Blair, Claire and Kofi - the diplomatic consequences of Britain bugging the UN

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I think this could do with being separate from Momus's thread really.

So, Claire Short says that in her time in government, Britain was bugging Kofi Annan's office in the run-up to war in Iraq. Blair throws a strop at her, but does not deny it. Is it all likely to blow up bigstyle over this one, then?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Whistle-blower says: It's Clare, actually, not Claire. As in 'Am I making myself Clare? Short so.'

/whistle

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Robin Cook disagrees

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

why is anyone surprised about this? if we aren't doing it, you can bet everyone else is... why bother having MI5/6 (a separate debate, of course) if they don't spy on people?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:51 (twenty-two years ago)

look, even boutros knew about it:

But former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said he had been warned his office would be bugged.

"From the first day I entered my office they told me: 'Beware, your office is bugged, your residence is bugged and it's a tradition member states who have the technical capacity to bug will do it without hesitation'," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Just because you spy on some doesn't mean you should spy on everyone. Should they be spying on you, Steve?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I don't understand why anyone's surprised, but I think the diplomatic fallout could be great because you are not supposed to spy on your allies. If it emerged that the White House was bugging Downing Street phones there would be an outcry.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:56 (twenty-two years ago)

but THEY ARE SPYING ON ME, why else would that black helicoptor be following me everywhere, EH? EH???

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:56 (twenty-two years ago)

MI6 want to book Cud for a big party?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 13:58 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry...

...anyway, people have always spied on each other, ally or opponent, it's how diplomacy works isn't it?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Are we spying on the US?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

US government, I mean?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not unusual that spying goes on. What is unusual is that an ex-cabinet minister should talk about it so openly.

Short is of course out to get Blair. She says he decided, in a secret pact with Bush in September 2002, to go to war with Iraq whatever. That means whatever the weapons inspectors (also being spied on), the UN, the British public, the press or anyone else thought. Whatever Saddam did in terms of concessions and admissions. Whatever experts in international law decided about legality. It was fixed. It was going to happen.

So in the face of this, Short (and Katherine Gun at GCHQ) decided to embarrass Blair into some sort of belated democratic and legal accountability. He still isn't admitting an iota of error or doubt. The more stubbornly he resists such admissions (and the next report after the Hutton whitewash will be the Butler Report), the more people will be tempted to smear him with any mud they can find. And frankly, he deserves not to have a clean suit ever again.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)

matt, i am now confused...

N. i would've thought so, GCHQ "listens" to pretty much everything doesn't it? it's that fineline between "sharing information as friends" and "having a quick root through the filing cabinet when he pops out of the office"...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, haven't you watched spooks?

― chris (chris), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:06 (twenty-two years ago)

On the ITV News yesterday the reporter said "a joke had been going round the coridors of the UN building 'Kofi would have been disappointed if we *weren't* spying on him' so much is it expected and regarded as normal."

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Ho ho those UN corridors of impotence.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not surprising that political life is so political. What's surprising is that politicians have got so political about political life being political.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

diplomatically put

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 14:16 (twenty-two years ago)

i just find it irritating that people are acting so surprised about this (sorry, two op ed from the grauniad probably aren't the best examples, but you know what i mean).

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I deplore the state of hipster politics, where 'sheesh, people are surprised' is deemed an acceptable way to not care about an issue.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Affecting surprise means you get to use words like "duplicitous" for political capital. It also strikes me that our spies are actually a bit rubbish - Exhibit A being the lack of WMDs in Iraq, Exhibit B being two planes crashing into World Trade Center without anyone knowing it was going to happen.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

N and MDC OTM.

The whole problem with the 45min claim fandangle is that everyone knew at the time that the claim was bollux. If we were all more innocent, real indignation might occur.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Considering the political pressures, i don't think the WMD issue is a good test of the quality of Brit Intelligence.

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

How did we get it so wrong?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Think of all the September 11ths that haven't happened since September 11th! In fact, the intelligence services have done such a good job that Bush is getting a little impatient. Another September 11th is exactly what a 'war president' needs to get a second term.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

(That or capturing Bin Laden. They're working on that pretty intensively right now.)

(Interesting spin-off question: Who is Bin Laden supporting in this presidential contest? JFK or GWB? And why?)

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh Momus.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

i think bin-laden's a nader man

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I deplore the state of hipster politics, where 'sheesh, people are surprised' is deemed an acceptable way to not care about an issue.

Rarely has N been more OTM.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It's only because I was copying you.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Get a room!

