TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- UN launches inquiry into American spying

UN launches inquiry into American spying

quote:

UN launches inquiry into American spying Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont Sunday March 9, 2003 The Observer The United Nations has begun a top-level investigation into the bugging of its delegations by the United States, first revealed in The Observer last week. Sources in the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed last night that the spying operation had already been discussed at the UN's counter-terrorism committee and will be further investigated. The news comes as British police confirmed the arrest of a 28-year-old woman working at the top secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act. Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq. The Observer reported that the memo was sent to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for help in the operation. It has been known for some time that elements within the British security services were unhappy with the Government's use of intelligence information. The leak was described as 'more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg, the most celebrated whistleblower in recent American history. In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking a secret history of US involvement in Vietnam, which became known as 'the Pentagon Papers', while working as a Defence Department analyst. The papers fed the American public's hostility to the war. The revelations of the spying operation have caused deep embarrassment to the Bush administration at a key point in the sensitive diplomatic negotiations to gain support for a second UN resolution authorising intervention in Iraq. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were both challenged about the operation last week, but said they could not comment on security matters. The operation is thought to have been authorised by US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, but American intelligence experts told The Observer that a decision of this kind would also have involved Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and NSA chief General Michael Hayden. President Bush himself would have been informed at one of the daily intelligence briefings held every morning at the White House. Attention has now turned to the foreign intelligence agency responsible for the leak. It is now believed the memo was sent out via Echelon, an international surveillance network set up by the NSA with the cooperation of GCHQ in Britain and similar organisations in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Wayne Madsen, of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre and himself a former NSA intelligence officer, said the leak demonstrated that there was deep unhappiness in the intelligence world over attempts to link Iraq to the terrorist network al-Qaeda. 'My feeling is that this was an authorised leak. I've been hearing for months of people in the US and British intelligence community who are deeply concerned about their governments "cooking" intelligence to link Iraq to al-Qaeda.' The Observer story caused a political furore in Chile, where President Ricardo Lagos demanded an immediate explanation of the spying operation. The Chilean public is extremely sensitive to reports of US 'dirty tricks' after decades of American secret service involvement in the country's internal affairs. In 1973 the CIA supported a coup that toppled the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende and installed the dictator General Augusto Pinochet. President Lagos spoke on the telephone with Prime Minister Tony Blair about the memo last Sunday, immediately after the publication of the story, and twice again on Wednesday. Chile's Foreign Minister Soledad Alvear also raised the matter with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Chile's ambassador to Britain Mariano Fern�ndez told The Observer: 'We cannot understand why the United States was spying on Chile. We were very surprised. Relations have been good with America since the time of George Bush Snr.' He said that the position of the Chilean mission to the UN was published in regular diplomatic bulletins, which were public documents openly available. While the bugging of foreign diplomats at the UN is permissible under the US Foreign Intelligence Services Act, it is a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, according to one of America's leading experts on international law, Professor John Quigley of Ohio University. He says the convention stipulates that: 'The receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes... The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable.'

Yea I'm actually pretty embarrased of this ... kind of stupid thing to do since we're going to find out ANYWAY what these nations plan on doing.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea I'm actually pretty embarrased of this ... kind of stupid thing to do since we're going to find out ANYWAY what these nations plan on doing.

You should be embarassed about a lot more than just this.

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin You should be embarassed about a lot more than just this.

And you should post something intelligent and relevant to the topic rather than trying to incite everyone to start a flame war.

You're pathetic ... you have nothing meaningful to contribute.

I agree with both of you.

i think we should all be more worried about the increasing irrelevance of the UN in this post cold war society.

its clear that the US doesnt need the UN to fight Iraq, yet when consulted about the war it leads to more world wide division. and then when N Korea begins threatening the entire conintent of Asia, the UN feels the US needs to speak directly to Pyongang- when this is clearly a much bigger threat than the Iraqi conflict in world wide terms.

everyday i see people around the world protesting the war, but very few people actually DOING something. i fear that the world has convinced itself that the US is such a threat that no one will actually stand up for themselves - and i dont consider diplomatic bickering a solution either.

when i posted this article, it seemed that no one was surprised, yet now it is turning into another 'i told you so' 'evil empire' *debate* with no relevant or current ideas. anyone have anything to add?|

Well, I for one am doing something. I publish a website, learn all i can, help organize rallys, write letters, and tell everyone i know.

what else can i do? go be a human shield in iraq? go do "weapons inspections" in the US?

I suppose i could, but i'd probably get arrested or killed, so i think i can do more good doing what i am doing right now.

Second, as for the statement "The US doesn't need the UN to go to war", i think that's bullshit. The US needs it just as much as North Korea needs UN approval to go to attack SK, or as much as iraq needs approval to attack kuwait.

