Eavesdroppers Inc.

Both the NSA and GCHQ have extremely powerful listening posts all over the world. A British listening post situated on a remote Mediterranean island, for example, is capable of intercepting and hearing air traffic, say, somewhere in China. However, eavesdropping of the premises of foreign powers and international bodies such as the UN is prohibited by the 1961 Vienna Convention. Not only that, the 1946 agreement on the general privileges and immunities of the UN dictates that "premises of the UN shall be inviolable." Therefore, if Claire Short's allegations are even partly true, bugging of Kofi Annan's offices by either British or American agencies would amount to a serious violation of this international agreement. But, as hinted by certain specialists in intelligence operations, one of the reasons why the USA wanted the UN headquarters to be located on its soil in the first place was that the eavesdroppers of the NSA could be accommodated. In British national law, GCHQ and MI6 -- the latter being the British counterpart of America's CIA -- both fall under the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which rules that these two bodies can act only "in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom."

But this Act also allows British intelligence agents to perform such acts, including bugging, abroad as would be illegal within Britain. Technically, that would permit British intelligence agents to bug Kofi Annan's offices since they are not on British soil except for the fact that both the 1946 agreement and the 1961 Vienna Convention prohibit it. So what makes the situation arising out of Claire Short's allegations more bizarre is the British Prime Minister Tony Blair's reaction to his erstwhile cabinet colleague's claims. Allow me to quote a short extract from the interview Ms Short gave to John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme on February 26:

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

CS: The UK was spying on Kofi Annan's office and getting reports from him about what was going on.

JH: Spying in the Unite Nations is quite different, isn't it?

CS: Indeed. But these things are done and in the case of Kofi's office it has been done for some time.

JH: Do you believe Britain has been involved in it?

CS: I know. I have seen transcripts of Anan's conversations. I have had conversations with Kofi in the run-up to war, thinking: Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this.

JH: In other words, British spies have been instructed to carry out operations within the UN on people like Kofi Annan?

CS: Yes, absolutely.

JH: Is this legal?

CS: I presume so. It is odd. I don't know about the legalities.

And what was Mr Blair's reaction? He was obviously appalled and furious, but at his monthly Downing Street news conference he stopped short of categorically denying Ms Short's allegations. Instead he hedged around the question and accused her of being "totally irresponsible", putting British agents "in the firing line" and jeopardising national security. He said that Ms Short's remarks were "entirely consistent" with her past record and that he did not have "a great deal of respect" for her. But the Prime Minister also desisted from confirming if he was considering any disciplinary action against Ms Short on a Party level or punishing her for breaching the 1989 Official Secrets Act which is binding on all ministers and ex-ministers. Pressed on that point he only said: "These are issues I will have to reflect upon." Perhaps he could not help feeling worried that attempting to punish Ms Short by withdrawing the Labour whip or expelling her from the Party would make her turn into a martyr and further alienate the significant number of Labour MPs who remain sharply dissatisfied about the Iraq war.

And asked in an interview with Channel 4 News shortly afterwards what her own response would be if she was subjected to disciplinary action, Ms Short nonchalantly replied: "We'll see. I'm not trembling in my shoes." About Mr Blair's claim that her remarks could put British agents' lives at risk she said: "What is the prime minister going to say? Either he has to say: It is true, we are bugging Kofi Annan's office, which he does not want to say, or he has got to say: It's not true, and he'd be telling a lie. Or he is going to say something pompous about national security." She went on to add that there was "no national security involved" in revealing that Mr Annan's phone calls had been tapped. Asked about her motive in coming out with her revelations Ms Short said: "It troubled me and I decided to bring it into the public domain and that's what I have done. This is the journey of my conscience."

Well, whatever might have been Claire Short's motive, conscientious or otherwise, her timing was almost lethal, coming hard on the heels of the collapse of the case against ex-GCHQ employee Katherine Gun who, as readers may be aware, had also leaked information about an American spying operation at the UN in the run-up to the war. She was arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act and claimed that she had acted in order to try to prevent Britain illegally invading Iraq. But in view of new evidence coming to light that the legality of the war had been questioned by the British Foreign Office the prosecution decided to drop the case against her. As Ms Short said about her motive: "This is the journey of my conscience," Ms Gun had also declared: "I have no regrets and I would do it again." Thus, following the Hutton Inquiry Report absolving the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing in the tragic David Kelly affair, just as Mr Blair was perhaps beginning to feel that Iraq was finally behind him he was once more mired in fresh controversies and a rattled Downing Street had to announce an urgent review of the Official Secrets Act.

Whether Mr Blair will finally decide to discipline Ms Short one way or another remains to be seen. It is indeed a criminal offence for Crown servants, including ministers, to make unauthorised and damaging disclosures about national security and intelligence if they have obtained the relevant information through their official position. But Ms Short has others as well in her company in pointing an accusing finger at officially sanctioned spying on individuals in strategically important positions. Mr Von Sponek, a former UN diplomat, who held the position of Humanitarian Co-ordinator of Iraq for 18 months until 2000 and witnessed the suffering of ordinary Iraqi people, blamed much of it on the sanctions imposed against Iraq and became a leading campaigner against the sanctions. This made him unpopular with US and British governments and a natural target for their joint intelligence operations. His phone was tapped and his mail was intercepted and this continued even after he had retired, making him feel "uncomfortable at times, without being paranoid."

Now Mr Sponek is, in his own words, "a small fish in all this", but Hans Blix, the former head of the weapons inspectors' team in Iraq is perhaps not so small. Following Claire Short's allegation of US-British bugging of the UN Secretary General's offices, Mr Blix claimed that his office and home had also been bugged by the US. He expressed disgust at such behaviour and said that he would have expected to be bugged by the Iraqis, but being spied upon by the US "feels like an intrusion into your integrity in a situation when you are actually on the same side." One thing, however, must be admitted in favour of Eavesdroppers Inc. -- they are not discriminatory in the least, they put everyone on the same footing, high or low, friend or foe. Perhaps they believe in following an Equal Opportunities policy in the line of business!