom.” Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy took issue with the visit given Orbán’s record on attacking “press freedom and democracy,” refugees as “Muslim invaders” and was “a cheerleader for Putin and Lukashenko.”

Nandy then turned on that resource so commonly drawn upon when faced with discomforting leaders. Orbán, being one of Europe’s “most regressive leaders” was effectively undermining “the values the UK government says it wants to defend.”

The government of Boris Johnson may well spout the values argument, but Brexit has meant courting and entertaining widely. The world is less its opportune oyster than a pressing necessity. Friends need to be won over, agreements inked and secured. As a No 10 spokesman put it, “As president of the Visegrád group of Central European nations later this year, cooperation with Hungary is vital to the UK’s prosperity and security.” UK Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was even more explicit: the UK had to, at times, speak to the unsavoury and approach the unlikeable. “I think Viktor Orbán’s views on migrants are things I would not endorse in any way.”

Kwarteng distils the amoral British position with accuracy, though it also says much about what Timothy Garton Ash described as “the dilemma of self-inflicted weakness” that burdens post-Brexit Britain. Arms contracts with Saudi Arabia while a theocracy maims and molests remain a matter of course. The relationship with China privileges the business imperative, despite claims about holding a liberal international order together. Deals are to be made, even with authoritarian regimes and those with a sketchy record on human rights.

Orbán, by comparison to some of the UK’s trading partners, is almost civil. And more to the point, he never disappoints as one of the great critics of the EU, even as he remains in its tent. The abundant admiration for Brexit, described as the opening of a “fantastic door, a fantastic opportunity,” has not gone unnoticed.

Then there is that niggling issue that Johnson and his party members might not be entirely at odds with the Hungarian PM. While the official statement on the No 10 meeting mentions a concern for rights and liberties, Johnson could hardly have disagreed with some of his counterpart’s views, notably on Islam. The recent Singh report into claims of Islamophobia within the Conservative Party found degrees of discrimination from the Prime Minister to grass roots organisations, though it rejected claims of “institutional racism” made by such prominent Tory members as Baroness Warsi. The Prime Minister’s previous remarks, mocking those wearing burqas as “looking like letterboxes” were also picked up in the report. “I am obviously sorry for any offence taken,” Johnson said in response, though he also added a rounding qualifier: “My writings are often parodic, satirical.”

Orbán’s views on immigration and Islam are far from satirical, though they do not resist unintentional parody and farce. Reprising himself as a nationalist warrior fending off a modern Ottoman surge, the grave Hungarian leader wears the habitual costume of a defender of European civilisation.

And what of anti-Semitism? Specifically referring to his troubled relationship with George Soros, the billionaire was described as “a talented Hungarian businessman… he is very much in favour of migration, financing and helping the NGOs who are doing that. We don’t like it but it has nothing to do with ethnic identity.”

The shambolic rollout of the EU vaccination program has also gifted much room to Orbán to mock opponents and stifle detractors. Vacillation in Europe on how best to approach COVID-19 and poor planning has meant the courting of other countries for vaccines. The EU is not working, he can say, and this is how we respond. The result is a range of options for Hungarians, sourced from Russia and China. As he has done so, Orbán has pursued an aggressive campaign against contrarians within his country. The pro-government media mobbing of political scientist Peter Kreko, who cautioned against the speed the Orbán government was seeking the Sputnik V vaccine, was typically sinister.

In the indignant storm surrounding the visit, a White Hall source may have provided the most accurate summary that reflects the British PM’s approach to policy in general: “Number 10 has walked into a bear trap.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

The Dominic Cummings Show

The former chief strategist for Prime Minister Boris Johnson was in a stroppy mood before the UK parliamentary Health and Science committee. For seven hours, Dominic Cummings unleashed salvo after salvo against his former boss and the government coronavirus response.

Boiling down some points of the Cummings show: there was a failure on the part of the Johnson government to respond to the pandemic. Johnson was unfit for office. The Health Secretary Matt Hancock should have been sacked for any number of decisions. Lockdown measures were imposed too late to prevent the surge of infections. There was simply no overall master plan to cope with a pandemic.

The political strategist apologised for the various tiers of decision makers and advisers, including himself, for falling calamitously “short of the standards that the public has a right to expect.” He apologised to those families who “unnecessarily” lost loved ones and confessed that “lots of key people were literally skiing” instead of moving to a “war footing” in January and February last year.