In short, without UN approval ANY offensive action is against international law, including an american "coalition of the willing" against iraq. If an attack is to happen, it's the mandate of the UN to stop it, by condemning the attack and demanding that the US and UK stop immediately. If they do not, a second resolution should be passed authorizing military action against the US and UK to save iraq, much like one was passed to save kuwait from iraq.

Of course, this will never happen. Even if it were put to a vote, the US is an econmic powerhouse, it would be a very simple matter to bribe and coerce other countries not to support this. And they always have their veto as well.

Even if a resolution was passed, No one nation on earth, in fact probably not ALL the nations on earth put together have the military might to take on the US. not to mention that doing so on a large scale would be foolhardy, as the nukes would start to fly and possibly plunge entire areas of the planet into nuclear winter.

So, basically the situation is the US is the most powerful, and they will do as they please. This is exactly the sort of situation the UN was designed to circumvent, but since one of it's member states has gotten much too powerful, they basically have their hands tied.

Biznology, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point he was trying to get at is the ineffectiveness of the UN as an international governing body. I agree that the US shouldn't be the decision maker in world affairs but the UN does not appear to be stepping up to assume the responsibilities of that position. What I would like to see is a UN body actually DOING something in today's climate besides issuing condemnations and resolutions that accomplish nothing. For example, people critisize the US media for not fully covering Rwanda and some critisize the US for doing nothing ... Well what did the UN do in Rwanda? Aren't THEY the authority responsible for intervening during crises like that??? Nothing. What about Kosovo? Besides a bunch of resolutions condemning the genocide nothing really. If I recall, NATO was the driving force in enforcing peace in that region, capturing war criminals, etc. It seems that the UN rarely if ever inserts peacekeepers and then when the going gets rough they withdraw them. To me the UN is like an elderly grandparent that waggles their finger and clucks their tongue when you do something wrong rather than a parent to actually punish you. If the US isn't going to do something than who is??? What we need is a UN that actually asserts authority rather than relinquish it to others.

well, your post confuses me. I was answering biznologogy in regards to:

quote:

everyday i see people around the world protesting the war, but very few people actually DOING something.

as for my comments about the US, what i am trying to say, is it's not the US place to make decisions on global security. this is the job of the UN.

now, i could be wrong, but i belive that the UN does not ENFORCE it's resolutions, this is not it's purpose. It asks a member state to do so, such as when the US stopped iraq from invading kuwait in the gulf war.

If the UN were to actually enforce it's resolutions, it would need it's own army, capable of taking on any other nation, which of course is impractical.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, your post confuses me. I was answering biznologogy in regards to: as for my comments about the US, what i am trying to say, is it's not the US place to make decisions on global security. this is the job of the UN. now, i could be wrong, but i belive that the UN does not ENFORCE it's resolutions, this is not it's purpose. It asks a member state to do so, such as when the US stopped iraq from invading kuwait in the gulf war. If the UN were to actually enforce it's resolutions, it would need it's own army, capable of taking on any other nation, which of course is impractical.

Well maybe it should have a significantly sized army in which every member state should be forced to contribute and maybe it should enforce its own resolutions. What member state is going to volunteer their troops to intervene in situations such as Rwanda? But you failed to comment on whether the UN is an effective institution or not ... personally I don't think so at all and I think a lot of people would agree with me. Maybe that's why a lot of people in the US feel that in order to maintain global security, the US needs to step up.

- He, I allready posted about the US spying, no new news to me.. hehehe, at least something is been done.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well maybe it should have a significantly sized army in which every member state should be forced to contribute and maybe it should enforce its own resolutions. What member state is going to volunteer their troops to intervene in situations such as Rwanda? But you failed to comment on whether the UN is an effective institution or not ... personally I don't think so at all and I think a lot of people would agree with me. Maybe that's why a lot of people in the US feel that in order to maintain global security, the US needs to step up.

I think the UN is an effective institution, and in fact an excellent one. True, it has failed in some respects, due to lack of enforcement. I agree that possibly a good way to solve this problem would be for each nation to contribute to a UN army. It would have to be based on percentage, so that larger armies like the US would contribute more solidiers and equipment.

However, leadership of the army would not be under proportionately under more US control, it would be determined by resolutions of the Security Coucil. Of course it can be argued that the Security Council itself is under mostly US control, but with the way things are going, i think that the UN is holding up excellently.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I think the UN is an effective institution, and in fact an excellent one. True, it has failed in some respects, due to lack of enforcement. I agree that possibly a good way to solve this problem would be for each nation to contribute to a UN army. It would have to be based on percentage, so that larger armies like the US would contribute more solidiers and equipment. However, leadership of the army would not be under proportionately under more US control, it would be determined by resolutions of the Security Coucil. Of course it can be argued that the Security Council itself is under mostly US control, but with the way things are going, i think that the UN is holding up excellently.

