MINDING THE FORT

Reforming the intelligence services has consequences that are not just domestic

If the controversial law replacing in the Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE) with the new Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) is approved by the Lower House, then — perhaps — the government will begin a much needed reform of what became, a long time ago, a synonym for scandal and the abuse of power. As many have said, one of democracy’s outstanding debts.

Opinions are divided. Many in the opposition argue that the new AFI will be nothing more than a cosmetic change to the old agency. However, some pro-government commentators are moderately optimistic and say that the proposed changes are far from complete, but that the new law is a small step in the right direction. And they point out that that the AFI will be under much stricter control that its predecessor.

Even if that is the case — and democratic control would be a welcome change — there are a number of urgent issues which still seem to be pending.

Perhaps the most critical is about “who is minding the fort.” As useless and corrupt as the old SIDE might be, one wishes to think that it actually discharged at least a fraction of its real responsibilities. Although the plan is to have the new AFI fully functioning in four months time, it is doubtful that it will be fully operational that quickly. Unless, of course, the opposition is right and the only change is the letterhead on the stationery.

But — if that is not the case — one hopes that there are some stop-gaps, threat detection mechanisms in place. After all, Iran is, right now at least, at the top of the local political agenda. And matters concerning Iran are obscure enough so as to make it unwise to drop the ball. Especially after the discovery a few days ago of what seemed to be a terrorist presence in neighbouring Uruguay. Not to mention the fact that, at the time of writing this, it is not clear if late prosecutor Alberto Nisman was murdered and, if that was the case, by whom.

If, for the sake of optimism, one assumes that interim provisions are in place, as promised by the government’s legislators, there are other vital questions that cannot wait until a new and more comprehensive law is discussed and voted on.

A quite pressing one concerns alliances. Quite obviously, the priority threat to this country is global terrorism. The sad experience is that, in Latin American terms, Argentina seems to be a likely target. And there is no evidence that this will change in the near future. Consequently, it is worth asking just how solid the relations are with the traditional international partners of the Argentine intelligence services, namely the Americans and the Israelis. Have they been hurt by the recent turmoil in this country’s intelligence agency? If so, can they be fixed? In fact, the question transcends the spies’ world, and becomes political.

Lately, Argentina has made quite a lot of noise about its new strategic partnerships, namely China and Russia. How does this go down with politicians in the United States and Israel who, at the end of the day, are in charge of controlling their intelligence services’ alliances? In all likelihood, Argentina’s new strategic partners have intelligence priorities which do not coincide with this country’s. So, if the old links have deteriorated too much, it could end up being quite a lonely world out there.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence reform law was discussed in a hurry and without the involvement of the opposition. Both the government and its opponents are blaming each other for this. Perhaps they should share the blame? Or even worse — and even more frightening — it is not their fault and the problem is that the rift in Argentine society is by now so wide and so deep that both sides cannot even sit down and discuss something in a civilized way. In this case, a law which is strategic and has an enormous potential to create some very serious trouble, should something goes wrong.

A case in point: due to haste and the lack of dialogue, the role of the new intelligence apparatus in combating crimes that travel beyond borders, like drugs and people-trafficking or money-laundering, seems not to be totally clear. The new law says that the AFI cannot engage in topics against the intelligence activities unless they are so asked by “a specific judge for a specific case.” Sounds good in terms of democratic guarantees. But it also sounds unclear and is likely to be used by the bad guys to thwart efforts against them which originate in the AFI and are put forward by the prosecutors.

Beyond these urgencies, there are strategic questions which should be addressed. The first is, if this country wants its intelligence service to help its foreign affairs efforts, as well as contributing in areas like international financial or science and technology issues. It is quite clear that other countries’ intelligence services do, in addition to their cloak and dagger duties.

Take for example the holdouts/“vultures.” Over and above the legal action in Judge Griesa’s Court, the chaps from ATFA (American Task Force Argentina) got quite aggressive and abandoned the Queensbury rules. So Argentina was entitled to some — equally aggressive and impolite — retaliation.

In reply to the column published last week, “US politics and Nisman,” a Herald reader who lives in the US, Mr J (name withheld because it was a private email) kindly sent a message to this writer for which I am very grateful.

Mr J wrote: “I offer the suggestion that Senator (Marco) Rubio may have another reason for attacking the current government of Argentina. Perhaps he is satisfying his number two campaign contributor, Elliott Management. They have given him US$117,620 in the current campaign cycle. See https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030612. Love your country. You have suffered enough US interference.

True, several Argentine government officials have mentioned Elliot Management’s relations with the Republican party. And the information was probably provided by the Argentine Embassy in Washington. But perhaps, the level of detail offered by Mr J would have been useful to counter AFTA’s actions in the US. It’s not James Bond stuff. But it’s quite useful. Especially if an intelligence service has good enough “desk researchers,” a must in any modern intelligence service.

Perhaps a totally reorganized AFI could use some of them as well.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD