Dear Editor,
There is great excitement about the formalization of the National Intelligence and Security Agency. We need to stand back with a quick overview of some key attributes of intelligence. Consider the following points.
Third World security challenges are mostly internal. The Global South is characterized by fault lines that include (a) grievances based on economic disparities that were seeded during plantation capitalism; (b) ethnic conflict which were produced as a strategy of divide and rule during the colonial era; and (c) the lack of economic capabilities necessary to provide basic human security. These fault lines are often amplified by hegemonic governance that limit the capacity of states to conduct their internal affairs based on their own historical specificities. Unlike many countries in the Global South, Guyana does indeed have an external security consideration that must be taken seriously, not least because we do not have the military capability of our own to ensure our territorial integrity.
The discussion is certainly not meant to touch on all the critical areas of intelligence and security. The focus, rather, is to indicate what some of the things involved in a national intelligence and security agency are, and to draw attention to some of the limitations of relying too much on ‘intelligence’ when narrowly defined. In the end, what really matters in national security is the quality of governance, including the conduct of political parties and civil society groups.
This means optimizing the human, economic, and technical resources of the state and civil society, so competence is balanced with good political sense. This last point is especially important because of the history of internally generated strife by authoritarian elements who are motivated by regressive cultural nationalism.
Sincerely
Dr. Randolph Persaud
(Former Assistant Director,
Centre for Int’l and Security Studies
York University, Toronto)