Hague reveals intelligence workings

Foreign Secretary William Hague on Wednesday gave a rare speech about the role of intelligence services in Britain's foreign policy. In the speech, he explained how intelligence services were used to inform decisions about foreign and security policy and to help implement policy, along with the work of diplomats, the Armed Forces and other government agencies. "As Foreign Secretary I am responsible for the Foreign and Commonwealth  Office; for nearly 15,000 staff in Britain and overseas, our network of 262 Embassies and other diplomatic offices and for the six other Foreign Office Ministers," said Hague. "But I am also directly responsible, under the overall authority of the Prime Minister, for the Secret Intelligence Service, SIS, and the Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ. My colleague the Home Secretary is responsible for the Security Service, SyS." "We are much more open about the Agencies than we were even twenty years ago. Today I am pleased to welcome Sir John Sawers, the Chief of SIS, Iain Lobban, the Director of GCHQ and Jonathan Evans, the Director General of SyS to this event. It is not that many years ago that their identities were a secret," said Hague of the evening's guests. "The reason that the Agencies operate in secret is so that we can protect the lives of those who we rely on to carry out this dangerous work for us, and so that we do not reveal details of how they do it. Threats are launched at us secretly, new weapons systems are developed secretly and countries or terrorist groups that plan attacks or operations against us do so in secrecy. We need a covert capability to monitor threats and to contribute to timely action against them. "But the need for secrecy places additional importance on the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to Parliament for GCHQ and SIS...as Foreign Secretary, I see operational proposals from the Agencies every day, amounting to hundreds every year. The proposals are detailed. They set out the planned operation, the potential risks and the likely benefits of the information to be gained. They include substantial legal sections which set out the basis for the operation and comments from senior Foreign Office officials and lawyers. I discuss these with them and with officials from the Agencies, and I often work closely with the Home Secretary. These are often not easy decisions, and the majority involve judgments about cooperating with other countries.  I take ultimate responsibility for these operations, and I do not approve them all," said Hague. The Foreign Secretary said his role was not separate from his SIS and GCHQ responsibilities. "Many of the most important priorities in foreign policy, from stabilising Afghanistan and helping Pakistan to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, all have an intelligence component." "We are setting out to strengthen the central role of the Foreign Office, make sustainable the finances of the MoD and to improve the overall strategic direction of foreign policy," he said. Hague mentioned the existence of a a National Security Strategy that calls for the use of the UK's national advantages - diplomacy and membership of the UN Security Council, EU, NATO and the Commonwealth, international development programmes, our Armed Forces and defence diplomacy, cultural assets and intelligence services - to build up the UK's global influence, prevent conflict and avert threats beyond its shores. "Whether it is overseeing the mission in Libya, on which it met 60 times, or building a whole new set of stronger relationships with countries in Latin America, we need foreign policy to be pursued across the whole of Government. The NSC brings together all the key Cabinet Ministers, the Heads of the Armed Forces and the Heads of the Intelligence Services. They now see the same information and formally discuss policy far more frequently than has ever been the case in the past, outside conditions of war. NSC meetings are minuted and form part of the Cabinet Office record of central government," he said. The Foreign Secretary also stated that the Foreign Office have sent more diplomatic staff to over twenty countries, opening six new embassies and up to seven new Consulates in the emerging powers in a drive to enhance the diplomatic skills of the Foreign Office. Hague also spoke about new emerging economic powers in the East, and how it affected the UK's financial prospects. He went on to state that asserting the UK's position in the global economy depended heavily on appropriate foreign policy that would allot it to consolidate influence. "At the same time the constant evolution of cyberspace is introducing additional complexity to foreign affairs; fuelling an explosion of new connections between governments, economies and citizens, which is overwhelming positive but also permits the transfusion of new threats. The same digital means that are bringing hope and opportunity to millions around the world and fuelling change in the Middle East also empower terrorists, criminals and some states with new means of attack and organisation," he said of improvements in cyber technology. "Properly used, Secret Intelligence saves both military and civilian lives, protects our economy, stops criminals and makes a critical contribution to our diplomatic and military success. I see daily evidence of the integrity, skill and professionalism of the men and women of GCHQ, SIS and SyS," said Hague. The Tory minister also said that the 'loyal' intelligence personnel rarely received the recognition they deserved for their services. "It takes a particularly special person to work in an environment where your identity is concealed from those around you, your successes, your bravery and the danger you face go largely unnoticed, and in which you may never answer back at public criticism, and your family has to share this burden with you. They provide an early warning system against States which take actions which are hostile to us or to our interests – such as developing nuclear weapons – or which may seek to do so in the future," he said. Hague also spoke about cases where the different intelligence agencies co-ordinated with each other to mitigate security risks. "In one recent case members of a UK network travelled overseas for terrorist training.  