UK 'spied on UN's Kofi Annan'

Moriarty

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't come up yet.

UK 'spied on UN's Kofi Annan'

British spies listened in to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's office in the run up to the Iraq war, former UK cabinet minister Clare Short says.
Ms Short said she had read transcripts of some of Mr Annan's conversations.

She said she recalled thinking, as she talked to Mr Annan: "Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying."

Tony Blair said the claims were "deeply irresponsible" and appeared to cast doubt on her future as a Labour MP.


Short's future?

UN officials said they did not know whether the allegations were true or not, but say such actions would have been illegal.

The secretary general's spokesman, Fred Eckhardt, said Mr Annan had nothing to hide and that anyone who wanted to know his opinion on an issue just had to ask him to his face.

At his monthly news conference the prime minister was repeatedly asked about Ms Short's comments.


Clare Short has been a thorn in the government's side since she quit
Mr Blair said: "I'm not going to comment on the work of our security services - do not take that as an indication that the allegations made by Clare Short are true.

"I really do regard what Clare Short has said this morning as totally irresponsible, and entirely consistent."

Asked whether she should be prosecuted or face Labour Party discipline Mr Blair said he would "have to reflect upon" her comments, adding: "There will obviously be issues that arise... I am not in a position to answer them at the moment."

He insisted the UK security services acted in accordance with domestic and international law and in the best interests of this country, but the UN said any British spying on Mr Annan would be illegal.

'Dangerous situation'

Ms Short's comments came the day after the dramatic collapse of the trial of GCHQ whistle-blower Katharine Gun.

She had been accused of leaking a secret e-mail from US spies apparently requesting British help in bugging UN delegates ahead of the Iraq invasion.

The government says it will review whether changes are needed to the Official Secrets Act in the wake of the case.

But it has denied claims the move to drop the case was politically motivated.

There has been speculation ministers were worried about the disclosure of secret documents during the trial, particularly the advice from Attorney General Lord Goldsmith about the legality of war.

Lord Goldsmith said in a statement to the House of Lords: "It was a decision on solely legal grounds ... and free from any political interference."

Spies there 'for some time'

He said that although they believed they could prove the Official Secrets Act had been breached, they had concluded they could not disprove Mrs Gun's defence "of necessity" - believed to refer to her case that she felt a duty to do something to save lives in an unlawful war.

However, Mr Blair said it would be a "very dangerous situation" if people thought they could just "spill out allegations, whether false or true ... and get away with it".

During an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme Ms Short said British spies were involved in bugging Mr Annan's office in the run up to war with Iraq.

"The UK in this time was also getting spies on Kofi Annan's office and getting reports from him about what was going on," she said.

"These things are done and in the case of Kofi's office, it was being done for some time."

Legal question

Asked if Britain was involved in this, she replied; "Well I know - I've seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations.


Asked to confirm if British spies were instructed to carry out operations within the UN on people like Mr Annan, she said: "Yes, absolutely."

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said that many UN officials always worked on the basis that they were being bugged.

But, he added, "that is not to say that it is acceptable if they are not suspected of terrorism or other crimes".


Conservative leader Michael Howard said the situation was "a complete mess".

"It's about time the prime minister got a grip on it and sorted it out," he said.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said it was not good enough for Mr Blair to say he could not comment on the security services - especially after publishing intelligence in his Iraq dossiers.

"Tony Blair must now come clean about this central accusation," he said.

Further developments:

• Blair says Short 'irresponsible'
• Reaction to Short 'bugging' claim
• (Not directly related, but possibly relevant even so) GCHQ decision was 'not political'

My view is that no matter who the intelligence services are bugging, for an ex-minister to reveal this sort of thing is deeply irresponsible. She says she believes that the war shouldn't have happened, fine.. but to go on the radio and reveal current intelligence 'targets', methods and operations is entirely wrong. If she had a problem with this sort of thing, she should have objected while she was a minister and privy to this information and/or complained to the likes of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

I see this as a purely political move by somone with a massive chip on their shoulder to score points against the government in general and Blair in particular.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
My view is that no matter who the intelligence services are bugging, for an ex-minister to reveal this sort of thing is deeply irresponsible.

