Despite ‘being legal’, the thought of going abroad likely always will bring with it just a tinge of concern about safe travel and safe return. The prize, this trip to Turkey, seemed worth the emotional price (forget the financial). When it finally happened, Katharine wrote:
‘You will be happy to hear that we are safely in Turkey. We got here with no problem at all, which was a huge relief. We were awake for over forty hours due to travelling at funny times of the night, but the pace is so relaxed here that Yasar feels quite at ease.
‘Yasar’s family are lovely, very welcoming. They live in quite humble surroundings, but it’s a nice, friendly environment. We’ve just been spending the day walking around and greeting all Yasar’s old friends in town, having lots of cups of tea (which Yasar tells me is good for me in hot weather).
‘There were a lot of tears when we arrived yesterday. Yasar was crying more than anyone else. Please don’t worry.’
Katharine wrote of a beautiful country and beautiful people, of nights sleeping on the roof to take advantage of fresh, cool breezes. Deliberately, they distanced themselves – and still do – from Turkish political issues.
At home once again, Katharine finally found employment that was satisfying and appropriate – teaching Chinese. It was (and still is) only part-time, but she enjoys every moment in the classroom. She also has designed simple language lessons for a general audience, lessons she hopes to market in newspaper or magazine format.
Katharine writes:
‘The lessons have been going well. I have nineteen for the evening class and five for the afternoon one. As long as the total is over twenty-one, both classes will be viable, so I’m excited about that and the extra bit of cash that will be coming in. My evening class is mostly youngsters, a lot of them are my age or younger, but there are also a couple of over-fifties. The afternoon class is somewhat older, although not by much. The slightly strange thing is that two of the ladies in the afternoon are from GCHQ; in fact, I know one of them, not well, but her name was familiar and when I saw her, I realized that I did know her. I just carry on as if our paths have never crossed.
‘Apparently, a French teacher at the college teaches about five people from GCHQ, and when they had their first class, one of them said “One of us is one of you,” the French lady asked, “Oh? What do they teach?” and when she learned that it was Chinese, she immediately realized that they were talking about me. When she told me, I felt quite sad, the fact that they still refer to me as “one of them” … I don’t know how widespread that feeling is; it’s almost as if once an intelligence officer, always an intelligence officer.
‘I liked the community feeling at GCHQ, the sense of belonging you get working at that place, but I can’t condone everything they do. When I go to teach, the college buildings are a stone’s throw away from the new “doughnut” GCHQ. Funny that.
‘I am enjoying the classes. Everyone I’ve met in the foreign languages department is lovely. I’m taking Turkish on Tuesday afternoons so I’m in the department three days a week. Starting soon I’ll be taking the Certificate for Further Education Training, which will continue for several months and takes place once a week. I’m looking forward to doing that as well.’
At the time Katharine wrote these words, her husband was back visiting his family in Turkey. Lonely, missing him terribly, Katharine prepared for his return with the eagerness of a child waiting for Santa. Except that the gift giving would be reversed.
‘Hubby is coming home tomorrow! I’m so excited. I got all prepared last weekend. Thinking that he would be back last Tuesday, I bought this piece of pink cloth with little hearts and kisses on it and wrapped some little presents up which I was going to hide around the house for him to find when he came home.
‘One day when we were at the beach in Turkey, he went off diving to the bottom of the water and resurfaced with a stone the shape of a heart. He gave it to me and I’ve kept it by my side ever since, so I wrapped that up, too. Ah well, I’ll be here to welcome him home now, so that’s all that matters.’
Not all that mattered. Katharine and Yasar wanted a child, but it took a while for her to become pregnant; possibly, they think, because of all the stress that had so filled their lives. When it finally happened, she wrote of her condition and the continuing financial issues that shadowed it:
‘I am now ten weeks pregnant. I’m extremely lucky that I don’t suffer from sickness. My mum didn’t and had two very smooth, easy births (except that Mike was nearly two months early), but apart from that, easy births seem to run in the family (fingers crossed). In the first few weeks I was definitely grumpy, moody and very tired. Poor Mum had the brunt of that since she was here right around that period. It now seems to have lifted, and I have more energy than I’ve had for ages and generally feel quite optimistic.
‘Ma says that the pregnancy hormones tend to cocoon a woman and prevent her from worrying. They seem to be doing the trick now, but while she was here, I did have a panic over our finances. She reminded me that our mortgage payments would be going up this summer, and after calculating what our essential outgoings are, it made me realize that we can’t really afford a leap in mortgage payments. I think dealing with finances is incredibly difficult, especially when the man is doing all he can and working like the devil. Still, at the moment, “cocooned”, I’m not letting myself worry.
‘On the positive side, my employer is very helpful and said that I could certainly take a term or more off from teaching if that fitted better. Most of my department colleagues are women and a lot of them are mothers, so I’m sure I’ll get plenty of advice and support there.
‘I have a scan in about two weeks which will be my first. That will be really exciting, and hopefully Yasar will be able to bunk off work for a few hours to see the scan. I think it must make it so much more real when you can see the little wiggly thing in your belly.’
Katharine’s next letter was tragic:
‘I had a miscarriage yesterday/today and the pregnancy is over. It was confirmed at the hospital this morning. I’m all right, just coming to terms and of course I’ve had a good cry … I’m thinking that it’s nature’s way, and perhaps it just wasn’t the right time.’
There was the miscarriage and then a devastating flood, one that washed through their house destroying floors and furniture and wreaking a havoc that moved them out of their home for months. The present was nearly unbearable and the future far from promising.
And then, unexpectedly, there was reason for hope, a small but tentatively viable reason. Katharine was once again expecting a child. She continued to teach and took leave when the baby was due. Yasar, who had yet to find the kind of employment that was both economically and emotionally satisfying, was thrilled at the prospect of becoming a father.
Katharine wrote to the authors in February 2008:
‘Gong Xi Fa Cai (pronounced gong shee fa tsai). That’s the proper Mandarin Chinese greeting for New Year. This lunar new year, which starts tomorrow, is the year of the Golden Rat. In college tonight all the language teachers were gathered around as we figured out which animal of the Chinese zodiac we were.
‘I’m a tiger, the French teacher is an ox and so on. I don’t think I’m much of a tiger, but this stands out (bearing in mind what’s happened in the last 5 years!): “Tigers like people, involvement, and dedication to humanitarian causes. They seek out adventures, and at certain points in their lives, they will be very rebellious. They must act out some of their ideals and lash out at the wrongs of society”.’
Sounds a lot like Katharine Gun.
EPILOGUE: Reflecting on 31 January 2003
The implication is that the intelligence threat from the United States is also rising by the day.[1]
– From a January 2008 Chinese intelligence analysis
There is no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction in this [the Pasquill OSA] case.
– Crown Prosecutor Mark Ellison
THE MORE THINGS change …
In January 2008, exactly four years after Frank Koza e-mailed GCHQ, there were indications – despite warnings and lessons of universal import – that some things were impervious to change. This, regardless of a horrendous and controversial war, reorganization after reorganization of the often contentious and competing US intelligence entities and agencies, and promises of adherence to international accords. In the United Kingdom, although Tony Blair had been replaced by Gordon Brown, there was continued serious grumbling about Iraq and concomitant concern about US influence, further revelations about government hanky-panky, and the same old battles over the inefficacy of the Official Secrets Act.
Just two pithy examples, happenings reported within days of each other on the fourth anniversary of the NSA misadventure:
In China, the government-controlled media reported an intelligence expert’s complaint that the US National Security Agency was spying on his country’s electronic communications. The expert was reacting in kind. An American media report had claimed that Chinese intelligence penetrated the NSA’s Kunia listening post in Hawaii through a ‘translation service’. Mandarin translators, like Katharine Gun during her days at GCHQ in Cheltenham, do this sort of thing daily, sharing with the NSA. The spy in the sky game continues, and it would be ridiculously naïve to suggest it does not or should not.
Further, the Chinese were not happy about what was happening in Kunia, observing that the Hawaiian listening post was steadily growing in size and power.
Also in January 2008, a London Foreign Office civil servant starred in a high drama at the Old Bailey that had tongues wagging about a re-enactment of the Katharine Gun case. The prosecutor replaying his earlier role was Mark Ellison, in charge as the Crown lost yet another high-profile OSA case. Charges against Derek Pasquill were suddenly dropped when it came to light that even his own senior officers had claimed his leaking Whitehall documents did no harm.[2] Included in the leak was information about US secret transport of terror suspects to foreign countries where they could be tortured.
It was rumoured that the case was dropped because to continue would have caused the UK government serious embarrassment. Of course, this was said about the failed case against Katharine, where the embarrassment would have been far greater. In both, the reason given was failure of a realistic chance of conviction. As for US embarrassment, the American public already knew of the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’ because of leaked documents.
Whistle-blower David Shayler, furious about his failure to get charges against him dropped and the fact that he served six months in prison, told the world that the reason the OSA charges prevailed against him was because dropping the charges would have caused political humiliation for the government. This was no way to mete out justice, steamed Shayler.
And then the Observer called for reform of the Official Secrets Act. So, why was what began on 31 January 2003 at America’s National Security Agency so very important at the time and why is it still important?
Most significantly, much of the world learned then (and afterwards, in America) how and why the ill-conceived spy operation helped kill a UN Security Council resolution legitimizing the strike against Iraq. It would learn that the NSA, despite claims to the contrary, may not always be careful about complying with the law, that it may add to its sin of playing horrendous ‘dirty tricks’ on international friends by lying about such matters. It wasn’t the listening, it was the lying, and it was the intent to steal UNSC votes. Information worth knowing.