The Agencies were able to detect their intentions.  Agents recruited by SIS reported on what the group were doing.  This revealed that members of the network had discussed mounting attacks in the UK.  Once the plot was revealed, we were able to approach the Government in question and work with it to arrange the lawful arrest of a key figure in the network which disrupted the conspiracy before such plans could be developed.  The Home Secretary and I were kept closely in the picture throughout. In an increasingly interconnected world, this kind of joint operation, with close inter-agency working that is the envy of the world, allows us to focus first and foremost on prosecuting terrorists whenever we can. "Without our Intelligence Agencies, terrorist groups would have free rein to harm British citizens here and abroad, and successful operations like this would not be possible.  But they are also a resource that inform the making of foreign policy," stated Hague. The Foreign Secretary also spoke about Britain's role in military interventions like the recent one in Libya. "We should be proud of Britain’s role in securing intervention in Libya to protect civilians and stop Gaddafi from massacring his own people. This diplomatic and military success was also backed by effective intelligence. Throughout the conflict in Libya, the agencies used their global capabilities to provide insight into the intentions of pro-Gaddafi forces and to understand the progress of the battles around Brega, Misrata and finally Tripoli. They worked to identify key political figures, develop contacts with the emerging opposition and provide political and military intelligence.  Most importantly, they saved lives. For example the Gaddafi regime tried to attack the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, and to kill some of the Western representatives in Libya.  The Agencies obtained firm intelligence, were able to warn the NTC of the threat and the attacks were prevented." Hague went on to speak about collaborating with other countries in intelligence activities. "Some of the most acute threats to our security arise in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. In Afghanistan, our Agencies help the Afghan government to build the capacity of their security services to enable them to take responsibility for their own security. In these other countries the Agencies work to build capacity and willingness among our partners to investigate and disrupt terrorist targets plotting against the UK. This includes the provision of infrastructure support and training, the development of analytical and forensic capabilities to services who have never used them before, and training and education on legal and human rights obligations, responsibilities and ways of working. This work is not easy. It necessarily sometimes requires working with countries that do not fully share our values, but which we want to bring closer to sharing our values. There are examples of such work leading to major improvements in the effectiveness and practices of our partners," he said. "In short, the Agencies give us a key national advantage in foreign and security policy. Whether it is their intelligence-gathering andanalytical skills, SIS’s agent-running expertise or GCHQ’s cyber expertise, their abilities are recognised as among the very best, and in some areas the best, in the world. They are an essential component of our relationship with the United States, and lend weight and substance to some of our other most important alliances." He however reiterated that Intelligence did not replace the need for diplomacy, and could never be a substitute for it. "This Government believes that Britain’s national interest is served best when diplomacy is informed by Intelligence, and Intelligence is balanced by diplomatic assessments. "This means that Intelligence is weighed and assessed alongside all other sources of information available to us including diplomatic reporting and the insights of other government departments; judged in the context of the Government’s overall strategy and objectives; and brought together to make careful decisions which are considered at the National Security Council. He also pointed out the ethical issues related to using Intelligence to further foreign policy, touching on sensitive topics like the Iraq War and allegations of UK troops practicing torture. "As a Government we understand how important it is that that we not only uphold our values and international law, but that we are seen to do so...moral authority in the eyes of the world, once damaged, must be painfully and gradually re-established," he said. He then spoke about how the government was addressing the problems. "First, the Prime Minister took immediate action when we came to Government to announce a Detainee Inquiry, chaired by a distinguished former Appeal Court Judge Sir Peter Gibson, into whether the UK was involved in or aware of the improper treatment of detainees held by other countries. It will begin its formal work as soon as current police investigations are completed. "The Government also agreed, and the Prime Minister published, the consolidated guidance issued to intelligence officers and service personnel on the treatment of detainees held overseas by other States. He announced our intention to reach a mediated settlement of the civil claims brought by former detainees of Guantanamo Bay, given that under present legal arrangements, the Agencies could not defend themselves without further weakening national security. This was achieved in November last year. In the Foreign Office, I have also published for the first time guidance given to all FCO staff on the need to report any alleged incidents of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that they encounter in the course of their work. Second, we have brought forward a Justice and Security Green Paper to strengthen our legal arrangements and Parliamentary and independent oversight of the Intelligence Agencies. At its heart are proposals to ensure that cases involving national security information can be heard fairly, fully and safely in our courts, and that we protect