Grenville Cross says the intelligence alliance has turned into an anti-China coalition where members subordinate themselves to the US for favorable economic treatment
The Five Eyes intelligence alliance is the world""s oldest such grouping, dating back to the 1940s. Comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, it provides a comprehensive espionage network. It collects and shares all types of information, including signal, defense and human intelligence, and, most recently, geospatial intelligence.
Under President Donald Trump, the US has withdrawn from many of its global involvements, including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. By contrast, however, it has significantly enhanced its involvement in Five Eyes, for reasons that are now clear. Driven by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US foreign policy is largely directed at challenging China, and the Five Eyes is seen as a ready-made, English-speaking alliance that the US can mold into an anti-China coalition.
Originally a partnership of equals, Five Eyes is now dominated by the US, which uses its trade clout to get its way. Whereas the UK, which finally exits the European Union on Dec 31, is desperate for a generous free-trade deal with the US by year""s end, Australia has had one since 2005, which has been of huge benefit to its economy, and it is keen to develop it further.
The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, moreover, only came into force on July 1, and Canada is now more determined than ever to cement its ties with the US. For its part, New Zealand is anxious to have a free-trade partnership with the US, and, in 2019, its foreign minister, Winston Peters, declared that "the United States"" limited engagement in trade agreements in the Indo-Pacific is of real concern to New Zealand".
Quite clearly, therefore, the other Five Eyes members are beholden to the US, and, when it says "Jump", they reply "How high?" In May, when Pompeo asked them to sign up to a joint rebuke to China for its proposed National Security Law for Hong Kong, they quickly fell into line, the exception being New Zealand, which meekly apologized that it "couldn""t agree in time", despite its "deep concern".
Once, however, the law was enacted on June 30, there were no stragglers. After Pompeo had fired his opening salvos, promising sanctions on all and sundry, the other members tamely joined in, unveiling a raft of preplanned measures.
Whereas the UK was the first out of the traps, announcing that, in an attempt to gut Hong Kong, it was planning to grant a "path to citizenship" to up to 3 million holders of Hong Kong BNO passports, Canada was hot on its heels, declaring that it was suspending its extradition treaty with Hong Kong, blocking the export of sensitive military items, and issuing a travel advisory.
In a rare show of defiance, however, the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, while assuring everyone that Britain was "examining" its extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, nonetheless made clear that "there are already significant safeguards which we have in place". Despite this, Pompeo was pacified when, on July 14, Johnson, who had given Huawei a 35 percent share in the UK""s 5G network on Jan 29, abruptly changed his mind, pledging to end its involvement by 2027, a volte-face for which Trump promptly claimed credit. Indeed, on Jan 30, Pompeo had reacted furiously to Johnson""s original decision, even telling him to take a "relook", a telling insight into how he sees the legendary "Special Relationship" between the two countries.
Australia, meanwhile, also announced that it would offer "pathways" to citizenship to about 10,000 Hong Kong people on student and temporary visas, and suspend its extradition treaty with Hong Kong. New Zealand, moreover, declared that it was reviewing its relationship with Hong Kong, which would include extradition arrangements, the export of strategic goods, and a travel advisory.
All this must have delighted Pompeo, whose crusade against China dates back many years. What, however, is extraordinary is that, although the Five Eyes all have their own national security laws, they wish to prevent Hong Kong from having any of its own. As it lacked basic protections, Hong Kong was left largely defenseless in the face of those who, over the past year, tried their best to destroy "one country, two systems".
Whereas none of the Five Eyes would ever tolerate parts of their own countries being denied essential national security laws to defend themselves, they hypocritically expected China to countenance this in Hong Kong, even when terrorist-type outrages were being committed by people who wanted Hong Kong to secede from China. Massive damage was caused to public facilities, infrastructure and businesses by armed mobs, with, for example, 91 percent of the railway stations being vandalized, something the Five Eyes would never allow on their own soil.
The US, of course, has numerous national security laws, many draconian and intrusive, and a battery of agencies to enforce them, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Secret Service. However, even though, for example, the USA Patriot Act 2001 violates the US Constitution""s Fourth Amendment right to judicial protections against illegal searches, and the Cybersecurity Act 2015 rides roughshod over privacy protections, its Five Eyes partners turn a blind eye, treating it as an internal matter for the US.
Indeed, after the UN Human Rights Council issued a scathing report on the US human rights record in 2015, and made 348 recommendations for improvement, covering such areas as police brutality, racial profiling and the treatment of migrant families, the US response, shortly after Pompeo""s appointment in 2018, was not to put things right, but to announce its withdrawal from the council. Had the report been taken seriously, many of the problems associated with the killing of George Floyd in 2020 might have been avoided, although none of the Five Eyes dared mention this to Pompeo.
If, moreover, the Five Eyes really wanted to do something positive about human rights, they could, for example, raise with Pompeo the situation of the prisoners held for years without trial at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, given that this would be abhorrent in their own countries. In 2018, Trump even signed an executive order, keeping the prison open indefinitely, prompting Daphne Eviatar, the director of security for Amnesty International USA, to say he had "opened the door for a whole new era of horrific human rights violations to take place". In January, there were still 40 detainees there, all Muslim men, many of whom have undergone torture. However, the US"" Five Eyes partners know that, if they brought this up with Pompeo, it would upset the puppet master, and it is safer by far for them simply to gang up on little Hong Kong.
In Australia, meanwhile, the government has just introduced its Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill, which gives sweeping new powers to the ASIO, including the power to compulsorily question people not only for terrorism-related threats, but also for espionage, foreign interference and politically motivated violence. The age at which the ASIO can compulsorily question minors is, moreover, to be reduced from 16 to 14, if they are suspected of planning a politically motivated attack. The bill also gives the authorities the power to force digital platforms and service providers abroad to surrender personal and business data belonging to Australians. At the parliamentary inquiry on July 10, David Neal, the co-chair of the Law Council""s National Criminal Law Committee, described some of these powers as being broader than those in Hong Kong""s National Security Law, which was clearly true.
However, the ASIO""s Director General, Mike Burgess, justified the bill as Australia is facing unprecedented levels of espionage and foreign interference, a terrorist threat that remains at "probable", and an "escalating threat of violence from extremists", and his words exactly describe the threats that Hong Kong also faces. But although it is fine, in the Five Eyes book, for Australia to take tough defensive action to protect its citizens, it is not alright for China to do likewise, which is rank hypocrisy of the worst sort.
Quite why any self-respecting nation would wish to throw in its lot with an alliance which so brazenly promotes double-standards beggars belief. It appears judgment and morality have been subordinated to greed and self-interest, which suits Pompeo down to the ground. However, the Five Eyes would do well to remember that all that glitters is not gold.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.