BRING IN THE CIA

Intelligence services are vital, but ours needs serious reform

A tip for students, journalists et al. If you need reliable and — normally updated — information on the “history, people, government, economy, geography, communications, transportation, military, and transnational issues” of any country in the world, visit https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. It might not suffice for a thesis, but it covers a bit more than the basics, which is often enough.

And — if you have some spare time — you can navigate through other sections of the website.

It offers information that could prove useful at a time when the tragic death of prosecutor Alberto Nisman and the frightening experience of the now-exiled Damián Pachter are showing — in fact, confirming — the need of a much delayed profound and extensive overhaul of this country’s intelligence service. Starting, given the current state of affairs, with the control of its activities, governance and use of funds.

The CIA’s website explains that “the 1980 Intelligence Oversight Act charged the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with authorizing the programmes of the intelligence agencies and overseeing their activities.”

In contrast, as reported yesterday in the Herald, “two serious organizations, the Association for Civil Rights (ADC) and the Centre for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), made their positions on the intelligence services known this week. Both agree on highlighting the relative autonomy that Argentine spies enjoy.”

Currently, the government, rather than controlling the Secretariat, seems limited to footing the political bill of the messy activities of its intelligence officers. Some of which seem to be performed on the government’s service and others seem to be “independent.” But in both cases, they are turning into a political liability — witness Damián Pachter’s case.

By the way, it should be noted that, while CELS can be considered close to Kirchnerite views, that is not the case with ADC. So it can be safely assumed that both the government and the opposition agree on the particular point of making the intelligence service answerable to somebody other than itself.

In a perfect world, reform should not be limited to controlling the country’s spooks. Once the political authorities secure effective control over the intelligence service, it would be vital to define precisely its mission.

It would be an extraordinary — and currently much needed — sign of political maturity if Congress could meet, sooner rather than later, and reach a consensus on the control and mission of the intelligence services. A law on this matter, voted for by a significant majority, including the main opposition parties, would send a positive internal and external message.

A number of foreign governments have, quite explicitly, voiced their concern about the Nisman affair. The fact that the list includes Uruguay and the United States, as well as France, shows that they might not be triggered (at least exclusively) by anti-Argentine or anti-Kirchnerite motives. The message seems to be “listen chaps, get your act together.” And before complaining about supposed meddling in our internal affairs, it should be noted that intelligence activities are a vital foreign policy issue.

One of the main reasons, and of great concern to Argentina’s partners, is that many of the threats to every country’s security are global and non-state. They range from terrorism to human and drug-trafficking and include other major crimes and money-laundering. International cooperation over these matters is the norm rather than the exception. Unfortunately, incidents like the killing of “Lauchón” Viale —an Intelligence Secretariat’s official — in 2013 suggests that the organization’s links with the criminal world are, to say the least, questionable. And consequently, the credibility of the country’s intelligence agnecy in the eyes of its counterparts becomes equally questionable.

Over and above fighting international crime, modern intelligence services provide other things to their countries. Looking again at the US case, it becomes clear that, contrary to popular perceptions, much of the CIA’s activity is far from the world of cloak and dagger and close to the world of academia, libraries and research. In fact, you will find CIA staffers on post-graduate courses and at annual meetings on foreign affairs.

In its own words, “CIA analysts monitor and assess foreign political developments, leadership, economic issues, military threats and science and technology.”

Quite clearly, no foreign policy can be effective without serious input from research. And there is nothing to indicate that Argentina’s Intelligence Secretariat is even close to providing any such thing. It seems that,at most, the Intelligence Secretariat is good at receiving — selected and selective — information from its US and Israeli colleagues.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD