|
Interview with the Foreign Intelligence Service Director, Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu, for the “Adevărul” - March 13, 2009 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
The head of the SIE says that any democracy can see
ignorant or incompetent characters accede to power, people who do not take into
account reports from the secret services in matters of national interest. The
SIE head hints that officials sometimes overlook secret services’ reports.
Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: he is not a spy,
but the manager of a secret service, as he himself declares.
The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the D.A. Alliance
government visited us at our editorial office for a round of
talks around the Table of Adevarul [Truth- t.
n.]. Beyond the interlocutor’s legal constraints and studied self-censure, the dialogue proved a useful communication drill between the Foreign Intelligence Service and the end customer of its activity – the Romanian public. Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu explained that such concerns as the impact of the economic downturn on Romania and the crackdown on drug-trafficking networks lay behind the secrecy veil surrounding the SIE. Ungureanu would like to make it clear for everyone that the SIE is no political police and does not peep. Otherwise, his tone suggests some discontent with the way in which politicians deal with the briefings received from the secret services CREDENTIALS
Adevărul: What would you change in the relationship between the institution you are running and the political decision-makers? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: If there was something to be changed, it would mean improving the system’s mechanics. There is a lot of subjectivity in the relationships between the institutions pertaining to the national security system, as it actually happens in all Romanian institutional systems. The personal qualities and flaws of the institutional managers echo in the institutional activity. The attention the political decision-maker pays to the information provided by the special services does count. This is a binomial, a balance of responsibilities. The responsibility of the special services is to comply with information plans able to support, argument, substantiate and sometimes guide the policy that the legally relevant decision-maker endorses. The responsibility of the decision-maker is to use all possible arguments in conducting the project it has invested energy into. This is the principle; the regulator is the legislation. This is why you might hear me often say how important the enactment of the national security law package is. Not only are they laws that institutionally define the SIE and the SRI, but they are also working laws that re-outline the functions and the limits of the institutional activity. Laws direct work, they place it on the natural rails of a democracy, while defending the institution from political or administrative interference. They defend the democratic society against any abuse. The most recent law pertaining to the national security system is the SIE Law of 1998. The SRI Law dates back to 1992, and the Law on the national security to 1991. None of these three laws refers to NATO and the European Union. The strategic context has completely changed, the political expectations that the Romanian themselves have of the democratic state are completely different, while our aspirations inside these two clubs are also not the same. This change in paradigm should have been reflected in the laws. Laws have lagged behind, they are outdated. I cannot say that they are unfit, as we do function according to them, but they leave an ever wider room to interpretations. Adevărul: You practically function according to an obsolete law… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: It is subject to interpretations, it has unclear paragraphs. For a law to be effective and long-lasting it needs as much clarity as it can get, so that neither the law-enforcer, nor the beneficiary have to twist the text to exhaustion. Adevărul: This seems to be the rule in our institutional system… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: This can no longer happen in the society we want to live in. Adevărul: Is there frustration among the intelligence officers when it comes to the materialization of their work on the decision-making level? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I would not necessarily say that… The professional abilities of an intelligence officer are measured according to several criteria revolving around the intrinsic value of the information. He/she is assessed according to the quality of the information, to the extent of resources engaged in obtaining this piece of information, to his/her tactical intelligence, on a case-by-case basis. Ideally speaking, his/her institutional role ends where the fruit of his/her work is clear. You wait for the information, which was obtained through various means, to be then capitalised upon. If it is not capitalised upon, i.e. if it is not factored into the political decision-making, then frustration with unfulfilled institutional expectations is felt especially on the management level of the institution. The management knows what the starting point was and it best assesses the ratio between the value of the information and the involved resources. When you engage serious resources in obtaining a piece of information, you naturally expect it to be closely looked into and considered, not at all neglected and discarded to an insignificant archive. The political decision-makers’ heedlessness could affect the activity of the services
Adevărul: But this can be settled through legal levers… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Discussions like this have many times led to apparently risky conclusions, i.e. the transformation of responsibility from a moral obligation into a legal one. I am cautious about the legal levers, because they require fine-tuning. Adevărul: In theory at least, state institutions have their own specialists who could settle these legal issues… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Yes, I think this is one goal. It is the ideal. A spy takes around 10 years to groom… Adevărul: As far as resources are involved, could we come to have very strong services, independent from political influence and power shifts in a reasonable amount of time? There are many indications that the system’s specialists migrate towards the private sector… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Rather the public system’s. This issue does not lay with the way the institutions works. This is not where we should look for the cause, but in the lure of the private sector. The public one offers a supposedly stable career, but short-term gains are more likely in the private sector than in contractual employment with the government. When it comes to institutions such as the Foreign Intelligence Service, the career has a completely different profile and contour. You cannot call one a spy after five years. A spy grows up in about 10 years, provided he/she is lucky enough to go through experiences that train him/her for all sorts of contexts. Adevărul: What is the professional profile of an effective spy? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: He/she is easily adaptable and has significant general knowledge that allows him/her to mingle almost anywhere in the private environment. This is part of the specific features of this type of career. Only 4-5 are chosen out of 1,000 applicants Adevărul: Does the SIE feel competition from the private sector when it comes to human resources? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: No, it would be hard to say that the SIE is competing against the private sector when it comes to human resources. The SIE takes in everything it can take in. Adevărul: At a certain time, however, some officers switch to the private sector or “get privatized”… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: No, those who switch to the private sector are anyway in reserve and they do so openly, no problem about that. Adevărul: So there are such liberties… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Well, yes, of course. You just resign and leave. And you take responsibility for your departure, no doubt about that. Adevărul: They say one never really leaves… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: You remain confined to the commitment, meaning that you will never be able to say what you know or use what you know. Punishment is very severe. I insisted that it should remain in the draft Criminal Code. Adevărul: How do you recruit your people?
Adevărul: Are you looking for people or do you stick to letting them coming towards the SIE? Do you have recruiters in universities? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: All services do. It is only natural. We have exceptionally good specialists. Adevărul: Are these young paid well-enough? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: They will never be paid well-enough for how intelligent they are. Adevărul: What could drive them to remain in the system, especially since they are very intelligent people? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: On the one hand, it is the liberty to do exactly what they like most. On the other hand, work inside the system is very interesting in itself, full of spectacular and similarly of risk. There is no scholastic split that would assign some of them to exclusively collecting intelligence and others to doing just paperwork. I’m not saying that salaries are motivating, but they are good salaries, comparable to the academics’. I do not recognize faces on TV or in editorial offices Adevărul: Can journalists be valuable intelligence assets? Where do you position yourselves as compared to this guild? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The spy takes up the investigation where the journalist has stopped, as the journalist has a limit in the extent of his/her investigation. At a certain point, he/she just stops, regardless of the reasons – be it a matter of resources, technology, interest, contract or society’s needs. The journalist cannot go beyond the wall. How far could you go beyond the laws? Spies do not take laws into account. The only laws they do observe are their own state’s and them alone. Romania ’s spies fully observe the Romanian laws wherever they are in effect. But once they leave Romania , there are no laws for them. The spy will naturally do everything in his/her powers to glean information. In this case, the end justifies the means. This is the professional difference between the journalist and the intelligence officer. Unlike the journalist, the intelligence officer has a project it follows step by step. The spy has practical intelligence and can afford to tactically investigate everything within his/her scope. The strategic intelligence belongs to the HQ, who precisely and permanently guides him/her. This would be the difference. The HQ is more than an editorial staff and is much tighter team-wise, as the extension of this team, of the collective brains work, is the intelligence officer himself/herself, who collects the intelligence in field after a pre-established plan. The pieces of information that the spy collects are put together by the backstage team – that is where real synthesis is produced. Adevărul: Are there situations when the HQ crosses paths with the editorial offices? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Never. In Romania , never. I do not recognize faces on TV or in editorial offices. Adevărul: Where does or should the transparency of the Service you are running end? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The simple answer is the following: where the law provides it. The SIE can afford to talk about its working principles, about the effects of its activity, about projects, about successes or failures. These matters can be described in principle, but not in detail. But the things that can be talked about show pretty accurately what the SIE as a whole means. Adevărul: Do the main risks and threats to Romania ’s national security come, today, from the ex-Soviet space? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I’ll give you an example that sustains the unuttered hint of your question. Afghanistan is the world’s largest opium producer. 80% of the world production comes from Afghanistan. The main target of the illegal drug trade is Europe and then, either on the northern route, crossing Central Asia, southern Russia, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary it reaches the West, or on the southern route, via the Caucasian states, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Adevărul: Is it a real danger?
