Dear Editor,
I write with reference to concerns expressed about the National Intelligence and Security Agency Bill which is to be sent to a Parliamentary Special Select Committee.
It is important to keep in mind that we are working on nothing less than national security, something that requires all parties to put aside their partisanship.
It is disappointing that the Hon. Jermaine Figueira has already found the time to sow doubts when in fact there is no authentic basis for doing do. Mr. Figueira for instance believes that the bill “gives sweeping power for unregulated intelligence gathering,” and that electronic information collection “…will create an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, and intimidation, which will most certainly erode trust between citizens and the government, undermining civil liberties.” The truth is that citizens should be afraid that we do not yet have a fully built-out national intelligence system that has gone through the full parliamentary process. Further, it is letters such as that of Hon. MP Figueira that are not only likely to generate fear, doubt, and apprehension, but that are intended to do exactly that.
Scholars and policymakers worldwide will tell you that the paramount responsibility of any state, and especially democratic states, is to provide security for all citizens regardless of their economic status, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or national origin. The Guyanese population does not need to be reminded of the brutalities visited upon this nation since independence. Were it not for the dedicated professional work of the police and other relevant apparatuses of the state, things could have spiraled out of control in the early 2000s.
The naysayers should understand and accept forthwith that the work of intelligence agencies involves ‘snooping around.’ Criminals and others who want to do harm, do not send you a memo of their intentions, plans and desired outcomes. Only the most naïve among us would think that you can phone up the “enemy” and ask them for their itinerary.
Mr. Figueira needs to understand that threats to national security are not purely internal. Moreover, the idea of national sovereignty needs to be broadened beyond threats to territorial integrity, to include threats from transnational organized crime sources. These organizations have enormous capabilities, including intelligence infrastructures often staffed by highly trained (ex-military) agents. To understand, track, and repel these threats, the state (what most people call the government) must develop equivalent, or better capabilities.
One bright spot here is that no intelligence agency operates in a hermetically sealed manner. Domestic inter-agency cooperation is critical, as is intelligence sharing with Interpol, regional security agencies, and friendly states. Some readers might recall the November 13, 2015, terrorist attack in Paris that killed at least 130 people. The attack was done by extremists who had returned from the ‘battlefield’ in Syria (Dettmer, 17/11/2015). With all the capabilities in France and in Europe, the attack was not foiled. This was so for two reasons. First, the returning fighters used Belgium (with less intelligence resources than France) as a staging area. Secondly, the French (DGSE) had ignored intelligence warnings from Iraq and Türkiye (Ibid). Strengthening regional intelligence sharing is, therefore, urgently needed.
The point here is that intelligence is a complex and painstaking task. Mr. Figueira and other critics must remember that this is about saving lives. Here is hoping that the civil society organizations in Guyana will come out in staunch support of the bill. The nation is counting on you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Randolph Persaud