British interests by preventing the disclosure of genuinely sensitive material. This includes intelligence information shared with Britain by intelligence partners overseas," he said. Regarding the justice system, Hague continued: "The justice system is not currently equipped to pass judgement in national security cases involving information so sensitive that it cannot be disclosed in a courtroom. This leaves the public with unanswered questions and the security and intelligence agencies unable to state their case and defend themselves. The taxpayer faces the prospect of footing an increasing bill for costly financial settlements because of the lack of an appropriate framework in which civil damages claims involving sensitive material can be heard. And key overseas relations have been strained by pressure to disclose sensitive information belonging to other Governments, including in cases where applicants sought sensitive UK Government-held, but very often foreign government-originated information for disclosure into foreign legal proceedings. "All these difficult issues have contributed to a lack of public trust and damaged our relations overseas. Both must be addressed, which is what our Green Paper sets out to do." "Our proposals are intended to ensure that the mainstream civil court system is equipped to hear national security cases where disclosure of material would be damaging to the public interest. Central to this is the proposed introduction of legislation to make the mechanism known as closed material procedures – already used elsewhere in the UK court system - available in the full range of civil proceedings. This system enables relevant but sensitive material in a case which damage national security if exposed to be considered privately by the judges and a special advocate, appointed to represent the other party’s interests. This would only be used in exceptional instances where it is critical to the case," he said. Critics have argued that Hague's proposal runs counter to the principles of open justice. To that, he responded: "The Government understands that open justice is a fundamental attribute of our democracy, and that it should only be departed from when it is strictly necessary to achieve the proper administration of justice. Under our proposals, a closed material proceeding could well represent only a small part of a case, the rest of which would be heard in open court. And it is surely fairer to ensure that sensitive material can be considered in court under these arrangements, than that it is excluded altogether. Our proposals would ensure that the full case can be heard by the judge before reaching a decision. These changes would enable balanced judgments to be reached, the public to have confidence in independent judgement by the Court and the Agencies either to be held to account or to be exonerated." About the UK's trust in other countries, he said: "The ability of other countries to share Intelligence with us without fear we will have to disclose it here or overseas is absolutely vital to our national interest. This is managed under the Control Principle, a strict rule of intelligence sharing whereby any further use or disclosure of intelligence requires the agreement of the Agency that provided it in the first place. If we cannot uphold the control principle and others do not share information with us, the very real risk is that our security will be jeopardised. "Threats to our security cross borders, whether from organised crime or the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We cannot confront them without cooperating with intelligence partners on the basis of trust. At times, we are dependent on others to stop attacks," he said "Many agents and sources risk their lives – some lose their lives - to  give us the vital information to keep us safe. We have a duty to protect them. And if the countries we work with cannot trust us to protect their sources then they will not share their information with us. We expect the same of them. We take it for granted in diplomacy that we must uphold our agreements and respect the confidences of our partners – the same applies to an even greater degree in intelligence, where lives and critical national interests are at stake," said Hague. "The Green Paper also includes important proposals to strengthen independent and parliamentary scrutiny of the role of the Agencies. It proposes, for example, to make the Intelligence and Security Committee a statutory Committee of Parliament, reporting formally to Parliament, and to enable it to take evidence from any Department or body in the wider intelligence community. It also proposes careful consideration of extending the Committee’s remit to include retrospective review of certain operational aspects of the work of the Agencies where there are matters of significant national interest. We also propose that the Committee be given the power to require information from the Agencies, bringing it more in line with Parliamentary Select Committees, but with this power subject to a veto only from the Secretary of State where national security so requires it." Hague summarised the Government's approach as: "...drawing a line under the past and creating the right legislative framework so that the interests of national security and justice are reconciled; drawing on the talents and capabilities of the Intelligence Agencies to support national security and ensure our military operations and our diplomacy underpinned by high quality, high-tempo intelligence; and bringing together all our assets and our advantages to support a secure and prosperous future for Britain in the world. As we do so we will always be conscious of the lessons of the past – including the lessons of our achievements as well as the errors we must strive to avoid." The Foreign Secretary concluded his speech by saying: "It is important that their work and the legal and political framework in which it takes place is properly understood and publicly appreciated. "But it is also important that where controversies have arisen they are faced up to and dealt with, and where changes are necessary to ensure our Agencies can do the job we expect of them, that we make the case for change with clarity and conviction."