Socially speaking, there is a great loss and only then do we admit that illegal drug trade, be it trafficking or consumption, is a national danger. And we try to intervene, to track down the network, to penetrate it, to axe it before it reaches our country. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don’t. Adevărul: From this point of view, given the threats to national security, would it be inappropriate that intelligence officers also have attributions pertaining to the preliminary stages of criminal investigation? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I wouldn’t think so, although some special services in the world do have this component. In Romania , we recognize a hazardous historical precedent. The Securitate was, indeed, enforced to instrument criminal files. My principle takes into account the need to keep the democratic system in its current form, clearly separating competences to build up evidence and those pertaining to their legal processing. I believe that intelligence services should have their scope confined to collecting and providing information, while the legal system should be the one to bear the responsibility of processing the information. I would in no way mix the two. Not because there would not be enough judgment, but lest any confusion should occur. You cannot go wrong twice Adevărul: The SIE, our offensive service, does it afford to have ties with similar services in other states? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: It’s more than that, it’s about necessity. This is the shift in paradigm that brought about what we now call the SIE reform. But in order to be effective in surprising a transnational organized crime network, we need two favourable circumstances, of cooperation with similar services, be they internal or external. You come with the information, which is then delivered to the Border Police. The Border Police passes it on to the SRI and somebody has to intervene and close the circle. You either succeed or fail in such matters. You cannot go wrong twice, you cannot succeed twice as all organized crime networks are mobile, and they immediately regroup according to circumstances. They have an amazing capacity to absorb technology, larger that the state itself. Adevărul: Is the SIE reform over? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The SIE reform actually meant the dismantlement of the entire structure and its rebuilding from scrap, on a Western mould. We no longer talk about reform, as it is another house, another institution – brick by brick, new bricks, new mortar, new interior blueprints. Adevărul: And on the level of those whom you send on missions? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: It depends on the mission. It took a few years to implement a different system of assessing professional abilities and since then selection has been done after a Western model. Everything that was old, inadequate or inappropriate disappeared naturally. Adevărul: Did you need to keep on certain people that continue to provide training? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: When the new structure emerged, with its high adaptability to any context, the SIE stopped being autarchic. It was no longer autarchic meaning that it no longer operated alone, backed by Romania only. The SIE has become part of a family, a network of similar services, which has led to a multiplication of resources and an enormous amplification of effects. This means: operations developed through the others as well, share information with the others, involvement in common operations. Our security as well as the security of our operations concerns the others as well; Romania ’s security is also the responsibility of the other NATO partners. Practically, the extension of our intelligence abilities greatly spreads beyond the geography allowed by our direct resources. This is the change in paradigm. Had the SIE not been fully rebuilt, including all its inner, professional assessment, selection systems, etc., it could have never got to this. Adevărul: In your European assessments, is there a preoccupation with the effects of the economic meltdown? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Yes, there is such concern. Adevărul: Do you have any indications? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: There would be no concern without indications. When you try to collect intelligence, you do not stumble on contextual rules. Adevărul: Does it not seem a little odd to you that a character such as Floricel Achim, the non-commissioned officer accused of treason, could have taken information out of a militarily controlled area? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I think the answer provided by SRI Director George Maior is pretty clear from this point of view: this is an investigation in progress. If we look at this case theoretically, things are pretty clear: information is important, irrespective of its source. The source can very well be a non-commissioned officer or a general. When you try to collect intelligence, you do not stumble on contextual rules. All means are allowed. We are no political police in the diaspora Adevărul: The SIE activity is not known. Where should the results of this activity be seen? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Common people cannot perceive its activity, its real effect. They can only have access to an indirect result and only if they occupy a position that may allow them access to certain types of classified information. Yes, the SIE activity is not public and it is not open to everyone. Adevărul: People are suspicious when it comes to secret services. Is this suspicion an inheritance or is it faltering communication? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I don’t know if it’s faltering communication. It could be a negative reverberation of the Securitate’s activity. Many want tangible proofs of change, but, in this case, change is reflected in the quality of our product, and public access to this product is restricted by the laws in force. On the other hand, it is also very comfortable for someone who does not have answers to fabricate one. Adevărul: Are the Romanian diasporas still of interest to the SIE? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The SIE does not monitor the Romanian citizens in the diaspora. It’s not one of our interests, we are no political police. Adevărul: Is the Romanians’ unfavourable image in Italy one of your concerns? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Inside the European Union, the Ministries of the Interior have already established partnerships and for this very reason I favoured, even during my term as Foreign Minister, the presence of Romanian police officers in Italy, Austria and Germany . This happened because the relationships among national polices and, in general, among institutions meant to directly curb national criminality should be established with minimum diplomatic mediation. It is clear that these partnerships work and they are motivated by the alarms timely sounded by other state institutions, the SIE included. We have partnerships with counterpart services in the European Union. When we feel that an image crisis is around the corner due to anti-social behaviour, we notify the legal customers in due course. Secret services do not peep
