More on Spying for free trade

Lisa & Ian Murray seamus at accessone.com
Wed Jul 5 08:58:30 PDT 2000


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Americas/2000-07/coldwar020700.shtml

The new Cold War: How America spies on us for its oldest friend –

the Dollar

Exclusive: Documents shed light on US policy of covert

surveillance of British and European industry

By Duncan Campbell and Paul Lashmar

2 July 2000

It is the new Cold War. The United States intelligence agencies,

facing downsizing after the fall of the Berlin wall, have found

themselves a new role spying on foreign firms to help American

business in global markets.

Documents obtained by the Independent on Sunday reveal how the

CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) – propelled by the

newly-elected Clinton administration's policy of "aggressive

advocacy" to support American firms compete for overseas

contracts – have immersed themselves in the new hot trade war.

Targets have included UK and European firms. At stake are

contracts worth billions of dollars.

For America's spies an important tool has been the global

eavesdropping system known by the code name Echelon, which has

come to invoke the tag of the Big Brother of the cyberspace age.

Echelon is part of a British and American-run world-wide spy

system that can "suck up" phone calls, faxes and e-mails sent by

satellite. America's intelligence agencies have been able to

intercept these vital private communications, often between

foreign governments and European businesses, to help the US win

major contracts.

The implications of eavesdropping business communications are

dramatic, according to Dr Brian Gladman, a British former top

Nato computer expert.

"The analogy I use is where we were 250 years ago with pirates on

the high seas. Governments never admitted they sponsored piracy,

yet they all did behind the scenes. If we now look at cyberspace

we have state-sponsored information piracy. We can't have a

global e-commerce until governments like the US stop

state-sponsored theft of commercial information," he says.

Britain's role in Echelon, via its ultra-secret eavesdropping

agency GCHQ, has put Tony Blair's government in the dock facing

its European partners.

European politicians meet on Wednesday in Strasbourg and Berlin

to call for inquiries into electronic espionage by the US to beat

competitors. These debates follow two years of controversy about

Echelon as its astonishing power has gradually been revealed.

But the real origin of the current row lies in the early

Nineties, when US politicians and intelligence chiefs decided

that the formidable but under-employed Cold War US intelligence

apparatus should be redirected against its allies' economies.

At stake was not just routine international trade, but new

opportunities created by the demise of communism and fast-growing

markets in countries that US trade officials dubbed "BEMs" – Big

Emerging Markets, such as China, Brazil and Indonesia.

Perhaps the most startling result of the new Clinton policy came

in January 1994, when the then French Prime Minister Edouard

Balladur flew to Riyadh to conclude a $6bn (£4bn) deal for arms,

airliners and maintenance, including sales of the European

Airbus. He flew home empty-handed.

The Baltimore Sun later reported that "from a commercial

communications satellite, NSA lifted all the faxes and

phone-calls between the European consortium Airbus, the Saudi

national airline and the Saudi government. The agency found that

Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official. It passed

the information to US officials pressing the bid of Boeing Co."

Clinton's government intervened with the Saudis and the contract

went to Boeing.

A second contract where US intelligence played a decisive role

concerned Brazil. In 1994, NSA intercepted phone-calls between

France's Thomson-CSF and Brazil concerning SIVAM, a $1.4bn

surveillance system for the Amazon rain forest. The company was

alleged to have bribed members of the Brazilian government

selection panel. The contract was awarded to the US Raytheon

Corporation – which announced afterwards that "the Department of

Commerce worked very hard in support of US industry on this project".

This is just one of hundreds of "success" stories openly boasted

by the US Government's "Advocacy Center" up to the present day.

They do not say where the CIA or NSA was decisive in winning the

contract, but often brag of beating UK, European or Japanese competitors.

Cases where the US "beat British" competitors include power

generation, engineering and telecommunications contracts in the

Philippines, Malawi, Peru, Tunisia and the Lebanon. In India, the

CIA tracked British competitive strategies in a competition to

built a 700MW power station near Bombay. In January 1995, the

$400m contract was awarded to the US companies Enron, GE and Bechtel.

Also in 1995, General Electric Power Systems won a $120m tender

to build a plant in Tunisia. "They beat intense competition from

French, German, Italian and British firms for the project," the

Center boasts.

Documents and information obtained by the IoS show that the

critical question of whether US intelligence should

systematically help business was resolved after the election of

Clinton in 1993. He appointed key Democratic National Party

fund-raisers, including the late Secretary of State for Commerce,

Ron Brown, to senior posts and launched a policy "to aggressively

support US bidders in global competitions where advocacy is in

the national interest". Soon, every US government department,

from the Bureau of Mines to the CIA and the giant, super-secret

National Security Agency, was playing a role in landing contracts

for the booming US economy.

