Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

Could you describe - without giving up any details you aren't allowed to, of course - what a typical day (or week, or assignment, or whatever unit of time is most appropriate) is like for an intelligence agent?

[MJK] Somehow our job as intelligence officers has its dose of routine. Intelligence officers are, by trade, analysts. We are responsible to collect, assess and analyze information. So a good amount of time is spent behind a desk. Ultimately, we must inform the government, our boss, of the issues and threats against us. Our days are directed towards fulfilling our main function (we can be investigators, analysts, technical support, etc.). Operations are fun and give you a kick of adrenaline, but we are not always involved in an operation. Our sole purpose is to find information and to analyze it. In the end, arresting terrorists or foreign spies will be the job of the police in Canada. The Intelligence Service will only collect the information, transform it into intelligence and keep the watch.

How accurately are real spy agencies depicted in the movies? Obviously many spy movies are plain silly, but do any of them get it right?

[MJK] Well, we don't have as many good looking girls! Joking aside, although the technical gadgets exist, we don't always use them. Pure and simple "foot work" (meeting with people and good research) is the best -- what we call humint (for human intelligence). Signint (signal intelligence) is used but cannot be accepted as-is. Everything must be double-checked, preferably with a human source. The technical gadgets are more to process the information. Some agencies have more sophisticated gadgets but again, this will be more in the area of communication and data processing capability.

After 9/11, Al-Qaeda has been described as a highly organized terrorist network of almost epic proportions, with sleeper cells in most western countries, constantly plotting new attacks. However, many (for example the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares") are now saying that Al-Qaeda as an organization doesn't actually exist, and that what we are seeing are multiple small, independent terrorist organizations which share the same islamist ideology but otherwise have little or nothing to do with each other. Bin Ladens role is mostly as a funder of some of these groups, while Al-Zawahiri contributes to the political and religious framework for radical islamism, but otherwise they have little to do with the actual planning and execution of terrorist attacks. What are your thoughts on this?

[MJK] Partially true, but not totally. Al-Qaeda exists and has its structure, but particularly since 9-11 many groups embraced the cause. They are sometimes not even related or in contact with Al-Qaeda. This is unfortunately a side effect of the Western world's response to 9-11. It created a new generation of terrorism. Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way supporting what was done and I have no sympathy for anybody using terrorism as a way to express their grievances. But the Western world could be wiser about the issue. Terrorism is motivated by some political, socio-economic or cultural/religious differences (contrary to organized crime that is motivated by greed and money). Understand the motivations and remove them, and you will remove the will to fight. We must protect ourselves and face the immediate threat, but a response only based on law enforcement or military intervention will not resolve the conflict. We must demonstrate with concrete action that we are seriously commited to correcting the wrongs (that is not to say that Western world is responsible for all evil) and give a chance to the moderates to score points.

What's your opinion of the security threat posed to the U.S. and Canada in the next ten to fifty years by China?

[MJK] China is using all its means to position itself as a super power. It is a threat, maybe the most serious one, against the U.S. and Canada, but not the only one. It is the most serious one because it is not well understood by North Americans and is so well planned that it is capable of beating us at our own game. China is not a threat on the military level but rather on the commercial level, more like economic security. Anybody who says that China has some military view on us has been smoking bad stuff for too long. China understands that influence is a greater power than control. Military people seek control -- that's what they are and what they do. But that demands a lot of energy (Sun Tzu 101). Influence is gained by political and commercial power. Chinese people might have a communist government but they invented capitalism a thousand years ago. Just see their economic success to realize that they understand the game much better than us. At the end of the day, the world will be Chinese.

Can we expect government agencies to protect Canadians against terrorism without negating the rights of those accused of such acts? Should the accused have rights or should we just throw away the key? What is the price of our tolerant ideals and behaviors? Is the price set by whether we are affected personally?

What is Terrorism? Is an act of violence, that is perceived as an act of self preservation, a terrorist act or is it retaliation? Who labels what is a terrorist act? Are we labelling terrorism from a universal perspective or from our own western point of view?

[MJK] You bring some important and yet old debates to the front. I agree that the label of terrorism is often used in a demagogic way by the opposite side. But one thing is clear in my book -- regardless of who does it or how it is done (military maneuvers or one guy action), when civilians are killed, this is terrorism for me. Cut the bullshit of "collateral damage" or "they did it to my people". Both are demagogic rhetoric to justify a crime. No one has the right to kill the civilians. You got beef against a group, take it with the one who carries weapons but don't touch the civilians, even if they are supporting the group you don't like.

