In their warning about threats to Western interests, the MI6 and CIA chiefs only reveal the dangerous and reactionary agenda of imperialism, argues John Clarke

This month, in what was obviously a carefully calculated move, the heads of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the UK Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) penned a joint article in the Financial Times. Bill Burns and Richard Moore sounded a warning about threats to the international order coming from the key rivals of the US-led Western powers. According to them, these threats are at a level unseen since the cold war.

Though the article contains a very full measure of bluster and bravado, it is also a very revealing piece of work that speaks to the nature and present aims of the highly intertwined British and American intelligence networks. Indeed, it sets out some very specific objectives and strategic priorities that are well worth taking note of.

‘Special relationship’

The two begin by stressing how durable the highly prized relationship between their respective organisations has been. It stretches back to the CIA’s formation in 1947 but earlier forms of intelligence cooperation emerged as long ago as 1909. As they lovingly put it, this ‘partnership lies at the beating heart of the special relationship between our countries. We have no more trusted or esteemed allies.’

Having worked together during two world wars, the Cold War and the more recent war on terror, the two intelligence services have now concluded that ‘the challenges of the past are being accelerated in the present, and compounded by technological change. Today, we co-operate in a contested international system where our two countries face an unprecedented array of threats.’

Burns and Moore tell us that the ‘CIA and SIS stand together in resisting an assertive Russia and Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine.’ They insist that their work enabled them to ‘warn the international community so we could all rally to Ukraine’s defence.’ Thanks, in large measure to their efforts, ‘Putin will not succeed in extinguishing Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.’

Having made these rather bold claims, they suggest that there is an increased need for intelligence operations in conflicts like the one unfolding in Ukraine, which is ‘the first war of its kind to combine open-source software with cutting-edge battlefield technology, harnessing commercial and military satellite imagery, drone technology, high and low sophistication cyber warfare, social media, open-source intelligence, uncrewed aerial and seaborne vehicles and information operations — as well as human and signals intelligence — at such incredible pace and scale.’

The article makes clear that the Ukrainian proxy war is only part of a larger effort to counter Russian influence: ‘… we continue to work together to disrupt the reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe being waged by Russian intelligence, and its cynical use of technology to spread lies and disinformation designed to drive wedges between us.’

Their response to Russia, however, as extensive as it has been, is not their primary focus. Though ‘counterterrorism’ is still an important component of their work, ‘the rise of China is the principal intelligence and geopolitical challenge of the 21st century, and we have reorganised our services to reflect that priority.’ Having made this important acknowledgement, the two intelligence chiefs aren’t as forthcoming as they were in the case of Russia, and we are left to wonder just what kind of reorganising has taken place with regard to their main global rival.

When it comes to Israel’s assault on Gaza and the threat of regional conflagration, Burns and Moore assure us that ‘SIS and the CIA have exploited our intelligence channels to push hard for restraint and de-escalation … We continue to work together to deescalate tensions in the region.’ It is regrettable but hardly surprising that they don’t include in their list of glowing achievements the intelligence support they provide to Israel that enables its aggression in Gaza and across the region, which has been ably documented by Declassified UK. Still, there is no doubt that they are pointing correctly to a major field of operations for their two agencies.

The article makes clear that maintaining ‘technological advantage is vital to ensuring our shared intelligence advantage’ and that this involves ‘a network of partnerships with the private sector.’ They tell us that AI and cloud technologies are being employed to navigate a vast sea of data efficiently and ‘ensure we can still stay secret when we need to.’ This adaptation to the latest technology enables them, as they put it, ‘to stop the bombs, end the violence and inform us of our adversaries’ intent.’

The two intelligence chiefs conclude their message with a suitably framed declaration of their intent to pursue the agenda of global rivalry relentlessly. They warn us that ‘the international world order — the balanced system that has led to relative peace and stability and delivered rising living standards, opportunities and prosperity — is under threat in a way we haven’t seen since the cold war.’ However, ‘successfully combating this risk is at the very foundation of our special relationship’ and we can all count on their ‘shared determination to remain champions for global peace and security.’

In his The Covert Colour Line: The Racialised Politics of Western Intelligence (Pluto Press 2023), Oliver Kearns considers how ‘the intellectual tools used by practitioners to measure good or bad intelligence are most certainly biased, have been shaped by U.S. and British imperial history, and prevent us from understanding how intelligence makes global inequalities and state violence appear plausible and legitimate’ (p.1).

To those who run the intelligence networks in Washington and London, the global order that they help to preserve, no matter how exploitative, violent and destructive it may be, is equated with a stability and moral superiority that is to be defended at all costs. Correspondingly, there is an unquestioning assumption that rival powers or those who seek to rid themselves of Western domination are fundamentally irrational, conniving and aggressive perpetrators in any confrontation. The article by Burns and Moore entirely supports the perspective that Kearns advances in his book.

It is necessary, however, to challenge the self-righteous account of Western intelligence that the article in the Financial Times puts forward. Responsible Statecraft has asked, with regard to the role of the CIA in Ukraine, why ‘is this not seen as a provocation?’ An article written in this journal in February of this year documents ‘the establishment of as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases” along Ukraine’s border with Russia’ more than ten years ago. Long before Putin’s invasion, the CIA was working to ensure that ‘Ukraine [would] play the role of an anti-Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank.’

In November 2021, MI6 head Richard Moore gave a talk at an event organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in which he made it abundantly clear that he and his counterparts in Washington were preparing for a confrontation with China over Taiwan that would be much like the situation that has unfolded in Ukraine.

Advancing the standard line that the West’s adversaries are irrational and malevolent, Moore suggested that the Chinese leadership was risking a confrontation for which it would carry responsibility. As he put it during his speech, ‘Beijing believes its own propaganda about western frailties and underestimates Washington’s resolve. The risk of Chinese miscalculation through over-confidence is real.’

The intelligence partnership that Burns and Moore see as ‘the beating heart of the special relationship’ between the US and the UK is a very reactionary and dangerous one indeed. That it is being advanced so publicly at the present time is also very telling. The treasured relationship between the CIA and MI6 was firmly cemented at the very point at which US imperialism decisively replaced its British counterpart as the hegemonic global power. To-day, however, under highly volatile and deeply uncertain conditions, the once unbreakable grip of the US is weakening.

In the context of increasing global rivalry, most sharply expressed by the rising power of China, the principal intelligence agency of the US and its junior partner in the UK have partly emerged from the shadows to provide a glimpse of the role they will play in preserving the still dominant but declining power of the US-led West. We have seen the dreadful implications of this in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and now in Gaza and we should view the article by Burns and Moore as a very dangerous warning of what is to come.