Despite all the news accounts and punditry since
the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National
Security Agency's domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually
no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on UN
diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist
attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House
gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the UN Security
Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly
three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush's illegal use of the
NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA's targeted spying at the United Nations broke
in the British press, major U.S. media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage
or, in the case of the New York Times, no
coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty
of retrospective facts, the NSA's spying at the UN goes unmentioned: buried
in an Orwellian memory hole.
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec.
20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate which
pointedly noted that "the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated
the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed."
But after dodging the story of the NSA's spying at the UN when it mattered
most before the invasion of Iraq the New York Times and
other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That's all
the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported
that the NSA was secretly participating in the U.S. government's high-pressure
campaign for the UN Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few
days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about U.S. spying
on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance
of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially
more important than the Pentagon Papers." The key word was "timely."
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible
by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam
War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in
the future, the leak about NSA spying on UN diplomats in New York could erode
the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through
the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.)
And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington's
war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq,"
had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an "aggressive
surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones
and the e-mails of UN delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum
written by a top official at the National Security Agency the U.S. body
which intercepts communications around the world and circulated to both
senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency."
The friendly agency was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.
The Observer explained: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that
the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola,
Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New
York the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought
over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing
for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China, and Russia."
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the
surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war
resolution through the Security Council "the whole gamut of
information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining
results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises."
Noting that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its
zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo
an "embarrassing disclosure." And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment
was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia,
the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.
Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about
it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA's supposed paper of record.
"Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," Times deputy
foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours
after the Observer broke the story. But "we could get no confirmation
or comment" on the memo from U.S. officials. Smale added: "We would
normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." Whatever the rationale,
the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March
4, the coverage in major U.S. media outlets downplayed the significance of the
Observer's revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word
article on a back page with the headline "Spying Report No Shock to UN."
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn't
only depict U.S. surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times
story also reported "some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could
be a forgery" and "several former top intelligence officials
said they were skeptical of the memo's authenticity."
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo's "authenticity" was
gone. The British press reported that the U.K. government had
arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency
in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of
the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream U.S. press had disappeared.
As it turned out, the Observer's expose headlined "Revealed:
U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War" came 18 days before the
invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the
United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped
charges against whistleblower Katharine
Gun, major U.S. news outlets provided very little coverage of the story.
The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun's
name became public as the British press reported that she had been formally
charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that
disclosure of the NSA memo was "necessary to prevent an illegal war
in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be
killed or maimed." She said: "I have only ever followed my
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo
and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed
it the most powerful U.S. news outlets gave the revelation the media
equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved
at the lack of U.S. media concern about the NSA's illicit spying, must have
been very encouraged.
This article is adapted from Norman Solomon's War Made
Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information,
go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com