Why?

If the UK intelligence services undertook these actions, it is vitually impossible that they have done so legally....unless we determine legal to mean "sanctioned by their own government".

I don't see covering up your government's illegal actions as being responsible, or exposing them (if Short is correct in her allegations) as irresponsible.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
I don't see covering up your government's illegal actions as being responsible, or exposing them (if Short is correct in her allegations) as irresponsible.

I think the bigger question this raises is what is to be accepted when it comes to intelligence gathering. A lot of intelligence gathering is by nature bordering (or well over) the line of legal/illegal. What consequences should those that are found out have to accept? Or is it to be left as a diplomatic issue where the group with the biggest military get their way whether they are in the right or clearly wrong?

Personnally i'd prefer to see some sort of sanctions on countries guilty of this but I don't see how this could work properly in the real world.

chill

Claire Shart is and always has been a lier and an opportunist. She can't be trusted in any way whatsoever. Blair made an enormous mistake when he took her in to his cabinet thinking she could be kept safely in overseas development.

if you read her exact words it is clear how devious her statements are and how calculatedly treacherous they are.

Aside from that I hope the british, American and yes even the Irish secret service are bugging and spying on every single possible source of information now matter where it is or who is involved.

This is War and I hope Short is ostracised, if not prosecuted, for her cheap stunt.

Sleipnir

Yeah I'm not too sure how much we can trust Clare Short at all when it comes to reports of the U.N. being bugged.
How and why would she have been access to what would be very sensitive and highly classfied intelligence reports?
She used to be the Minister of State for International Development so i don't see how or why she would have had access to such reports. If she worked in the Ministry of Defence then yeah but International Development????

Blair would have definately have had doubts about her so they really would think twice about letting her into the circle.

Walter Ego

I am shocked that anyone could believe that the US or Britain would ever do such a thing!

God Bless Her Brittanic Majesty and God's Representative on Earth George Bush.

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
My view is that no matter who the intelligence services are bugging, for an ex-minister to reveal this sort of thing is deeply irresponsible.

This is how Mc Dowell thinks.

It could be a happy-go-lucky world if we only heard what governments wanted us to hear, or at least happy-go-lucky for any government in question.

Sparks

Why is this news? We've known for some time that the UN is bugged in New York by the US intelligence community, it was all over the news over a year ago, when the US was trying to get countries a bit larger than Slovenia to join the "coalition of the willing" or whatever they're now calling it.

sovtek

I really don't understand the shock and surprise. Gun's leak a year ago made it quite obvious that there was spying going on at the UN.
I think the more incredulous the Labour party acts and Blair specifically...the closer one is to the truth.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Why is this news? We've known for some time that the UN is bugged in New York by the US intelligence community, it was all over the news over a year ago, when the US was trying to get countries a bit larger than Slovenia to join the "coalition of the willing" or whatever they're now calling it.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
BEER!

Crap didn't even see this post...ya beat me to it.

Victor

Hmmm, puts a more serious spin on things. :mad: I wonder if there was a counter espionage operation going.

http://www.rte.ie/news2/2004/0227/iraq.html

Further allegations of spying on UN

February 27, 2004

(17:51) More allegations have emerged of intelligence services spying on the United Nations.

Following the British MP Clare Short's claims that the UN Secretary General's discussions had been monitored, Australian radio has reported that the mobile phone of former chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was also tapped.

According to ABC radio, Mr Blix's mobile phone was monitored while he was in Iraq before the war, and information was shared between the US, Britain and their allies.

