Opinion - Secrecy to Diplomacy

John Perkins, having worked for the National Security Agency between 1971 and 1981, cheating developing nations of economic advantages they were due, a tale that involves espionage on the part of a businessman, on the one hand, and the foment of coups or revolutions, or murder by intelligence officials, on the other, summed up in the 2004 release, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, immediately, because Perkins told his story, goes far in demanding, if there's truth to this story, change in intelligence gathering and in international diplomacy.

Perhaps what lightens the load a little is that we're meant to be a truly competitive, global economy based on fair trade deals on their way to becoming wholly equitable across a transforming set of units, developed and developing nations. The old rules that might have permitted something like the Perkins story to unfold, shouldn't exist anymore, they're no longer applicable.

The economy is on the rebound, and protectionism, a signpost of Keynesianism, particularly in the wake of the financial crises which rocked the globe beginning in 2008, is back, and internationally.

It's true, too, starting with the presidency of John F. Kennedy, the United States tried in earnest to make international economics, at the United Nations, fair and equitable, caring for the divide between the rich and poor in the world.

But no doubt there began at one point a small group of Americans running seemingly objectionable operations.

Perkins' story, which one could easily say is partially supported by Naomi Klein's 2004 title, The Shock Doctrine, should not be overlooked for its value. The conversation it sparks is whether the work of intelligence agencies, the NSA and Central Intelligence Agency, and because it does chiefly fact-gathering work, too, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, should be more open. Would this help assure Americans their democratic principles and laws remain available universally?

That could be one consequence of an opening up of intelligence missions, even today, so many years after Perkins' initial international experience. Another consequence could be the added benefit of informing the people of the many good things the intelligence agencies already, and will, do.

In an encouraging moment, our military, and the CIA and NSA, have, in the years since 9/11, partnered. The CIA and NSA have worked closely with the FBI on intelligence issues, too. The progressive nature of the partnerships has already resulted in a gradual opening up of these organizations tasked to work in tandem, and for good, toward the goal of security in a free world. One can also see from the news, if they watch the military and CIA working in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a logical call for straightforward, diplomatic missions amongst both officers and agents.

I used to work in documentary film and it was a treat to go into the 'field,' so-to-speak, to see a story unfold, conduct interviews, and do filming, all with the permission of the people being filmed. How close, if there's not an exactness, are military to doing this in Afghanistan? The military stationed there have observed the locals and then negotiated with them, with the intended goal of beginning to rebuild communities, and, as has typically been the case, the military's befriended a number of the people who they've come to know.

How might it be if CIA agents, too, more so than they currently do, do increasingly progressive field work, abroad, while the FBI does the same at home, that's coordinated, in the open, and diplomatic in scope?

Certainly, the organizations, working together, and now hand-in-hand with locals, would maintain an intelligence or fact-gathering role that would be transforming, and their work would become one with the people.

The foreign agencies these national outfits already work with could conduct similar transformative operations and outreach.

Meanwhile, the military would uphold preparedness, maintaining a defensive and ready position, and in accordance with the United Nations Charter, as I've written about in my book, The Modern Roots of Holism. Its mission, including intelligence, would become a firstly diplomatic one, too.

Agents and officers can in due time perform in open and democratic teams, one nation entrusted to another, one community entrusted to another, insofar as the teams of individuals, each having become self-realized in the training stage, know how to operate in the field, are bilingual, or trained to work across cultures, and are knowledgeable of the historical facts and current affairs of the world and the specific region in which they work. Buttressed by coordinated intelligence gathering, the officers can put on a suit and tie, or whatever the appropriate dress is for the locale, and, though in some cases with undercover guards at their side, approach both allies and suspects, viewing, by the way, even the suspects as potential allies, and negotiate arrangements that would be conducive to either peace and stability or peace talks. The work would be done out in the open, with nothing to hide, giving no reason for an attack, and causing none.

In no time at all, the work of intelligence would be nonviolent, with no defenses.

Moving in this direction arguably would first require abandoning more aggressive and violent tactics, like drone attacks. The logical next step would be to make people in affected regions aware the US role, or intelligence role, is transitioning to straightforward diplomacy, which will look like: and the agencies can give examples.

Military and CIA abroad may build schools, help orchestrate time-honored governmental networks or assist in starting up businesses. These now Peace Corps-like officers could easily find themselves building renewable energy cities and remarkably progressive school systems in areas once targeted for violence, as was the dream of the diplomatic visionary and photovoltaic inventor, Ishaq Shahryar. Agents and officers can at once dispel war and conflict and bring about the changes necessary for peace, but not alone, and not in secret - as one with the people they want to see affected by peace.

The FBI can build on its intelligence gathering, too, in a more open network, to intensively reform the criminal justice system whilst organizing community talks on peace and reconciliation, and by giving presentations at schools and even conducting coaching or mentoring to individuals or groups.

These can be the roles of intelligence, which knows the lay of the land better than any other set of organizations. Agents and officers are also diplomats, they need to be able to esteem their friendships, and build them around the globe, perhaps now, with the world watching.