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

i do care about it N, i'm just not sure it is a problem, certainly nothing government-threatening...

it's the grauniad feigning surprise that's annoying me, they're just using it as a tool to slap the government

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's start with one truth: last March, when the US and its coalition partners invaded Iraq, the American public and much of the rest of the world believed that after Saddam's regime sank, a vast flotsam of weapons of mass destruction would bob to the surface.

From the Groanydad piece N pointed to.

That 'one truth' is, erm, not true, surely. Or do vast swathes of people also believe in the tooth fairy?

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I really meant 'JtN is only saying that because it's what he says':

cf.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

so, basically, we were too busy spying on the UN council members and our chums to spy on the people who wanted to do us harm, this is the inference I'm supposed to get from all this?

― chris (chris), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:41 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the inference you're supposed to make. OH NO THESE GRAMMARIAN THREADS HAVE CORRUPTED ME.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

UN council members = 'people who wanted to do us harm', in this case

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

That 'one truth' is, erm, not true, surely.

What do you mean, 'surely'? It's possibly debatable, but as certainly as far as 'The American Public' bit goes, yeah, that does seem to tally with surveys that I read.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

N. come down here and correct my grammar.

(no, please do, it'd be lovely to see you)

― chris (chris), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I am so broke I might not even make it to ATP or see Brian Wilson. ):

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

You were rich man, you've changed

― chris (chris), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I know.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

you should throw off your worldly shackles and become a mountain man.

― chris (chris), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Enrique I do actually think that British and US intelligence believed there were WMDs in Iraq. I mean, I know both governments were dead set on going ahead anyway, but I they would've tried a different tack to hammering home the WMD point if they'd known that a year or so down the line there would be no WMDS found at all and they would be looking very foolish indeed in the runup to two elections.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but I think you're basically right, but as the article I linked to suggests, it's a bit more complex than that, which is why it's not a great example. (Hello Office of Special Plans!)

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

(sorry - the above post makes it look like I think that I know more than CIA analysts)

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It's possible... but a fair few intelligence people doubted the claims too. At any rate I don't want to sound hipsterish but I wasn't convinced of an imminent threat.

xpost

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Just because you weren't doesn't mean lots of people weren't - egomaniac!

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I am a man of the people is what I'm saying. No-one I know was convinced as I recall. Or at least they weren't like: OMG a country has WMD!? We must invade it!!! Because it's a kind of non-sequitur...

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Enrique, you're pulling the 'well no one I know thinks that way' trick again. We all know your friends are great! So are mine.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't say 'friends' -- just people in my office. Jesus! Okay, some people were taken in perhaps, but even then -- what's the dealio-yo? So they had WMD? So do lots of hostile countries!

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

i (and i assume NRQ) know people who aren't my friends with whom i might discuss such issues N, i think you're heading into the realms of patronising the GBP here...

xpost

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Can I be a 'man of the people' too? Or do I have to be a 'hipster' in this game of Goodies and Baddies?

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

That's not the point, Enrique! See a million other threads for discussion of whether the war was right or wrong. You were arguing about the CIA guy saying that loads of people expected WMDs to be found - I was just questioning that!

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I just said 'friends' as jokey way of referring to the people ENRQ knows, based on previous threads. I would guess about a two thirds of the GBP thought that loads of WMDs would be found (a larger % that those who were actually in favour of the war). The figures would be higher in America.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Bugging the U.N.? Yawn. Why didn't the U.N. internal security sweep for bugs? Because it's a half-witted amateur organization.

― Skottie, Friday, 27 February 2004 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Yawn.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

oh god, i'm agreeing with momus and ENRQ here, what's going on...

(oh, GBP = great british public btw)

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Even I expected some evidence of WMDs (though not a 'vast flotsam', and proabably decaying, true)

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Can I be a 'man of the people' too? Or do I have to be a 'hipster' in this game of Goodies and Baddies?
-- Momus (nic...), February 27th, 2004.

I think for Cluster Gang solidarity it's imperative that you become a man of the people like moi.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

It's nothing to do with being patronising, btw. I'm not imagining the (American) polls from a few months ago that that actually showed that a sizeable proportion of Americans actually thought WMDs had been found, am I?

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I would guess about a two thirds of the GBP thought that loads of WMDs would be found.

Can we get a stats guy on this? It may well be true, I dunno. In any case, it's all about how ready those weapons were, how likely it was they would be used. I am moving away from whether people thought there were weapons and asking what they thought 'weapons' meant. Because quite obviously this has some bearing on their attitude to the 'fact' (as was) that Iraq had WMD.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

[repress urge to make "stupid septics" comment, which clearly won't help the discussion]

i can't remember what i'm arguing about now, this is why i don't usually get bogged down in this kind of thread, i was just surprised that people were surprised/shocked/indignant that our spies might be spying...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:15 (twenty-two years ago)

In any case, it's all about how ready those weapons were, how likely it was they would be used.

