ASIO chief Mike Burgess used very strong words. Understandably current and former politicians, yours truly included, were aghast at the cloud now cast over so many completely innocent people. Who "sold out" was the coffee table question of the week.
$0/
(min cost $0)
Login or signup to continue reading
Looking back perhaps there are much more interesting questions to ask. Burgess is highly regarded.
A very smart thinking individual. So we might assume this was not, as some have suggested, a remark designed to get ASIO decent publicity or ticks in the budget process.
He'd get publicity anyway and what he said wouldn't be news to a few key ministers. Added to which, to cast so many under suspicion for that would be a big loss of credibility for no gain. So that isn't it.
Nor, incidentally, is it news to anyone that countries use best endeavours to get information on each other and use that information. That's why we have intelligence services. To watch others and watch them watching us.
That some of the work being done by others on us is sophisticated is also old news. Anyone with a passing interest can see what ASPI have been saying for years. So where's the news?
He might have found himself in the position ministers are often in, between a rock and a hard place. When the intelligence services find people trying to gain inappropriate influence, they have a number of options. The aim is to bring the inappropriate activity to an end. Yes, they'll try and start up again, but disrupting them is the name of the game.
The national interest rightly puts disruption of the enemy as number one. Naming and shaming whichever dopes, egomaniacs or treacherous, greedy individuals have fallen into the enemy trap comes a clear second. So naming, shaming or prosecuting Australians caught in the mess might make us feel better and may be an appropriate option. But disruption is the aim.
One way to disrupt such an enemy would be to let them know that we're on to them, and inviting them indirectly to move on. Yes, their replacement will have another go. But at least it disrupts the influence and sets the other side back. That's been done and thus doesn't explain these current remarks.
Or you could do something like we see in movies and let our own intelligence people be "seen" watching the thought-to-be clandestine activities. The influencer then goes back to his or her embassy and whispers, "they're on to us". That's been done.
No doubt, there's an option to use what you know to learn as much as you can about the breadth and depth of the clandestine activity and let on only a fraction of what you know. That probably provides "play you at your own game" opportunities. That's been done.
Then there's the nuclear option. Out the whole thing and, in particular, the Australian involved. Put the cards, or a lot of them, on the table. That can get ugly. The nightmare of deciding how much of what you know to reveal to the "enemy".
The inevitable protestations from the country's ambassador asserting that they never use non-declared intelligence people inappropriately. The outrage as people are declared persona non grata and required to leave.
Then there's the blowback. "We'll declare some of yours in our country persona non grata as well". Tit-for-tat childishness is played out as it has been for decades.
If the country is one where they have loads of English speaking diplomats and our numbers proficient in their language are limited, it can be awkward. And expensive.
Now of all the people who might be on a list of most discussed possibilities for having sold out. Think from the least, up to the most high profile. The consequences for the put-it-all-on-the-table, nuclear option rise with the profile of the Australian who sold out.
Alleging another country compromised someone important, but not terribly so, is one thing. Compromising someone higher up the chain is a much more serious allegation. The higher you go, the worse it gets. So does the blowback.
Years ago Labor went through the Combe-Ivanov affair.
Scandals are like fishing nets, they draw people in. David Combe was a Labor administrator. He was neither a member of parliament nor a minister, but his connections to them made him a target. The fallout was spectacular. Imagine if he had been a minister.
Now imagine the country is a big trading partner. Oops. Forgot to say with a glass jaw. Trade sanctions, port slow downs, student travel, increased import inspections and almost any number of aggravations could come in to play. Think millions, maybe billions, of dollars impacting on Australia. That would possibly fall on farmers, miners, shareholders, universities. The list goes on. On reflection naming and shaming might give a short, passing pleasure followed by an ocean of pain. Which would you choose?
That still leaves the question of why say what he said now if this was already dealt with. If it was just a back-covering exercise, it's not covered him in glory.
He could have let Australians know that they were onto clandestine efforts to compromise our parliamentarians without using such strong and specific language.
READ MORE:
If this was as he says already dealt with why raise it in such a high-profile way now. It's just a guess, but if the so called A-team had not got the "back off" message clearly enough, then a strong public statement might be a way of letting them know that we know. Without actually saying it. The message wasn't for us but for the enemy who was unwisely still sniffing around.
Hard-earned money shouldn't be wasted betting, not in my opinion. But if you're looking for short odds on who it was, I'd look for a higher profile than you might imagine. The cost of outing has been judged as not worth it. To narrow that down, look for someone who's not as keen to speak out as they were in the past. That should reduce the field.
Having thought Burgess had unfairly cast aspersions far too widely, I now wonder if he had to make a difficult choice to protect a greater interest than us wanting to see a villain vilified. He had to choose the national interest over national curiosity. If that's right, make him Australian of the Year.
Just one more point, a thread hanging is something some people find irresistible. Burgess would know that. Perhaps he knows the media won't rest until the villain is effectively outed, but not verified by ASIO. Burgess could then have his cake and eat it too. Poor sod. Right now it must feel a bit like the sandwich with a filling that rhymes with grit.
Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She hosts Counterpoint on ABC Radio National and writes fortnightly for ACM.
Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She hosts Counterpoint on ABC Radio National and writes fortnightly for ACM.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
