A Case for Intelligence
The recent death of a ‘spy’ in London reminded us of the secretive and shadowy world of the intelligence services, and the dangers for the people involved. Our memories were refreshed by the media with some of the acronyms of the intelligence services – SIS (Secret Intelligence Service, MI6) and GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters).
Britain has a strong tradition of maintaining effective espionage and counter-espionage services with these activities being glamorised in literature, film and television, including the recent BBC ‘Spooks’ series. Careless reporting can sometimes misrepresent the activities of our intelligence services, e.g. missing the fact that MI5 (Security Service) was fundamentally conceived for counter-espionage.
In the early 1990’s I was amused that the Australian equivalent of our MI5 and MI6 went in for open recruitment advertising in their national press. On reflection, that was a wise course of action, the idea of being more open and seeking out the best possible talent. The skill sets required today must be incredibly demanding and diverse. It cannot all be about the hard-edged inflicting of damage on our perceived enemies and their vested interests.
With the end of the Cold War, there must have been some expectation that savings could be made in our intelligence services but substantial new threats have emerged. We are targeted by people with such conviction that they will sacrifice themselves and the lives of many innocent people in pursuit of their aims. The end justifies the means.
In this environment, the case for good intelligence is overwhelming. It is far better to prevent an act of terrorism than deal with its consequences or encourage others by allowing it to succeed. We may question the methods that are used and consider democratic accountability. At the same time, we should recognise that too much of this earnest endeavour reduces our ability to defend ourselves and our right to ask the questions in the first place.
I would like to believe that sharp-end and direct secret action is a small part of our intelligence services’ role. An umbrella with a cyanide capsule in its tip and the cover of a rainy day makes the headlines but must surely be an extremely rare event?
At a lesser level, we need to recognise that we as individuals do not always say what we mean. We hold back some of our beliefs and intentions depending on the audience. Yes, we do. The same is true of other nation-states and so having some knowledge of their true perspectives is really useful. Not to try and do so is just naive.
With defence spending about to be drastically reduced, I hope that the government might compensate to some extent by investing more in our intelligence services. That way our reduced ability to influence world events is slightly offset by knowing more about them before they happen.
Councillor Duncan Crow
4th October 2010