The portrait of Johnson is superbly unsympathetic. The prime minister’s clownish credentials come blundering through. The novel coronavirus was dismissed as “the new swine flu,” a mere “scare story.” He even suggested receiving an injection of the virus live on television “so everyone realises it’s nothing to be frightened of.” Bodies piled up high was a preferable outcome to imposing a third lockdown in the autumn of 2020. And as for information, the PM could not take himself away from the Daily Telegraph’s view of events.

The Cummings-Johnson relationship duly atrophied. “The heart of the problem was, fundamentally, I regarded him as unfit for the job. And I was trying to create a structure around him to try and stop what I thought would have been bad decisions, and push things through against his wishes.”

Some of the choicest blows are reserved for the Health Secretary, who “should have been fired for at least 15 to 20 things.” Hancock held back the testing regime and interfered in the development of a mass testing system, conduct Cummings found “criminal” and “disgraceful.” Hancock was mendacious in meetings held in the cabinet room of Downing Street, assuring those in attendance that people “were going to be tested [for COVID-19] before they went back to care homes [from hospitals].” He also used health experts such as the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and chief medical adviser Chris Witty as shields for government incompetence.

Cummings delighted the political science fraternity with his display in the Attlee suite in Portcullis House. He was, Matthew Flinders of the University of Sheffield asserted, “at his most magnificent and Machiavellian: a quite beautiful case study in the art of planting seeds and laying traps.” The Spectator, a magazine once edited by Johnson, was blind to the retributive nature of the testimony. “His decision to identify the many mistakes made at the start of the pandemic is not about seeking vengeance; it is a vital process to ensure that errors are identified and not repeated.” How noble.

To a degree, the Cummings account is useful in pointing out administrative failings. The pandemic blueprint was inadequate, developed to fight influenza rather than respiratory variants in the form of coronavirus. Dissenting views were not countenanced. “It was a classic historical example of groupthink in action,” assessed Cummings. “The more people from outside attacked, the more internally said, ‘They don’t understand, they haven’t got access to our information.’”

The response from Johnson to such accounts and depictions is crudely simple: remind voters that Britain’s vaccination effort has been stellar. The UK is one of the leading countries in the mass vaccination programme. Specifically regarding Cummings’s testimony, the “commentary,” claimed Johnson, did not “bear relation to reality.”

Hancock’s approach was much the same: stay focused on the vaccination drive. Forget past crimes and misdemeanours. He also denied that he lied about patients being sent from hospital to care homes without being tested first. “My recollection of events is that I committed to delivering that testing for people going from hospital into care homes when we could do it.” The relevant factor was the timing of it; the capacity for testing had to be built up.

And there is the obvious point that Cummings, despite blaming Johnson and seeking his own restoration, remains chipped and damaged. The display by the senior strategist in the rose garden of No 10 last year featuring an apologia for his infamous trip to County Durham in breach of lockdown laws was a hard one to efface. He did concede that doing so had “undermined public confidence.” But he was ready with an explanation. Moving his family out of London took place after his wife received death threats from people gathered outside the home. “The whole thing was a complete disaster and the truth is… if I just basically sent my family back out of London and said here’s the truth to the public, I think people would have understood the situation.”

When asked whether the additional trip by Cummings to Barnard Castle from the family home in County Durham was actually for reasons of testing his eyesight, the dark eminence returned to form. “If you’re going to drive 300 miles to go back to work, popping down the road for 30 miles and back to see how you feel… it didn’t seem crazy.” It was not, as committee chair Jeremy Hunt suggested, a birthday celebration for his wife. “If I was going to make up a story I would come up with a better one than that.”

Patrick Diamond of Queen Mary, University of London identifies the central paradox of British government that proved so detrimental to the pandemic response. The British state might be highly centralised but “the centre of government lacks capacity.” Policymaking by the core executive has also been undermined by the altering of relations between the ministerial group and the civil service. Then comes the “growth of territorial conflict with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” The result of this: a failure of coordination of governments across the UK in responding to COVID-19. What Cummings did was render such dysfunctions flesh and folly.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

How It All Went Wrong: The Global Response to COVID-19

The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response was never likely to hand down a rosy report with gobbets of praise. Organised by the World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus last May, the panel’s gloomy assessment was grim: the COVID-19 pandemic could have been avoided.

Almost nothing in the main report could be seen as remarkable in these jaded times. It reads like a sharp vision of looking backwards, a history of folly and stumbles. The protagonist, SARS-CoV-2, proved wily, moving more rapidly than surveillance could detect it, ducking the monitors and seducing the examiners. The rest of the actors in the show proved, to varying degrees, to be inept, indifferent and even callous.

