countezero
07-11-08, 08:25 PM
I came across what I view to be an interesting moral dilemma in Stansfield Turner's book Secrecy and Democracy: The CIA in Transition.
The dilemma I am referring to deals with the appropriate level of involvement between the nation's intelligence community and private businesses. Turner believes the CIA and the IC "would do well" to cultivate better relations with businesses. In the book, he advocates sharing declassified versions of analysis reports with businesses. From reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars and Ahmed Rashid's Taliban, I'm aware that the CIA briefed American companies vying to build a natural gas pipeline on the political situations in Afghanistan, but I'm not clear on whether the agency actually collected intelligence for them.
Turner also describes an incident when a case officer obtained information pertaining to the bids concerning major procurement project. One of the firms involved was American. Turner writes that he saw it as a "great opportunity" to help an American business, but nothing was done because the agency lacked a procedure for doing anything along those lines. Talking about the "importance of our economic health to our position in the world," Turner said he ordered the agency to begin collection commercial intelligence in several countries, but was met with strong resistance from agency chiefs. He concludes by writing that "it is a sensitive and risky area, but we should not shy away from it because of that. The benefits to our country are too significant for us not to strive to surmount those risks."
To me, given the rise of globalism and the connections between energy, economics and security, it seems obvious the IC should help our businesses interests. The question then becomes how closely should America's IC be allied with the country's businesses? China's services, for example, work a great deal in the arena of corporate espionage. Should the US be doing the same? And when does it become problematic? We are all well aware of the conflict of interest allegations surrounding a certain fruit company and the 1950s coup in Guatemala. More recently, vice-president Cheney's connections with Haliburton and no-bid contracts have raised eyebrows in some circles.
Personally, I am at a loss how to assess this very real dilemma. Turner's argument is pursuasive, but the cynic in me worries that if the IC becomes involved in helping corporate interests, it will warp into something akin to a praetorian guard for the wealthy men and women who control many of the nation's prominent economic interests. This, according to the 1947 charter, is not the CIA's purpose, though a lawyer could quibble with that assertion, perhaps successfully...
The dilemma I am referring to deals with the appropriate level of involvement between the nation's intelligence community and private businesses. Turner believes the CIA and the IC "would do well" to cultivate better relations with businesses. In the book, he advocates sharing declassified versions of analysis reports with businesses. From reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars and Ahmed Rashid's Taliban, I'm aware that the CIA briefed American companies vying to build a natural gas pipeline on the political situations in Afghanistan, but I'm not clear on whether the agency actually collected intelligence for them.
Turner also describes an incident when a case officer obtained information pertaining to the bids concerning major procurement project. One of the firms involved was American. Turner writes that he saw it as a "great opportunity" to help an American business, but nothing was done because the agency lacked a procedure for doing anything along those lines. Talking about the "importance of our economic health to our position in the world," Turner said he ordered the agency to begin collection commercial intelligence in several countries, but was met with strong resistance from agency chiefs. He concludes by writing that "it is a sensitive and risky area, but we should not shy away from it because of that. The benefits to our country are too significant for us not to strive to surmount those risks."
To me, given the rise of globalism and the connections between energy, economics and security, it seems obvious the IC should help our businesses interests. The question then becomes how closely should America's IC be allied with the country's businesses? China's services, for example, work a great deal in the arena of corporate espionage. Should the US be doing the same? And when does it become problematic? We are all well aware of the conflict of interest allegations surrounding a certain fruit company and the 1950s coup in Guatemala. More recently, vice-president Cheney's connections with Haliburton and no-bid contracts have raised eyebrows in some circles.
Personally, I am at a loss how to assess this very real dilemma. Turner's argument is pursuasive, but the cynic in me worries that if the IC becomes involved in helping corporate interests, it will warp into something akin to a praetorian guard for the wealthy men and women who control many of the nation's prominent economic interests. This, according to the 1947 charter, is not the CIA's purpose, though a lawyer could quibble with that assertion, perhaps successfully...