Covert action is an acceptable extension of national power

[irishmick79]

Since the anarcho-libertarianism debate in the Coliseum has apparently fizzled into an HOS fest, I was thinking the above might be an interesting debate topic for SD.net to cover, since the basic question of whether covert action is legal or moral emerges in various forms here in News and Politics.

How exactly would you define covert action? How should countries utilizing covert action be viewed in the context of international law? Is it legal? Is it moral? Are there acceptable international norms in regards to covert action, if so what are they?

What do you all think? Anybody interested in doing something like this?

[Nathaniel]

It would be possible to have the debate but there would have to be very specific definitions of terms like "national power", "acceptable", and "moral". Otherwise the whole thing would turn into a semantics bar-fight. Would you like to offer some definitions?

[irishmick79]

Sure, although I'm flexible on the language. As I was re-reading the topic I proposed, I realized some potential issues with the language which might need to be ironed out to make the debate more meaningful. 'National Power' in particular is a bit problematic, since power in international relations has generally been articulated by the realist school of thought on international relations, and consequently insinuates a whole series of ideas about state interaction.

'National power' - the ability of a state to move global opinion in the direction it desires, through the threat and possible use of military action, economic action or coercion, and political persuasion or coercion.

I'm actually thinking about ditching the moral part of the question all together, or maybe changing the language to 'just' or something like that. Morality really isn't defined in an international law context that well, and including that language presumes a lot. Justice is something that's on firmer ground, at least from a legal perspective.

I would define 'acceptable' as not coming into conflict with principles in the UN charter and recognized international law. That's a vague definition, I know, and it can definitely be improved upon.

[Sea Skimmer]

How exactly would you define covert action? How should countries utilizing covert action be viewed in the context of international law? Is it legal? Is it moral? Are there acceptable international norms in regards to covert action, if so what are they?

Not a bad idea, but I think we’d need to aim for a tighter more specific topic to make a good debate, because peoples positions would depend an awful lot on what the covert action was. The tapping of Soviet submerged phone cables via submarine laid pod for example, is not something most people view in the same light as extraordinary rendition, and yet both are covert actions designed to gather human intelligence.

[irishmick79]

How exactly would you define covert action? How should countries utilizing covert action be viewed in the context of international law? Is it legal? Is it moral? Are there acceptable international norms in regards to covert action, if so what are they?

Not a bad idea, but I think we’d need to aim for a tighter more specific topic to make a good debate, because peoples positions would depend an awful lot on what the covert action was. The tapping of Soviet submerged phone cables via submarine laid pod for example, is not something most people view in the same light as extraordinary rendition, and yet both are covert actions designed to gather human intelligence.

Wouldn't the submarine pods be considered SIGINT more than human intel?

I agree, the topic probably should be narrowed. I do think it would be more interesting to focus on the international theory behind covert action rather than focusing on the legality or morality of a specific program, though. What I hope we can do has have a debate on the broader questions of covert action, and use the debate to put the discussions on specific programs into some sort of context or framework.

Maybe something like "planners of covert action should show concern for human rights law in their designs." or something like that. That way, we can get a good realism vs. idealism debate going, and see where it goes from there.

[Sidewinder]

Maybe something like "planners of covert action should show concern for human rights law in their designs." or something like that. That way, we can get a good realism vs. idealism debate going, and see where it goes from there.

Problem: Political leaders authorize covert action for PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, i.e., they can say, "I know nothing about that," when reporters ask, "Did you order [insert nation here] soldiers to go [insert human rights violation here]?" Covert action is COVERT because the people authorizing it wants to say, "Fuck [insert enemy here]'s rights! Let's just [insert human rights violation here] them all!"

[irishmick79]

Maybe something like "planners of covert action should show concern for human rights law in their designs." or something like that. That way, we can get a good realism vs. idealism debate going, and see where it goes from there.