Such attitudes were shared in a climate of prior warning. Humanity has already faced events of mass viral mortality. That there would eventually be a pandemic of this scale was being discussed well ahead of the novel coronavirus march. But governments, planners and policy makers seemed unmoved. When action took place, it was tardy. “Although public health officials, infectious disease experts, and previous international commissions and reviews had warned of potential pandemics and urged robust preparations since the first outbreak of SARS, COVID-19 still took large parts of the world by surprise.”

The WHO itself is not spared a few chastising blows by the panel members. The organisation’s Emergency Committee should have, they argued, declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern a week earlier than it did: on January 22, at its first meeting, rather than January 30, by which time there were already 98 cases in 18 countries outside China. Not doing so also caused critical delays in mustering a global response. “The meeting of the WHO IHR Emergency Committee called to discuss the outbreak on 22-23 January was split on whether to recommend that the outbreak be declared a PHEIC.”

A central theme emerges: communication. And it is rather unsatisfactory. “It is glaringly obvious that February 2020 was a lost month,” the report states. Various Asian countries speedily responded, introducing intense testing and tracking regimes. But the WHO remained tentative. Evidence was weighed, balanced, and considered. Standard and sober as this was, the WHO did not consider convincing material that would prove to be beneficial. One was the importance of wearing masks.

The result: a pandemic that busily infected 150 million people, killed over three million people, and exposed deep inequalities. (Pandemics remain, historically, the great unmaskers.) “Division and inequality between and within countries have been exacerbated, and the impact has been severe on people who are already marginalized and disadvantaged.”

The report, and its authors, are stern in mood. “If travel restrictions,” former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and panel co-chair combatively insists, “had been imposed more quickly, more widely, again that would have been a serious inhibition on the rapid transmission of the disease that remains the same today.” Clark, for all the merit of that assertion, ignores the logistical nightmares, hub routes, transit points and freedom of movement principles of such blocs as the European Union.

Not all actors in the COVID-19 disaster show receive a lashing. The conduct of clinicians within the last two weeks of December 2019 and January 2020 receives a nod of approval. They showed “diligence” in noticing “clusters of unusual pneumonia.” They sent samples for screening and “escalated their concerns about this cluster of unexplained disease to local health authorities.”

The panel also makes an assortment of recommendations. They call “for an all-out-effort to reach the world’s population with vaccines within a year and set in place the infrastructure needed for at least 5 billion booster doses annually.” They urge the application of “non-pharmaceutical public health measures systematically and rigorously in every country at the scale the epidemiological situation requires.” High income countries should commit “at least one billion vaccine doses no later than 1 September 2021 and more than two billion doses by mid-2022” through the GAVI COVAX Advance Market Commitment.

The conventional model behind the making of vaccines is also challenged, with the panel insisting on establishing “a truly global end-to-end platform for vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics, and essential supplies.” Rather than leaving innovation to the market, vaccines and related products should be seen as public goods. Unequal access to such products could be overcome through technology transfer, voluntary licensing and financing of regional manufacturing capacity.

Other suggestions point to a broader, health surveillance system that will not be hostage to national interests and clunky sovereignty. “The emergence of COVID-19,” the report notes, “was characterized by a mix of some early and rapid action, but also by delay, hesitation, and denial.” From this, an epidemic grew; from that, a pandemic. To that end, it was suggested that “surveillance and alert systems at national, regional and global levels must be redesigned”, all should be “able to function at near-instantaneous speed.” The WHO should be given greater powers and a higher budget. Its officials should be permitted access with minimal notice. Many governments are unlikely to agree.

Of some interest is the suggested Global Health Threats Council. Stacked with former presidents and prime ministers of various high-, middle- and low-income countries, it would perform the role of moralising guardian, taking governments to task for not preparing for, or responding to, the public health emergencies as designated by health specialists. Such a body, however, risks becoming a toothless entity with a megaphone.

The panel’s report has a title that sounds much like previous inquiries drawn from despair and destined to be lost: COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic. It will be filed in the vault of aspirations along with those noble wars that went wrong with criminal stupidity, the victory by Christmas that never took place, and efforts of failed solidarity in sharing scientific discoveries. “They are trying to grab a moment that everyone knows will pass pretty fast,” suggested Stephen Morrison of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. Global public health responses, sporadic, erratic and politically divided, will do everything to impair any such realisation. Nationalism continues to throb and disrupt. However well contained the novel coronavirus is, another threat to public health will be lurking.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney and the Rule of Law

One could not accuse US Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming of having a sense of irony. For some time, she has felt her party to be the hostage of a ghoulish monster who refuses to be slayed. And she fears her party has fallen out of love for the rule of law.