Another former UN chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler, has said at least four countries bugged his conversations as he held delicate negotiations on disarming Iraq.

secret_squirrel

Why is anyone shocked at this?....its obvious that once you have the resources - any country would use them to spy on whoever they felt like at the time. The british and americans probably even spy on each other...its a perfectly natural thing to do. Its the intelligence communities raison d'etre - to spy on anyone and everyone in the name of national security/advantage.

Having said all that if Clare Short is saying these things from having seen (presumably top secret) documentation rather than just rumourmongering, she should have the full force of the official secrets act applied to her.

IMO she's just a bitter hippo(crite) with a massive chip on her shoulder, and desperate for any sort of power. I defy anyone to believe her 'its a matter of conscience' crap. She lost any credibilty she had with her to-ing and fro-ing during the war.

And in a related subject did anyone see the interview of the woman who had the case of breaching the official secrets act for releasing an NSA memo asking GCHQ to spy on the UN security council dropped. After the court case she came out with something along the lines of 'Its the 21st century cant we find better ways to solve our differences than with wars???'

How did anyone that spouts this naive hippy crap ever get past GCHQ vetting ffs????

Cork

Originally posted by chill
Claire Shart is and always has been a lier and an opportunist. She can't be trusted in any way whatsoever. Blair made an enormous mistake when he took her in to his cabinet thinking she could be kept safely in overseas development.

This is War and I hope Short is ostracised, if not prosecuted, for her cheap stunt.

Modern Eletronic means of communication has nearly made cabinet confidientality almost impossible to maintain.

We have views of various cabinet ministers in our newspapers daily.

Are our Ministers been spied upon?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
Modern Eletronic means of communication has nearly made cabinet confidientality almost impossible to maintain.

Yes and no, every means of invasion tends to gain a counter-measure.

Originally posted by Cork
We have views of various cabinet ministers in our newspapers daily.

These ar eusaully press releases or deliberate leaks. Of course thsi wouldn't happen if we had a working Freesom of Information Act.

Originally posted by Cork
Are our Ministers been spied upon?

Yes, but who needs to spy. http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2631790?view=Eircomnet

AmenToThat

These big brother techniques employed by Britain to keep tabs on anybody they deem fit are the workings of a fascist state.

Well done Clare Short.

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
Why?

Because its a pretty blatant abuse of trust - not just against the government but to the country in general. If she felt something was wrong, the correct course of action would have been for her to approach the JIC, the home secretary, the prime minister or even the intelligence services directly.

Originally posted by bonkey
If the UK intelligence services undertook these actions, it is vitually impossible that they have done so legally....unless we determine legal to mean "sanctioned by their own government".

Which is all fine and dandy, but as you and I both know the intelligence world doesnt work like that. Countrys spy on each other and international organisations all the time, as they have done for millenia. While it is percieved there is a need for this, it will continue through those who can. No law has or will for the foreseeable future change this.

Originally posted by bonkey
I don't see covering up your government's illegal actions as being responsible, or exposing them (if Short is correct in her allegations) as irresponsible.

The whole point is that everyone concerned already knows that this is always going on. This is an accepted way that intelligence agencies across the world operate. Everyone knows that people always jaywalk, but it's overlooked. In a similar way, each government and international body knows that others may be spying on them but even so its overlooked due to two main reasons - 1) its rather hard to effectively defend against (or even to know for sure that it's happening) and 2) since everyone overlooks it, there's nothing to stop them doing the same back.

The only reason that Short came out with this was to further attempt to politicaly damage Blair. (Ab)Using hard-won intelligence information for purely political purposes certinaly falls into my understanding of the word irresponsibility.

Originally posted by monument
This is how Mc Dowell thinks.

It could be a happy-go-lucky world if we only heard what governments wanted us to hear, or at least happy-go-lucky for any government in question.

So you were under the impression all along that intelligence services walked up to people on the street and asked them politely if they would tell them exactly what they spoke about in the office earlier?

Originally posted by AmenToThat
These big brother techniques employed by Britain to keep tabs on anybody they deem fit are the workings of a fascist state.

Well done Clare Short.