Problem: Political leaders authorize covert action for PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, i.e., they can say, "I know nothing about that," when reporters ask, "Did you order [insert nation here] soldiers to go [insert human rights violation here]?" Covert action is COVERT because the people authorizing it wants to say, "Fuck [insert enemy here]'s rights! Let's just [insert human rights violation here] them all!"

Point taken. The deniability aspect of covert action does present a problem, although I think that the thrust of the debate should focus on the legality or illegality of covert action in the first place. Sure, there's a lot of deniability and obfuscation surrounding covert action. The question is what should the international community do about it? Does it have the right to do anything? Should it do anything?

How about "The international community should develop and strengthen legal principles and standards regarding covert action." as a topic?

As I have been researching, I'm realizing that this might be a fairly ambitious topic for a debate. The literature on international law and espionage is pretty slim, virtually non-existent. If the literature focuses on anything, it tends to focus on intelligence gathering and traditional espionage activities rather than discussing full-blown covert action. This could complicate matters greatly.

[Darth Wong]

As a general statement, it's fair to say that covert actions generally involve very precisely targeted actions rather than broad-scale action, and henceforth generally produce less destruction than overt military action. If that is taken to be the case, then I'd say that there is better moral justification for covert action than overt action.

[irishmick79]

As a general statement, it's fair to say that covert actions generally involve very precisely targeted actions rather than broad-scale action, and henceforth generally produce less destruction than overt military action. If that is taken to be the case, then I'd say that there is better moral justification for covert action than overt action.

Would you say the CIA's operations against Salvador Allende in Chile were precise, or broad-ranging actions designed to bring down his government? Or how about CIA's actions against President Sukarno in Indonesia? It's been argued that the CIA's actions in Indonesia in particular supported President Suharto's crackdown on the communists, and the resultant slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians.

That's why this needs to be fleshed out more - the international and legal consequences of covert action can be profound and widespread, even though the covert actions in question might have been intended to apply to a narrower set of goals.

[Darth Wong]

That's a fair point; even a precisely targeted action could potentially have far-reaching consequences. But then again, inaction can also potentially have far-reaching consequences, and most people are very reluctant to attach the kind of moral reproach to inaction that they do to action, whether it is covert or overt.

[irishmick79]

That's a fair point; even a precisely targeted action could potentially have far-reaching consequences. But then again, inaction can also potentially have far-reaching consequences, and most people are very reluctant to attach the kind of moral reproach to inaction that they do to action, whether it is covert or overt.

Which brings us back to the question of plausible deniability. Should people be more suspicious of inaction in certain circumstances than in others? The CIA had supported military rebellions in Indonesia since at least 1958, and had actively been engaged in supporting political parties opposed to President Sukarno throughout the early 60's. The US military trained General Suharto before he took power in 1965 through military aid programs they had established with Indonesia - the US government knew what kind of man he was, and probably had an idea of how he'd react in certain situations. When General Suharto cracked down on the the communists and the US government did nothing to stop him from killing thousands, what should we infer from the US government's inaction?

Granted, there's a lot of guesswork and assumptions in that statement, but since virtually all of the documentation on the matter is either highly classified or has been destroyed, I'm left with little choice.

Also, I don't mean to focus specifically on the role of the CIA and the US government in covert warfare. I simply focus on them because their actions have had the most profound consequences since the end of WWII, and they have been arguably the most active player in covert operations.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I am not sure if attaching morality and legality to covert action will serve much. Covert action is largely meant to serve the state. Whether or not it is at all costs, regardless of the far reaching needs of others, or whether or not it is for the good of all, is a matter of the intent. As with all things in the service of the state, things get incredibly grey where right and wrong is incredibly blurred.

[Sidewinder]

The question is what should the international community do about it? Does it have the right to do anything? Should it do anything?

A better question is CAN the international community do anything about it? In the case of the former USSR and the USA, the answer was either "Shut up and look the other way!" or "This means war!" i.e., the nations engaging in covert actions can also enforce the effects of these actions with strong and overt actions, e.g., after an opposing government is successfully overthrown, offer military and economic aid to the new, allied government.