In being ousted from the third spot in the leadership of the Republican Conference in the House, Cheney has found a new morality. In her floor speech, she called Donald Trump’s canard of a stolen election a “threat America has never seen before.” Opposing Trump’s interpretation of the result was a “duty”. “I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins in the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.” After her speech, she told reporters that she would “do everything” she could “to ensure that the former president never gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”

Cheney’s seemingly shabby treatment led such papers as the Washington Post to remark that truth was again under assault. “Truth is the issue upon which Cheney has made her stand – truth and her unwillingness to be silent for the supposed good of the team.” Peter Wehner, who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, saw the event as a “confirmation that the Republican party is diseased and dangerous, increasingly subversive and illiberal.” Eric Lutz, writing in Vanity Fair, called the Cheney display “defiant”, laying “bare the cowardice of her colleagues who, with their vote on Wednesday, affirmed what had long been clear: The GOP is the cult of Trump now, and fealty the price of admission.”

This is gruesomely fascinating on a few levels, given that Cheney comes from a family rather snotty about such concepts as the rule of law, verisimilitude and the Constitution. Her father Dick Cheney, the Vice Presidential dark operator in the administration of George W. Bush, was not exactly strong on such ideas, and proved rather subversive and illiberal in a number of ways. Old Dick, along with his lawyer David Addington and John Yoo of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, did much to read executive power in a manner most imperial in nature.

For Dick Cheney, US executive power needed to be restored after the damaging effects of Watergate and the Vietnam War. The time that followed, he lamented to reporters on Air Force Two in 2005, proved to be “the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy.”

It is true to say that Trump also preferred a broad reading of executive power, one all too readily articulated by former Attorney General William Barr. But Cheney, Addington and Yoo were responsible for views that justified the bypassing and defanging of Congress, wiretapping of US citizens, torture of terrorist suspects, the establishment of military commissions, the breaching of international treaties and the waging of illegal wars. Such conduct has caused more than a smattering of commentary urging the prosecution of both Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush for a range of offences in both domestic and international law.

It would be churlish to claim that a father’s blackened record should somehow compromise that of his daughter’s. But the co-authored father and daughter work Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America repeats the old neoconservative interventionist sins that were so important in laying the ground for a Trump victory in 2016. Father Dick and Daughter Liz supply an apologia for such murderous disasters as Iraq while piling into President Barack Obama whom they stop short of accusing of treason. “The touchstone of his ideology – that America is to blame, and her power must be restrained – requires a wilful blindness about what America has done in the world.”

In 2009, Liz Cheney, along with fellow neoconservative Bill Kristol, co-founded Keep America Safe, an outfit steeped in a tattered worldview that proceeded to leave many Americans behind. As Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic noted in a battering piece on Liz Cheney in 2013, “Most Americans understand that investing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in Iraq was a historic blunder.” Not for Liz, who finds wars stirringly necessary.

Over the years, Rep. Cheney barely warranted a mention after securing the seat her father once occupied. As the third-ranking member of minority party leadership, she was a middleweight power with exaggerated expectations. Then came President Trump. The neoconservatives were outflanked. Fires were lit, casting light upon her cause. That cause, simple as ever, was an anti-Trump, using truth and democracy as crutches of polemical convenience.

To date, Rep. Cheney is pursuing a cause of martyrdom that is, like many such causes, futile. It was a martyrdom that was “well-planned”, as Republican political consultant Keith Naughton noted in The Hill. “There are no reports she actually worked the GOP caucus, canvassing and counting heads. Cheney didn’t fight back, she planned to lose.” In losing, she hopes to rebuild a neoconservative base that has withered into oblivion.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

 

Burned by the Diana Cult: The Fall of Martin Bashir

The interview was infamous, made his name and was bound to enrage. It also received a viewing audience of 23 million people who heard a saucy tale of adultery, plots in the palace, and stories of physical and mental illness. But the tarring and feathering of Martin Bashir for his 1995 Panorama programme featuring Princess Diana was always more than the scruples of a journalist and his interviewing methods.