I agree, that that's what the issue of invading Iraq on the basis of intelligence about WMDs is 'all about'. It just wasn't what the issue was all about here. Anyway, I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I think for Cluster Gang solidarity it's imperative that you become a man of the people like moi.

Can't we resolve all contradictions by terrifying all the peoples of the earth into hipsterdom?

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't get your "septics" comment, Carsmile.

ie: the one that you did not make.

― the bluefox, Friday, 27 February 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Can't be done. By definish, not everyone can be a hipster.

x-large post

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

{septic tank = yank)

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Racist.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

By definish, not everyone can be a hipster.

But if hipsters can't be 'men of the people', not everybody can be a 'man of the people' either. How about you let me be a 'hipster of the people' or 'the People's Hipster'?

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Done and done. Grudgingly.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha I would have something to add to this thread but I've got to go do things today and I hate Momus and Enrique. Later haters.

― TOMBOT, Friday, 27 February 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

A big 'fuck you' too, whoever you are. I actually dig your posts when you're not being a right-wing loon, but wtf.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

A right wing loon? I don't think so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Hush, he's from the government!

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyway, the point of this thread being YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ADMIT SPYING ON PEOPLE. Whether they are your mates or your enemies and regardless of whether everyone knows full well it goes on. And to do so is a major diplomatic clanger, especially if you can't actually refute it.

Has anyone other than Blair officially responded to this yet?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned, yeah he is. Or would be in a UK context.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

10 Downing Street's official comments are here:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page5434.asp

The UN has said that if spying happens, spying must stop. Weapons inspectors are now saying they knew they were being bugged too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3492146.stm

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

R. Cook says that if anyone wanted to know where Kofi stood in relation to the different jockeying sides in the run-up to war, they could have just called him up and asked him. He's not exactly the lyin' kind. But this sounds like a red herring from Cook. I expect the hissing coming from his and Blair's direction has more to do with confidential stuff from OTHER countries, to which Kofi acted as a hub of deal-making and information. He's one of the few people with access to most of the cards.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 27 February 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

The UN has said that if spying happens, spying must stop

and if they don't there'll be NO JELLY AND ICE-CREAM FOR A WEEK...

what's the UN going to do if they don't stop, invade??

(oh dear, i'm on to bad rhetorical questions now...)

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

The 10 Downing Street site also allows you to e mail Tony Blair. But a note of caution:

'Please note that if the content of your message is private or personal, or you would like to receive a reply, you should write to the Prime Minister instead. The address is 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA. (The reason for this is that it is relatively easy to create a personal e-mail address without any identity checks. This creates a risk an individual could create an e-mail address in someone else's name and use it to gain access to confidential information.)'

Who knew it was so easy to gain access to confidential information? All you need, apparently, is a fake Hotmail address, like HMQueen@hotmail.com, and there's a real possibility that Tony might mail you back something secret in good faith.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 27 February 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

sounds like they've already been stung, doesn't it?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 27 February 2004 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd love to give Claire Short a sound thrashing. I hate to sound like the archetypal bad guy in a Harrison Ford film or something, but that girl does not see the big picture. And she's got a chip on her shoulder because Tony Blair dropped her. And she's ugly.

― Seán (Ireland), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)

It is quite clear this is not the SF or Toronto Sean.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Claire Short apologists?

― Seán (Ireland), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:10 (twenty-two years ago)

no this is séan

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:13 (twenty-two years ago)

(ireland)

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it was Marina Hyde in the Guardian who said (p/phrasing) about her: 'Short said (at the Channel 4 Political Awards) in tribute to Barbara Castle "we're very similar, her and I. We're both stubborn, tough, feircely independent women, and we both stand up for what we believe in" No Clare, you'ure a shameless self-publicizing loud mouth who doesn't have any of Castle's courage or conviction.'
I'm loath to criticize anyone who i don't know that much about (and everyone's ganging up on her anyway), but this was the first corrective i'd read about her by someone who'd followed her career, and a left-wing journalist to boot. Up until then the image i had of her was the one she described of herself.

― pete s, Friday, 27 February 2004 23:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Too true. I quite like the Guardian, they're not as unquestioningly liberal as the Independent. I hate the Independent, by the way

― Seán (Ireland), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:25 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.