The new policy, dubbed "levelling the playing field" by the

Clinton administration, included arrangements for collecting,

receiving and handling secret intelligence to use to benefit US commerce.

Three Sigint (signals intelligence) reports obtained by the IoS

are economic in nature. One details messages between Banque

Nationale de Paris offices in France and Delhi, concerned with

loans to build an atomic power station near Madras. A second

gives details of OPEC negotiations, including French diplomatic messages.

A 1997 report details phone calls and faxes between Pakistani

officials in Islamabad and Beijing, and laments that the

Chinese-based official was told to send future messages by the

diplomatic pouch. The report warns that if this order was obeyed,

it would "severely limit our ability to monitor". All the reports

are classified "TOP SECRET UMBRA", indicating that

highly-sensitive monitoring techniques were used to get the information.

The heart of the new, co-ordinated Clinton trade campaign is the

"Advocacy Center" inside the Department of Commerce. The Center

is run by the "Trade Promotion Co-ordinating Committee", part of

the US Department of Commerce. Declassified minutes of the Trade

Promotion Co-ordinating Committee from 1994 show that the CIA's

role in drumming up business for the US was not limited to

looking for bribery, or even lobbying by foreign governments. For

a series of meetings dealing with Indonesia, 16 officials were

circulated with information. Five of the officials were from the

CIA. Three of the five worked inside the Commerce Department

itself, in a department called the "Office of Executive Support".

The fifth, Robert Beamer, was from CIA headquarters.

The "Office of Executive Support" is, in reality, a high-security

office located inside the Commerce Department. It is staffed by CIA officials with top-secret security clearances and equipped

with direct links from US intelligence agencies. Until recently,

it was known, more revealingly, as the "Office of Intelligence Liaison".

According to Loch K Johnson, a staff member of the US

intelligence reform commission set up in 1993, officials at the

departments of Commerce, Treasury and State pass information to

US companies without revealing the intelligence source. "At

Commerce, there's no code or book to consult to say when and what

information can be passed to a US company," he says.

If, for instance, a government official learned that a foreign

competitor was about to win a contract sought by a US company, he

explained, "someone in Commerce might call a US executive and

say: 'Look, you might have a better shot at that contract if you

sweetened your bid a little,'" Johnson added. "They pass on the

information. But they usually do it in a very veiled fashion."

In 1994, a report to the Congressional (house) intelligence

committee said that the "core of the intelligence community in

this area [industrial espionage] has focused on alerting US

policymakers about government-to-government lobbying efforts to

disadvantage US firms seeking international trade. "A review of

intelligence reporting since 1986 has identified about 250 cases

of aggressive lobbying by foreign governments on behalf of their

domestic industries that are competing against US firms for

business overseas", the report stated, adding that since the

start of the Clinton administration, 72 cases involving $30bn had

been under intelligence scrutiny.

In a March article for the Wall Street Journal, entitled "Why we

spy on our allies", former CIA director James Woolsey claimed

there was only one reason why the CIA tracked European companies.

"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing." he

wrote. "We have spied on you because you bribe. Your companies'

products are often more costly, less technically advanced, or

both, than your American competitors."

Yet some of the earliest deals clinched by US "advocacy" with CIA

support are among the most corrupt deals of all time. In 1994,

President Clinton signed off on $40bn of business agreements

between Indonesia and US firms on one day. Among the deals was a

$2.6bn power plant at Paiton, Java. At the time the contract was

signed, the US knew one of President Suharto's daughters had been

cut in on the deal, and was given a stake in the project worth

more than $150m.

Two months ago, the directors of the CIA and NSA appeared before

the US Congress intelligence committee. CIA director George Tenet

told the Committee: "With respect to allegations of industrial

espionage, the notion that we collect intelligence to promote

American business interests is simply wrong. We do not target

foreign companies to support American business interests.

"If we did this, where would we draw the line? Which companies

would we help? Corporate giants? The little guy? All of them? I

think we quickly would get into a mess"

Three years before European politicians had heard about ECHELON,

news of how the satellite spy system was gaining business for the

US was revealed in the US. A May 1995 report by NBC news said

that the US National Security Agency was intercepting business

faxes and phone calls from stations in the US, the UK and Hong Kong.

Earlier this year, NBC published more revelations about how US

intelligence has been spying for business. For the original

reports see 'U.S. spying pays off for business', by Robert

Windrem (14 April 2000) and 'U.S. steps up commercial spying', by

Robert Windrem (7 May 2000)


> Robert Windrem of NBC News contributed to this report.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list