Princess Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, eternally committed to excoriating press coverage of his sister, brought pressure to bear on the BBC last year in allegations that Bashir had used forged bank documents to induce the interview. The documents suggested that people were receiving cash to monitor the princess. Bashir, Spencer accuses, sowed the seeds of concern that a conspiracy within Buckingham Palace was afoot against his sister. Bashir, for his part, claimed that the documents in question had “no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice of Princess Diana to take part in the interview.” For Diana fans, such a detail is irrelevant.

In November, the BBC appointed retired Supreme Court judge Lord Dyson to revisit old ground, notably the 1996 investigation by Tony Hall, who found Bashir to have been “honest” and an “honourable man”. Lord Dyson begged to differ. “What Mr Bashir did,” the report states, “was not an impulsive act done in the spur of the moment. It was carefully planned… What he did was devious and dishonest. To dismiss his actions as no more than a mistake, unwise and foolish did not do justice to the seriousness of what he had done.” Hall’s investigation was “flawed” and “woefully ineffective”. The BBC had fallen “short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark” effectively instigating a cover up.

Figures have queued up in a feast of Bashir bashing. John Birt, Director-General of the BBC at the time of the interview, called the journalist’s conduct “a shocking blot on the BBC’s enduring commitment to honest journalism; and it is a matter of the greatest regret that it has taken 25 years for the full truth to emerge.”

Prince William and Prince Harry have unsurprisingly joined the fray for their mother’s memory. In his statement, the Duke of Cambridge accused the BBC of contributing “significantly to [Diana’s] fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her.” She had been failed by both “a rogue reporter” and “leaders of the BBC who looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions.” Prince Harry looked beyond the conduct of the public broadcaster, seeing it as part of “the ripple effect of a culture of exploitation and unethical practices ultimately took her life.” Harry, it should be noted, is no fan of broad free speech protections. “I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it,” he told actor Dax Shepard, the host of the Armchair Expert podcast, “but it is bonkers.”

Lord Dyson’s report, as with the Leveson Inquiry into the phone hacking conducted by such press outlets as the now defunct News of the World, risk becoming springboards for a broader agenda of censorship and press control. The latter’s suggestion that the press be subjected to an “independent” and “voluntary” regulator created by statute caused alarm and did not sway the then Prime Minister David Cameron. As Index on Censorship warned in 2013, “Any law which sets out criteria that the press must meet, by definition introduces some government or political control of the media.”

The press regulation agenda ignores the fact that journalism as practice can, even should, be unethical if the broader public interest demands it. Going under cover, masking identities, concocting fables may be necessary to expose misconduct and villainy. “There are cases, and undercover is one of them,” stated former Panorama editor Tom Giles to the House Communications Committee in 2012, “where technically, we break the rules. Technically we break the law whether it is on privacy or on giving a misleading CV in order to ensure that we are able to go undercover.” For Giles, there had to be “very clear prima facie evidence that this is something that is of significant public interest.”

The Communications Committee also heard similar testimony from Chris Birkett, Deputy Head of News and Executive Editor of Sky. “For us, there are times when the only way to get the story is to do something that is contrary to the laws of the country in which we are doing journalism.” His example: reporting on Syria. “If you try to film openly, you will be beaten up and arrested, your camera will be smashed and you will be put into prison.”

This is not to say that a journalist has an inherent right to break the law. Bashir might well have been prosecuted for forgery. The issue is one of degree. Nick Davies, who exposed the phone-hacking scandal in the pages of The Guardian, suggested that “all citizens have a right of conscience in extremis to say, ‘This is so important I’m going to break the law’.”

The question as to whether knowing the personal affairs of Princess Diana was in the public interest, or merely interesting to the public, will never go away. This was not the issue of exposing the handiwork of war criminals, or the shady transactions of an underworld figure. Bashir’s interview style and approach has always had a certain tabloid flavour. But reporting on the activities of a modern constitutional monarchy is bound to blur the line. According to Tessa Clarke, herself a former BBC Panorama reporter, “Bashir’s methods were neither exceptional nor unjustified – the marital affairs and behaviour of the heir to the throne is in the public interest.” People do want to know what the royals are up to, while the royals are keen to be talked about as long as they control the narrative.

The eternal flame of the Diana Cult is one that constantly threatens purges and censorship. Only hagiographers are welcome to the shrine. Prince William is keen to take the purging further. The interview, he demands, should be scrubbed from the historical record. “It is my firm view that this Panorama programme holds no legitimacy and should never be aired again.” The concern now is how far that purging will go in the battles over what can, or can’t, be reported.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Scroll Up