As for the right of the people accused of terrorism, I agree again. We must protect them, but within the framework of the legal system. The system should protect against abuse of rights. That demands permanent monitoring and control. In other words, the end does not justify the means. For that reason, we must all be sure that we don't over-do it in the attempt to protect ourselves by throwing away our civil rights or justice procedures. But here again the debate is much bigger then just terrorism. It is all about the way we "administrate" justice. Too much leniency will also lead to abuse of rights or protection for the victim. We must constantly revisit our actions and try to find the right balance.

Let me use a simple analogy. One day you become a parent and you decide that you will not raise your kids by hitting them. You make that decision when everything is going well. But eventually there will come a day when your children behave like little monsters. It is only then that your principles really become tested. That does not mean you will not have to take action, maybe serious action too, but you will have to do it with a cool head. What I am trying to say is that we must be careful how we react. That does not mean we are supporting or endorsing what was done. If somebody has chosen terrorism, they must be ready to suffer the full weight of our indignation.

Do you believe mainstream media-coverage to properly reflect the state of the world today? Would you say that there is a fairly proportional relation between coverage of international issues and the actual importance of the issues, or do you think that the media is often used as a political tool to set the international agenda and to limit the range of political debate?

[MJK] The way the media acts or, in some cases, are used varies according to country and social practices. In some places where media are controlled by the state, yup, they are used big-time. In some other places, they might not be controlled by the government but are equally manipulated. In the end (and I am talking about the Western world now), the media have also their responsibilities.

Unfortunately, we see too often media leaders looking at selling rather then informing. The public is also partially responsible because they too often ask for sensationalist news. We live in a world of fast food, fast life, and fast consumption of everything (even relationships). So in the end, it is almost logical to see the media going for fast deliveries. But if we consume information too quickly, we don't properly reflect on things. We jump to conclusions and don't go beyond our our initial perceptions, when there is often something else behind.

Just as our your mom often told you to take the time to chew your food, and eat good food, so too must you take the time to read, and read good information.

We have been told by our governments since 9/11 that we must give up some of our rights and freedoms in the name of increased security against terrorism. I have always had a problem with that idea, though, because (a) I worry that the threat of terrorism is being used as a pretext for government authorities to gain more power, when in fact law enforcement may already have the necessary tools to tackle terrorism (just not the money), (b) I am not at all confident that someone in authority would not someday abuse those new powers, perhaps for nefarious purposes or perhaps simply in the belief that the end justifies the means, and (c) I think once you willingly give away your rights and liberties, it will be extremely difficult to ever get them back -- especially when the threat of terrorism may last for generations. The reduced rights and freedoms eventually become the norm, as does the justification for reducing them, making it easier to remove more civil liberties in the future, little bit by little bit.

Do you think that a reduction in our rights and freedoms, as illustrated in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36), is justified? How can we best draw the line between ensuring our security while at the same time protecting our rights and freedoms?

[MJK] I agree on all points. But be careful not to see too much conspiracy. Yes, people in power will take all the power the citizens want to give them. Right after 9/11, we saw many polls and surveys showing an important majority of Canadians were willing to let go of their rights in order to feel secure again. An emotional reaction, yes, but also a misinformed one. We must be vigilant in not letting emotion and circumstances dictate our actions. We will regret it sooner or later.

As for the law enforcement or intelligence officers, they will take all the power they can to help them do their job. Not because they gain anything from it but simply because they are committed to doing their job -- catch the bad guys. It is our collective responsibility that they have the right tools to do it but it is equally our responsibility not to over-do it. Again, it's a question of balance. Also, let's focus on how we got here and see if we can work on fixing the real problem, i.e. why there are some people out there who want to kill us. The answer, the real one, will show us the way to resolve the issue.

During one of the U.S. presidential debates, President Bush and Senator Kerry both agreed that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. Many analysts of national security were surprised by this agreement, and surmised that Bush and Kerry must have seen intelligence reports that had not been disclosed to the public. What was your take on their agreement? Do you agree that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to the U.S.? What do you think is the greatest threat to the entire world? What should we be doing to mitigate that threat?

[MJK] In 1994, when the intelligence world was looking for its "raison d'être" after the end of the cold war, I stated, and remain convinced of this, that the greatest threat to the world is not nuclear proliferation but a machete. So-call "world experts" did not agree and then we got Rwanda. In 2005, we have again two bozos that go with nuclear proliferation. Strategists in the USA are notoriously short-sighted.

