“Secrets and Lies of an Old Empire”: Espionage Expert on the Scandal Shaking Britain
Confidential information has leaked, and London has found itself in deep trouble.
Old habits die hard in the former empire, writes Edward Lucas, longtime correspondent for The Economist from Berlin, Moscow, Vienna, and the Baltic states, and an internationally recognized expert on espionage, subversion, and the use and misuse of history, in an analysis for the Center for European Policy Analysis.
Murky commercial and intelligence interests in former colonies survived long after formal independence.
In the former imperial capital, secrecy and deception prevailed. How else could the fiction of global importance be maintained?
From intelligence agencies to special units, from nuclear deterrence to military disasters, from crimes to abuses – awkward questions were brushed aside with pompous words about “national security,” by frightening the public with stories of hostile foreign powers eager to seize such information, and, if necessary, through ruthless and broad use of the legal system.
No journalist, activist, or politician thinking independently would be so unpatriotic or so reckless as to poke into these serious matters of high state policy, Lucas argues.
Sound familiar? Many of these elements indeed fit into Russia’s history after 1991.
But recent events point to another candidate: the United Kingdom.
The biggest military and intelligence scandal in my country in recent decades concerns a database of 18,714 Afghans who applied for relocation after the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces in August 2021.
Their contact details, as well as the names of British special forces and intelligence officers who recommended them, were forwarded to some recipients outside state institutions via email sent in February 2022 by an unnamed Ministry of Defence official, allegedly in an attempt to check the eligibility of the applicants.
But when in August 2023 data on nine individuals from that database appeared online – with veiled threats that more information would be released – the government requested a court injunction to prevent further leaks to the public.
It also filed for a “super-injunction,” meaning it was illegal, under threat of severe punishment for contempt of court (including unlimited fines and imprisonment), for anyone, anywhere, to even mention the existence of the first injunction.
Now that the “super-injunction” has been lifted, the entire mess is coming to light.
In the shadow of that secrecy, about 15,000 Afghans – including some who likely did not meet relocation criteria – were brought to Britain under strict secrecy and at enormous cost (about £2 billion / $2.7 billion / €2.3 billion).
Another consequence of secrecy: many more deserving candidates are still languishing in Afghanistan, living in daily fear of being found and punished by the Taliban.
Explaining this to outsiders is quite difficult. How can a court so effectively silence public debate?
Had they found out about it, even MPs could not have raised the issue.
The Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were informed of the super-injunction’s existence.
But the Intelligence and Security Committee, the only body that independently oversees the security services, was never informed of any of this.
Super-injunctions are otherwise very rarely used, usually to protect the illegitimate children of public figures whose chances of a normal childhood depend on living away from media attention.
Never before had it been used to cover up an administrative error.
In the end, the system somewhat worked. Unlike in Vladimir Putin’s Russia (who really blew up those apartment blocks in Moscow and elsewhere in 1999?), the truth, more or less, came to light.
Perhaps some lower official will be fired or disciplined for the wrong email.
New rules on handling confidential information will be introduced (together, probably, with new ways to circumvent them).
Politicians will wave words around and evade responsibility. This extraordinary saga of incompetence, secrecy, waste, and injustice will remain for years a major stain on Britain’s reputation as a state of responsible, efficient, and ethical governance.
Enemies will mock. The whole story is fodder for conspiracy theorists (how many more super-injunctions exist?).
Allies will, rightly, question the trust they place in the country and its reliability regarding secrets and security, Lucas concludes.