At least this thread has made me laugh once

Hopefully Short will be prosecuted fully for breaking the offical secrets act. It's most unfortunate that the woman from GCHQ wont have the same done to her, they could have kept each other company in a cell somewhere.

Memnoch

come on, seriously, is everyone really this nieve? OFF COURSE the Brits and the Americans were spying on the UN. The resorted to every tactic to give them an advantage in their pre-meditated war.

I think the thing that shocks me most, is how many people in the U.K. are "surprised" by this. Just goes to show how gullible and blind the majority of the population are. Either that, or just how well the British Government's spin works. Prolly a mixture of both.

dahamsta

What really surprises me is the amount of people that are aware of it and find it perfectly acceptable. I have no objection to intelligence for the sake of security, but the big intelligence agencies just tend to scoop everything up (can you say Menwith Hill?) and see what they've got afterwards; which was of course a major factor in the intelligence services not picking up on the 9/11 attack before it happened. It's not security, it's just plain spying.

These organisations flout the law on a daily basis - I recently saw a figure of 75% for operations that the CIA carry out illegally - and nothing is done about it. Why should we be expected to obey the law when these muppets - and Pinochet, bin Laden, Vietnam and Castro prove that they are muppets - can do what they bloody like.

adam

secret_squirrel

Err..they are Governments - they can do pretty much what they like as long as they dont upset the voters too much (especially in an election year)

Why does this come as a shock to everyone?

dahamsta

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
Err..they are Governments - they can do pretty much what they like as long as they dont upset the voters too much (especially in an election year)

I'd prefer to live in a country where the Government abides by the law. I'm not sure there are any though...

Moriarty

International law is what the strong decide it is.

mike65

I saw this thread and resisted reading it as I was expecting hands thrown up in naive horror, thank God most ppl understand the way of the world. I expect the French, Germans, Israelis, Chinese, Japanese and possibly the Russians (if thier gear works!) are also bugging and tapping the UN in one shape or form.

Mike.

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
So you were under the impression all along that intelligence services walked up to people on the street and asked them politely if they would tell them exactly what they spoke about in the office earlier?

You said...

Originally posted by Moriarty
My view is that no matter who the intelligence services are bugging, for an ex-minister to reveal this sort of thing is deeply irresponsible.

I replyed to the comment "for an ex-minister to reveal this sort of thing is deeply irresponsible"...

Originally posted by monument
This is how Mc Dowell thinks.

It could be a happy-go-lucky world if we only heard what governments wanted us to hear, or at least happy-go-lucky for any government in question.

What has that to do with how I think intelligence services gather information???

I was saying is that is not "deeply irresponsible" for people to reveal such. Only someone (like Mc Dowell) who likes the idea of governments controlling the media would say it is "deeply irresponsible".

Ministers, TDs, MPs, police officers, public servants etc should be serving the people and not any self interests of governments or political parties.

Moriarty

Originally posted by monument
I was saying is that is not "deeply irresponsible" for people to reveal such. Only someone (like Mc Dowell) who likes the idea of governments controlling the media would say it is "deeply irresponsible".

Would you be of the opinion that intelligence services should publish the names of who they're bugging on their website for all to view? If not, what exactly is the difference between doing that and an ex-minister revealing the same information over the radio? The completely open society you seem to want simply isn't realistic.

Originally posted by monument
Ministers, TDs, MPs, police officers, public servants etc should be serving the people and not any self interests of governments or political parties.

Correct, and yet you still appear to agree with Shorts actions that seem to be entirely self-serving for political reasons.

luckat

Ah, twas ever so. Even now that Britain is a colony of the United States. Albion perfide, as some French guy said, long enough ago to make it a rule.

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
Correct, and yet you still appear to agree with Shorts actions that seem to be entirely self-serving for political reasons.

Self-serving or not, it was morally and legally right, unlike the actions of the intelligence services (and probably most actions of intelligence services).

Maybe you believe in the ends justifies the means?