Unconventional security indicators like demography, environmental issues, and loss of renewable resources like water (as opposed to conventional indicators like conflicts/tension, military build-up, dictatorships, etc.) allow us to identify the next security hot spots of the world. If the world is volatile, it is because of actions taken in the past that are now costing us dearly. If you don't have water and the guy in the next village has some, then when the situation becomes critical, the vast majority of the world with use some excuse -- religion, color of skin, size of nose, whatever -- to get that water.

A nuclear threat requires a lot of money, many PhD's to run the program, and ultimately an enemy. An illiterate can use a machete.

How do we mitigate the threat? Get involved! Read, debate, communicate, do something (like this website). The old saying is true: Evil exists because good men stand by doing nothing.

It seems to me that the US overreacts to terrorism in ways that are in themselves a security risk. The threat of terrorism is over-dramatised in ways that make the US more vulnerable than it would otherwise be.

After all, the risk to any individual of getting hurt in some terrorist attack is insignificant compared to everyday risks such as domestic violence, traffic accidents, smoking and illness.

Europe has seen much terrorism -- think of Baader-Meinhof/Rote Armee Fraktion, Basque separatists, IRA -- and has reacted much more soberly. The aim of any terrorist attack to get publicity and spread fear. In Europe sometimes it's been debated that the media turn themselves into tools of the terrorists by giving them publicity and spreading fear.

If terrorists want publicity, it seems rather unhealthy to not only give them massive continuous publicity for years, but even gear the entire society in relation to the terrorists. If terrorists want to spread fear and unrest, it seems unhealthy to constantly fuel and maintain the state of fear and unrest that the terrorists created long ago.

With the strongly fearful and emotional reactions of the US, terrorists can push specific buttons to get specific results.

What do you think about this?

[MJK] I agree that we are not approaching the issue of terrorism the right way, but I might not use the word "over-dramatised". The current American administration has surely used the event to maintain itself in power. But the fact that other dangers exist does not mean that we must not pay attention to that one too. As a matter of fact, we are spending a lot of money on those other issues.

The way we decide to approach the problem will dictate how long we will be stuck with it. The current Bush administration has pushed us back several decades away from a resolution with the terrorists. There is no compromise to make with terrorists, but we could be wiser in our approach to resolve the situation. Sadly, like any war, for some people it is "good" business (I really mean $). And until that change...nothing will change.

Recently, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan outlined what he called the "five D's" necessary to fight terrorism -- (1) dissuading the disaffected from choosing the tactic, (2) denying terrorists the means to carry out attacks, (3) deterring state support, (4) developing state preventive capacity and (5) defending human rights in the struggle against the scourge. He also announced the creation of a UN implementation task force to ensure that all departments and agencies within the United Nations contribute to carrying out this strategy.
What are your thoughts on this?

[MJK] That approach offers a balance between the necessity to act and to defend ourselves (for example the use of law enforcement) because the threat is real, but it has the value to open the door to other means of intervention like diplomacy, action on the ground to help population victimized by others, etc., to find alternatives to guns responding to guns. I heard once that "the limits of our reality are the limits of our imagination". That keeps the door open for imaginative solutions.

I have heard of private security companies before, but never a private "intelligence" company. Your website says that you focus on improving security as opposed to increasing security; that you determine what the actual threats and risks are, and what is simply hype. Is your company, The NorthGate Group, unique in this approach?
Also from your site:
"Our consultative approach and unique analytical capabilities match and routinely out pace those of established national security and spy agencies. Because we are not limited to specific jurisdictions, foreign policies or political agendas, we respond to present day environments which are, in essence, borderless."

I find it very interesting to think of what a private group of trained intelligence specialists could accomplish when unfettered from jurisdictions, foreign policies and political agendas, while still having access to their established network of intelligence specialists worldwide. Have you found it to be a liberating experience?

[MJK] Mr. Drog, you are keeping me busy. You are surely making good use of this forum. Yes, we consider ourselves unique in what we do. Yes, I am convinced that we have a different approach to security because 95% of the current security companies are reactive and focus on increasing security rather than being proactive and improving security. The first one is quantitative, the second qualitative. Only solid intelligence analysis can do that. In the private sector, we are also not limited to artificial boundaries like jurisdictions or foreign policy. That allows us to work in any country and ask questions to whom we see fit. But don't read into this that we are not respecting the law. On the contrary, we have no protection at all, as opposed to other "officials" who could use the "national security duty" as a defence.