Even in April 2007, as director of the Central Intelligence Agency reflecting back on his NSA leadership role, Michael Hayden told CSPAN’s Brian Lamb that the agency works only within the confines of the law, within ‘what’s legally permitted’. Compliance with the law, all laws, is essential and inviolable. This has been his claim all along, despite what seems to be evidence to the contrary. It raises a question of trust. In December of the same year, Hayden was busy defending destruction of CIA interrogation tapes of terrorist suspects, telling agency employees that the recordings were destroyed [despite legal warning not to do so] to protect the identities of interrogators.[3] It is not unreasonable to question his veracity in this regard.
Spin attributed failure to secure a resolution for war solely to the possibility of a veto by permanent members of the Security Council, but this was not true – ‘freedom fries’ publicity notwithstanding. Further, possibility was not yet reality. Had the swing nations, the targets named in the NSA e-mail, voted in favour of adoption, there was at least the hope that George Bush and Tony Blair would prevail and the resolution might succeed. But instead, those nations were outraged and insulted, and hope vanished into diplomatic ether with Katharine Gun’s leak. The United States had gone too far.
Had the 31 January event not happened, even if the resolution had later been vetoed, Security Council approval would likely have paid off in the currency of a broader coalition for, and greater international acceptance of, the war. Public relations value would have been enormous.
Facing inevitable defeat, the two world leaders withdrew the resolution and had to find another road to Baghdad. And that’s where they got into serious trouble. That’s where Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Robin Cook and Clare Short, standing on principle, bailed out of Tony Blair’s government. In the United States, defeat led to manipulation of intelligence in support of an illegal war, and even to deceiving members of Congress.
The 31 January event, of course, was responsible for the arrest of a young woman who defended her action as a matter of conscience and, in spite of everything that happened, would ‘do it again’. Here was a concept worth thinking about. It was so important that dozens of news articles and interviews and discussions focused on it. The words ‘I have only ever followed my conscience’ appeared everywhere. ‘I would do it again’ was the commitment printed across the cheek of a full-page Guardian photograph of Katharine’s face.
Katharine’s fealty to conscience and willingness to repeat her offence led to her being nominated, along with other high-profilers (ironically including Condoleezza Rice), as a 2004 ‘International Woman of the Year’.[4] Like it or not, she became a personal-ethic role model and remains one today. It was not just what Katharine Gun had done, but why that was so important. Her conscience told her she had to prevent a war and the death and maiming of thousands of innocent lives. Responding to its insistence, she tattled on the establishment and risked everything. She was a leaker.
She was also a leader, a fact that pleased some and sickened others.
Spring of 2005 opened one of the wettest political seasons ever, with devastating intelligence leaks flooding both the United States and the United Kingdom, a deluge revealing behind-the-scenes deceptions and manipulations in the run-up to war. What Katharine Gun did two years earlier proved to be a fatal crack in a carefully guarded international dam of secrecy. That first critical leak inspired those that followed. She has been instrumental in a surge of interest in truth telling in and about government.
Given the complexity of profound international issues and challenges, like the ‘Iran problem’, Katharine’s invitation to government workers to leak this sort of information may well bear fruit in the months and years ahead. ‘Follow me’ has been her clarion call. This can be a frightening prospect, perhaps even anarchistic, or it can be a tool for universal good. 31 January put a different face on the United Nations and the electronic miasma in which it operates. There is much that does not work in that august body, much that needs to be changed if there is hope that it will function in the way intended. What does work, however, is the extensive bugging operation that has plagued the institution since its birth in San Francisco more than a half-century ago.
Insiders know that everyone has always spied on everyone else at the United Nations, so what makes this case different? For one thing, it extended to non-insiders knowledge that international diplomacy as practised at the supposedly sacrosanct United Nations isn’t always diplomatic at its
best, and is illegal at its worst. It started with people, ordinary people, wondering whether a new ethic might lead to transparency and honesty at the impressive building overlooking New York’s East River. Just because spying has always been a part of the United Nations’ history does not mean it must be a part of its future. Everything else aside, it might be rather agreeable to honour international agreements in this regard. Here is another concept worth thinking about.
What was most shocking about this sorry spying blunder, and still is, was the intent behind it. The United States was so determined to get its way that it was willing to collect private information for what at least appears to be a bit of high-stakes blackmail. President Bush had said he was willing to do most anything, to ‘twist arms’ to get what he wanted, and this was one strong-armed, clay-footed way of doing so. Would an American president resort to this sort of bully tactic today? If so, is someone going to be willing to let the political cat out of the bag? And should he or she do so?
A question of special significance is this: How can citizens know, today, when disgraceful political bullying or deliberate manipulation of intelligence happens in their country? When it happens in America, a nation long considered captain of the Good Ship Morality, an international law-abider, an arbiter of global ethics? They cannot always know, but whistle-blowing helps in creating a less gullible coast-to-coast community.
As for America’s image abroad, it is apparent that something sad has happened, has changed its character, has tarnished it. There is no question that the NSA plot to steal the UN Security Council vote contributed to its corrosion.
The bogeyman that Frank Koza released on 31 January 2003 did considerable damage. It did not, however, destroy the essence of hope for a political life properly conducted, although it toyed with the national psyche, raised international concerns, and messed with trust of government.
The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War Page 20
