LONDON — Britain’s spy-agency chief stepped out of the shadows with an unprecedented public address Thursday, defending the need for secrecy to counter growing terror threats.
MI6 chief John Sawers said that even though Cold Warera secrecy has been lifted and intelligence agencies were working to become more accessible, keeping intelligence material secret was vital to protect people against terror attacks.
“Secrecy is not a dirty word. Secrecy is not there as a cover-up,” Sawers told a select group of journalists in London. “Without secrecy there would be no intelligence services or, indeed, other national assets like our special forces. Our nation would be more exposed as a result.”
The question of secrecy has dominated world news in the past week after the whistle-blowing group WikiLeakspublished nearly 400,000 U.S. intelligence logs detailing deaths and abuse in military operations in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. In July, the same group published 77,000 secret U.S. documents on the war in Afghanistan.
Some of the leaked documents show that coalition forces handed over terror suspects to Iraqi security services even after abuse was suspected, or continued with interrogations despite visible injuries to suspects. There has been no clear mention of MI6 involvement in the logs, however.
Sawers’ televised speech also comes during two government inquiries into whether MI6 and other agencies were complicit in the abuse of terror suspects - allegations Sawers denied Thursday, adding that MI6 agents are obligated by law to stop and avoid torture.
“And we do - even though that allows terrorist activity to go ahead,” he said, adding that although his agency hasn’t been specifically accused of torture, it has been accused of “being too close to it.”
Sawers - also known by the code name “C” as all MI6 directors have been known since the first chief Mansfield Cumming - said progress had been made in Afghanistan and Pakistan but new terror threats were growing in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa. The new threats come ahead of severe budget cuts, as Britain’s three major intelligence agencies collectively face a 7.5 percent cut over the next five years.
“We get inside terrorist organizations to see where the next threats are coming from,” he said. “What we do is not seen.”
He said while a “typical” terror attack would not bring down Britain, the dangers of nuclear proliferation - as well as chemical and biological weapons - had the potential to alter the political balance of power in the region.
“The revelations around Iran’s secret enrichment site at Qom were an intelligence success,” he said. “They led to diplomatic pressure on Iran intensifying, with tougher U.N. and EU sanctions which are beginning to bite. The Iranian regime must think hard about where its best interests lie.”
But using intelligence poses painful choices for agents - especially when faced withthe possibility that intelligence could be tainted by abuse or torture.
“Suppose we received credible intelligence that might save lives, here or abroad. We have a professional and moral duty to act on it,” he said.
“We also have a duty to do what we can to ensure that a partner service will respect human rights. That is not always straightforward. If we hold back, and don’t pass that intelligence out of concern that a suspect terrorist may be badly treated, innocent lives may be lost that we could have saved,” he said. “Sometimes there is no clear way forward.”
Front Section, Pages 6 on 10/29/2010