by Liew Ngai Hoe

Pause for a moment, and think about it ...

THE RECENT US-CHINA ROW about stealing nuclear secrets brought out details that might resemble the plot of a spy film. It seemed that every time the US comes up with a new technology in its nuclear weapons China will follow up with something similar before long. Suspicion that there was a spy launched a Congress inquiry which not only revealed lack of data security, but also proved that for more than 5 years a Mr. Wen Ho Lee of the Los Alamos National Laboratory had been steadily siphoning information about the developments of nuclear weapons to defense officials in China. The release of this report was subsequently followed with the removal of Mr. Lee from his job and the immediate and stern denial from Chinese officials.

      Some people have contended that the report, which came with boxes of �evidence�, was made to get back at China for its strident protest when NATO accidentally bombed its embassy in Yugoslavia. Out in the open were also talks of McCarthy�s anticommunist sentiments. Either way, one thing remains a certainty � that this is going to further deteriorate relations between the US and China, which has barely survived America's attacks on China�s human rights record and the Chinese embassy bombing in Yugoslavia.

      The larger issue which has evaded, or rather been avoided, by the international community is the matter of covert action, which includes espionage and discreet acts of sabotage. Major military powers have always used these unilateral actions to serve their purpose. But the matter in question here is the legitimacy of covert action used by any nation. Are only certain nations allowed to use it? Does the purpose legitimize the action? Who is responsible to ascertain these matters? How are we going to handle those who violate these �guidelines�?

      Covert action is actually already a legitimized option in defense. We have today spy satellites belonging to various nations hovering hundreds of miles above us in orbit. Details and pictures taken from orbit are put to use when there is a conflict, the famous ones being the Gulf War and the recent NATO-Yugoslavia conflict (although how these hi-tech gadgets failed to register the Chinese Embassy on the Yugoslavian map still boggles a lot of people). Discreet acts of sabotage have also long been practised. There will always be countries taking sides in a conflict, supplying weapons, combatants and information. This is still rampant in the warring states of Central Africa, and had taken place during the Cold War in Korea, Vietnam, Iran and Afghanistan. In early June of 1999, US president Bill Clinton unveiled a plan to use computer hackers to sabotage Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic�s bank accounts. The newest conflict in the Kashmir region began when India accused Pakistan of planting mercenaries there to sabotage India�s area of control.

      There are three solutions to control the situation: to ban spying for good, to let one country regulate it, or to create an international body to do the job.

      Although a lot of nations do not approve of such covert activities, we cannot ban spying altogether because there can never be enough willpower to give it up � the information gained from spying is just too precious. Malaysia has yet to specifically make a stand on this issue, but based on its policy of non-intervention, Malaysia respects a country�s borders as its own, and is therefore against any move to violate them. Yet the present situation of mutual distrust forces even more nations to take up this option, to get more information about potential rivals as well as to be secure from others� snooping around. Spying has become a necessary evil, one that they cannot afford to let go.

      As for the second suggestion, it is evident no single country can be made the regulating figure. Right now the most extensive spying network belongs to the United States, which also has the largest military resources to call upon. Although recent developments showed that the US used these resources for the right causes � for example, the peace agreement in Kosovo � to rely on the US alone to police the globe is dangerous. The United States� record is not exactly clean; when it annexed Hawaii more than half a century ago, the US used covert action to overthrow the native ruler, an act not quite forgiven even until today. Things cannot be left in the hands of any single nation. It simply defeats logic to put so much power in one place.

      The last option is to create an international body to monitor, or at least to set up an international tribunal to hear the case of the victims of such covert actions. In this court the United States can bring its case and prove the charges against China, who in turn will be given a chance to defend themselves. The weakness of such a tribunal is that cases usually involve large powers, and decisions may be swayed because of their power. Decisions might even lead to war, but this is probably the best way to avoid repetitions of the US-China row. By the looks of it the situation is unlikely to change. Spying will still be the uncomfortable spectre in the background of international relations. Nobody likes being watched, but nobody wants to seal up the hole in the wall looking into their next-door neighbour either.