Secrets and Lies

Every so often, the Groan’s Comment is Free produces an article that fails the twaddle test. This, from Richard Norton-Taylor is one such refreshing gem:

Years ago, when the Thatcher government reformed the Official Secrets Act after a jury’s speedy acquittal of Clive Ponting – indicted for exposing lies about the sinking of the Argentine cruiser the Belgrano during the Falklands conflict – we were promised that, in future, prosecutions would be brought only when genuine issues of national security were at stake.

Ah, yes, I remember that. At the time, I felt that the Thatcher government were nothing more than a bunch of self-serving lying, mendacious power-crazed politicians. I believed, naïvely, that their Labour opposition would, given the chance, prove different. Well, I was younger and more impressionable in those days… That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it. The scales have since fallen from my eyes, somewhat.

Still, back to Richard’s point:

New Labour promised less secrecy.

They did. Just as they promised an ethical foreign policy, electoral reform and a referendum on the EU constitution treaty.

Promises they failed to keep. Nothing new, there, then.

More recently, Gordon Brown promised even greater transparency.

And, of course, we believed him. Excuse me while I remove my tongue from my cheek. Ah, that’s better.

Wednesday’s abrupt collapse of the case against Derek Pasquill, the Foreign Office civil servant charged under the act, shows the pitfalls facing governments when they break their promises.

This was a prosecution that should never have been brought – as Richard points out in his piece. That it has caused embarrassment for the government is not something I will be over troubled by – they brought it upon themselves, so it was well deserved. However, it is a telling reminder in the article that I want to raise:

Official secrecy seems more alive now than for decades. There is more than one case in which government lawyers are trying to suppress information – not to protect national security, but to shield the state from embarrassment or shame.

Richard goes on to mention a couple. Government – any government – sooner or later believes that it is above those who elect it. Sooner or later, it believes that it has the right to operate in secrecy from those to whom it is answerable. Of course, there are times when secrecy is necessary. Certain aspects of national security could not operate without it. However, this should be kept to the absolute minimum – and, using secrecy in order to keep agents in the field alive is somewhat different to avoiding red faces in Downing Street and Whitehall.

There are genuine threats to national security and to our public and personal safety. It is a dangerous abuse if a government hoists the flag of national security and deploys the Official Secrets Act when all it is really trying to do is protect itself from embarrassment.

Indeed. What we have here is a stark reminder of that well worn paradigm; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our current administration is, indeed, absolutely corrupt.