Adevărul: Do you consider going back to politics? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: For now, I focus my energy exclusively on managing this Service, and I use all remaining time for the academic activity. Adevărul: But you do not rule out the prospect of coming back to the public life? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: We shall live and see. Adevărul: Is it an advantage or a constraint to come back to politics after being the head of a secret service? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: There are a few things I would like to say: first of all, secret services do not peep. We are not a voyeur club, despite the public presumption. Adevărul: Sometimes human weakness pushes towards such acts… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: No. What really counts is the synthesis made on the information collected by the service, a synthesis which is and should be read by the political decision-makers. This is what really matters to a service, not the futile detail of private life. There is no point of interest in that. Second of all, a service can be compromised really fast. From the very first moment a service is noticed to work beyond its scope and resort to illegal means, its internal and foreign credibility plunges. So, not only the internal one, but the one abroad as well, in its partnerships with the other services, which are extremely strict in keeping the astronomical distance from the private life. Third of all, there is now another active generation in the services, a completely different one, who is aware of personal risks, who has learnt how to defend their career by unfalteringly observing the laws. A career with the services is interesting and morally, if not also materially, rewarding. Last but not least, a career with the SIE leaves enough room for a career in another field, after retirement. Adevărul: Politics has its rewarding methods as well… Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: When it comes to politics, a service which understands that it has to strictly comply with the rules expects that this elite corps reason wisely by nature of their career education. Nobody will use what they have anywhere else outside the scope of their own profession. One more thing: you cannot even afford to use the information, as you cannot calculate the consequences of doing so. These consequences, including the personal ones, can be immeasurable. Information is like a uranium ore – you can turn it, through refinement, into nuclear fuel, but it irradiates to death if held in hand. Its effect can be devastating on the person, but it can also destroy the institution that person comes from. This is where reason comes in. That is why it is absolutely essential that political personalities with no educated and administratively validated reason be not appointed in such positions. Adevărul: Isn’t it a major risk that politically involved people show up? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Democracy also involves risks. This is why we have to be careful to the control mechanisms. I used to play in a jazz band
Adevărul: Who teaches you, as a politician, to be director of an intelligence service? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I am not a spy, I am a manager. I used to be a customer before. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I was at the other end of the communication chain and I knew that, if I correctly provided feedback and close the information loop, I further added to the success of intelligence work. Adevărul: Did you adapt quickly to this new status? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: You have to learn about a structure, there are rules and laws to learn, and, with Benedictine patience, you smoothly learn things on time. Adevărul: Do you still have time for reading? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Yes, but unfortunately I don’t read literature. I read as much as I can for my course and for the manuscripts I’m still working at. Adevărul: Do you still hold lectures? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I have to keep my lectures at the university. I go there as often as I can. Adevărul: What are you studying these days? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Research has led my way towards a period which I find very interesting and also insufficiently addressed by our historiography. It’s the 19th century and, hence, the theories pertaining to the formation of the Romanian nation. Out of all investigated archives from late 18th and early 19th centuries so far, up to 10% are newly unpublished archive sources. We built 5% of our historiography reasoning on published documents. We barely have a few who can still read Slavonic, Cyrillic, Slavo-Romanian texts. One reason behind this is that historiography itself is subjected to intellectual fashion. Investigating communism is today’s fashion. This only requires Romanian language and access to a library. People no longer go to the archives. Unfortunately, archives are often destinations you cannot go to. The “diamond” does not instantly come out of a pile of papers, it does not emerge to the surface like oil on water, it has to be dug for. When documents are written in old Romanian, when knowledge of Romanian language history is mandatory, when the alphabet is Cyrillic, not Latin, where characters are vaguely outlined, many of them even shadowed, from the edge of historiography interest, you will agree that research has different rewards and that the very search is valuable. To find out the reasons behind the formation of the first Romanian modern state, the United Principalities, in 1859, would reveal the real interest of the Romanian historiography during the last 200 years. We have reached a point where we only have monographs for, maybe, 15% of Romania ’s rulers. Under these circumstances, you fight against an ocean of ignorance, indifference, severe lack of knowledge and you find yourself teaching, while also advocating for the return to a saving positivism. Go to the archives and learn old Greek, Latin, old Slavonic! Adevărul: What do you remember from your student years in Iaşi ? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: God has blessed me, so far at least, with a life spiced by fortunate encounters. I had the privilege to meet and grow up next to full minds such as Andrei Pleşu, Alexandru Zub, Professors Ioan Caproşu and Ştefan Gorovei in Iaşi. Each moment near them was enchanting. Adevărul: Were you a lucrative student or a café shop bohemian? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I did all sorts of things during my student years. I also played bass guitar and drums in a jazz-rock band. We had started off with some British style progressive rock. The band was made up of four people. We were still in high-school… Adevărul: Do you still have time for friends, do you still see them? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: We do meet when time allows us to. It’s just that most of those I know and feel connected to are in Iaşi , where I go way too rarely. Adevărul: But if you want to go out with your wife and have a cup of coffee or if you want to take a walk downtown on Sunday, can you do it freely? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I would be very cautious, as I do not want to expose my family in any way. We can have a cup of coffee and listen to classical music at home. Adevărul: What are the implications of your going on a leave? Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I no longer want to talk about leaves, because, when I decide upon my leave and everyone does their schedule according to mine, a crisis bursts out.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Interview
with the Foreign Intelligence Service Director, Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu, for the
“Adevărul” (March 13, 2009)