For us, Intelligence is the art of extracting meaning out of information. Its sole purpose is to empower decision makers. If a CEO is nervous about opening a $150 million factory and we can, by good analysis, show the risk and threat and assist in mitigating them, which in return ends up creating thousands of jobs, then intelligence has done its job. Intelligence is like a knife -- a knife is a tool, but also a weapon. If not used properly it will cut you, but well-used it can do good things (build, feed, protect....). We are not mercenaries (contrary to other organizations that will do anything for money) but rather use our analytical art to assist people in doing good things. The bad guys (even if they have a lot of money) can hang to dry. And by the way, you are coming up with interesting questions. If you are looking for a job, let me know.

I have heard it said that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) considers Canada's Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to be just another branch of the NSA. How much influence do the U.S. security and spy agencies have on ours? Is it an amicable relationship?

[MJK] It is no secret that Canadian and American organizations cooperate together "a lot". So, where the line is between the two is often difficult to say, but let's say that we have separate payrolls so there is some distinctiveness and no, NSA doesn't control CSE. Are we sometimes eager to help? Yup, but that does not mean that we prostitute ourselves.

Could you comment on the effect that the Iraq war has had on world-wide security risks and terror threat, and on whether these effects were predictable before the war?
First, it seems to me that the terrorist threat has increased, rather than decreased, as a direct result of the war and the subsequent disorder. Kidnappings in Iraq -- the kidnappings of locals even more so than those of foreigners -- seem to have become a profitable way to finance what you might call a new kind of mafia, which is focused on terrorism, and tends to spread internationally.
The profits may make this as difficult to combat as any other mafia, while the tendency to spread internationally and the use of suicidal bombings make it more dangerous than any mafia.
Second, it also seems to me that this consequence of the war was to a large extent predictable -- and predicted -- before the war. For example, debate here in Sweden before the war focused very much on, and analysed, what would need to be done after the US would win the war. Some debaters said that the Bush administration necessarily had some plan with novel, unexpected solutions that nobody had ever heard of before, because otherwise the war made no sense, while others worried that it might have no post-war plan at all. I can't recall anyone arguing that known solutions would work, that there was no need for some completely novel and unprecedented plan.
If our media knew that this was needed, it seems intelligence agencies must have known this too.
What's your view on this?

[MJK] Let's be careful not to mix all kidnappings with the current wave of terrorism in Iraq. There are criminals doing it simply for "business". They are parasites and opportunists because of the situation. Yes, the war and its consequences were predictable. And some people choose to go a certain way because it was helping their agenda. Not everything was predictable but enough to understand the general direction of it. Its deterioration is a combination of two things; again, short-sighted analysis from the Pentagon and intentional mischief from others. It's sad to say, but we did not need to be geniuses or specialists in security to see where all this was going.

Thus far in the "war on terror", it seems we have been concentrating on finding terrorists and preventing their attacks rather than on stopping people from becoming terrorists in the first place. In a 2002 interview with the Ottawa Citizen, you said that ultimately we need to extinguish the hatred and anger that can inspire people to fly commercial airliners into skyscrapers. "We can turn Afghanistan into a parking lot. We can turn Iraq into a parking lot. That will not solve the issue. It is an illusion. We have to tackle the roots of terrorism. It will take a generation."

Might the best way to extinguish the hatred that creates terrorists be to simply stop embarking on military actions against foreign nations? Stop invading, stop bombing, and stop occupying? If so, is this really feasible? It seems like it would take a radical shift in policy on the part of nations such as the U.S. and Russia. I can see Russia perhaps simply washing their hands of Chechnya someday in the far future, but what would it take for the U.S. to decide to pull out of the Middle East altogether?

[MJK] Here the answer is not that simple. You don't necessarily want to not go against a cruel dictatorship. Sometimes that kind of intervention is necessary. Take Rwanda. We could have done must more and sooner. Yet, if you take Iraq, there was alternative but here, other agendas were at play. I return to my previous reply in question 3, remove the motivation (the root causes) and you will remove the will to fight.

In Canada, we have CSIS, the RCMP and CSE (which are more or less the counterparts to the CIA, FBI and NSA in the United States). I would think that often, particular cases would require two or more of these organizations to cooperate with each other. In the wake of the Air India acquittals, you said that the 1985 bombings couldn't have come at a worse time, with CSIS being only a year old and the RCMP still bridling at having to cooperate with them. So I'm wondering if having three separate agencies is a good idea because it makes them leaner and less bureaucratic, or if it's a bad idea because it reduces communication and cooperation.