See that's where we differ. I think the UN is more or less a joke. It should be a body of world government ... not a body of arbitration. It should dictate the ways governments should act rather than respond at the last minute and issue condmenations when the line is finally crossed. And there are so many cases when it has failed to intervene or lend assistance to countries that were faced with illegal aggression. Civil strife in Africa is one case in point. Everybody cares about what's going on in Europe and the Middle East but when it comes to places like Africa you hear nothing. The UN is more like a civil court rather than a criminal court and it is inconsistent in its practices.

well then, what would you contend is the solution? abolish the UN and let the US run things because they have demonstrated the disregard for human life that is neccesary to deal with delicate situations?

I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should give the UN more power, more support, more money, more force. Then we can begin to TRULY fight terrorism.

The alternative is a primal game of survival of the fittest, played by the elite politicians using thousands of innocent lives as currency.

the UN does have an army... they're called UN peacekeepers and many countries do contribute to the force whatever their mission may be..

as for the comment that no one is DOING anything, what you mean by DOING something is fighting, other than that you see no other action as a valid solution to the problem. the fact is many people are doing MANY things... its just that people who want to see war see their actions as nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well then, what would you contend is the solution? abolish the UN and let the US run things because they have demonstrated the disregard for human life that is neccesary to deal with delicate situations? I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should give the UN more power, more support, more money, more force. Then we can begin to TRULY fight terrorism. The alternative is a primal game of survival of the fittest, played by the elite politicians using thousands of innocent lives as currency.

JohnSmith, this is a very intelligent post that cuts to the very heart of the matter.

Despite the arguments for- and against- the war, and for/against the UN itself, what things boil down to, in the end, is human life, the loss of it, and suffering.

We are seeing more of that every day, as much due to "evil" wills as "good" intentions.

I think the worst case scenario is that the UN gets diminished in efficacy and/or entirely abolished. As JohnSmith says, that would degenerate the world into a survival-of-the-fittest game. But seeing how the current global situation is, it would actually turn into lone-superpower-asserts-dominance. Why? Human nature! It is natural for humans to pursue power at the expense of others.

When the UN was formed, and when the second World War was finished, people had hoped to create a New World where wars would not occur anymore.

Obviously this has not happened. I would like to say that this conflict with Iraq, if it occurs (and it most likely will), will herald the end of the "new" world, and the reverting back to the "old" world and old world mentality. Of course, the players (err..playER) and strategies have changed, but the goals are the same: dominance and power.

We're seeing the new Roman Empire emerging today. Of course, it is at a much greater scale than the actual Roman Empire ever was. Now, if the U.S. continues its current mindset, tactics, and goals, then it will essentially tread the same path as the Romans did, and that is:

Republic -> Tyranny -> Despotism -> Dissolution and Anarchy

That's the way the world works! No one pays attention to history anymore, and history shows that humans (and their states) develop and live in predictable cycles.

It's really too bad that people can never learn from their mistakes. Today's mistakes, today's debates, today's wars, everything that is happening today, has happened quite literally thousands of times in the past. The context might have been different, but the events, and consequences, have all been seen. If the earth could speak, it would be sighing - but actually laughing! - at human ignorance.

The key, I think, is to find an inner balance, and accept the idiocy happening around us (on everyone's part!). Things certainly are not going to change. They haven't in the past, and there is no indication that they will.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well then, what would you contend is the solution? abolish the UN and let the US run things because they have demonstrated the disregard for human life that is neccesary to deal with delicate situations? I don't think that's a good idea. I think we should give the UN more power, more support, more money, more force. Then we can begin to TRULY fight terrorism. The alternative is a primal game of survival of the fittest, played by the elite politicians using thousands of innocent lives as currency.

No no no not at all. As a matter of fact your conclusion is the same one I'm trying to convey. We should make the UN stronger, more powerful, and give it the ability to enforce its policies. Like I said, it should be a governing body rather than a body of arbitration. It would be pretty pretentious of me to suggest that the US should be that body, and in no way do I suggest that the US should have that kind of discretionary power. The way I see things, Iraq does not fear the UN ... it seems that they enjoy playing games of deception and prolonging. So if the UN says something and it ACTUALLY means business, such that it is respected by every nation, then I think a lot of Americans would feel confident in letting the UN resolve everything. Yea this would only happen in an idealistic world but maybe future generations will be intelligent enough to put it in place. Darwin needs to work faster dammit.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.