[MJK] Well, you follow me attentively too. I am flattered. Here, there are many sides to your question. In a sense, you are right, it would facilitate communication if they were all under one roof. BUT, it would be a phenomenal concentration of power too. I think in the end, it is better to keep them separate. We need to be sure that communication is better established and that "pissing contests generated by ego" are eliminated.

That said, one aspect too often left out is the oversight of those organizations. Current oversights like SIRC or the Inspector General (Sol. Gen) are totally inefficient. The media are barely doing their job and the general public does not care. We need better monitoring mechanisms not to stop the work but to ensure no abuses of power take place (again preventing the establishment of the perverted logic of the end justifying the means), but we must give the front-line organization responsible for fighting terrorism the tools and political support (and coherence) to be efficient.

Do you think China will (or even has the capacity) to direct its organized criminal elements to destabilize and gut Taiwan from within, 'unofficially'? Or will they mount a direct military attack?
Or are they just posturing, with the status quo likely to remain for another 50 years?

[MJK] Very interesting angle. We know that both the Taiwanese and Beijing governments have links to Chinese organized crime. Several historical cases demonstrated that both used organized crime in the past for some "dirty" jobs. Is it possible that China could use organized crime to destabilize Taiwan: very possible. They did it in Hong Kong in the 80's. There is the famous case of a Chinese intelligence officer (who defected to the Australians) that confessed that he had been sent in 1984 to Hong Kong to make a deal with the Dragon Heads. Stay quiet, help us to make a smooth transition in 1997 and you will be allowed to pursue business after the transition. And they did (except one).

For Taiwan, the strategy would be to create trouble inside the country so the authorities would be busy dealing with problems inside and thus lose focus on other problem on the outside. All that said, organized crime in Taiwan does not necessarily need Beijing's blessing. Taiwan has been suffering the devastation of organized crime for decades. It is everywhere and is, like in mainland China, part of everyday life. As for waiting another 50 years, 50 years in nothing is Chinese strategic planning. They think in terms of generations, not years like in North America. If need be, they will wait 100 years...on both sides!

Having worked for both the RCMP and CSIS, how do you think they compare to their American counterparts, in terms of expertise, resources, cooperation, bureaucracy, respect in international circles, etc?

[MJK] Among the best! We don't have their budgets and mandate, but we do a very good job. Nothing is perfect and I have my criticisms with both organizations but compared with others, both organizations show levels of professionalism that are difficult to match. That perspective is recognized and celebrated around the world. Canadian agencies are among the preferred used in the world to train or to come in to help populations to deal with difficult conflicts.

Unfortunately, a bad Canadian reflex is to criticize our institutions because after hockey, self-infliction (shooting ourselves in the foot) is our national sport. Canada does fantastic stuff around the world and we are very well respected.  Unfortunately, Canadians don't travel enough to see what is done or meet with foreigners to appreciate what we are. Like I said, we are not perfect, but some look at us as role models. That means something.

Michel Jean-Katsuya: If I tell you that I feel that the efforts by our Canadian government, out of sight of the public, to deal with international terrorism constitute a self-serving make-work project, Would you agree with my view or at least understand it?

The mainstream media, of course, isn't going to say enough about unfair taxation and offshore tax havens and financial clearinghouses, even though you will find crime and terrorism connected to all of that. The well-off have a stake in the current system and will, instinctively and consciously and semi consciously, as Peter Dale Scott notes, protect the whole ball of yarn from unravelling. I hate all kinds of (real) crime, and I hate out of control global finance because I see how it affects me and other poor folks directly. One source that I've found to be good on the subject of offshore tax havens - she pulls no punches - is Lucy Komisar, who presently is writing a book about the subject. She notes, in her article USA Bank Laws Fund Terrorists that: "Terrorist networks all over the world depend on the international bank and corporate secrecy system to hide and move their money. This structure is allowed to exist by agreement of the world's banks and financial powers, including the United States and its allies. Internationally, many make money from the system, including the owners and managers of banks that hide customers' deposits from tax authorities."

[MJK] I am not totally sure what you're saying, but I have difficulties in subscribing to the idea that international terrorism is actually a "self-serving make-work project" for Canada. We do not have an economy base on a military infrastructure and our military industry is insignificant compared to many others in the world. No, I think unfortunately it is more a lack of "vision" and leadership that dominates in Canada. As for international financing and money laundering, well, this is a big topic and yes, the riches are getting richer and not always legally. That is unfortunately not new, and will not change until people get more involved and start asking for changes. But remember that their efforts will always be confronted by power lobbying from the rich.