Covid report hints at discord among US agencies

Reports even in the US media on the statement issued by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on April 30 regarding the novel coronavirus had suggested that the DNI had almost exonerated China by saying that the virus was not ‘manmade’. The Chinese media had extensively quoted the report to defend its stand against the diplomatic onslaught by the White House. However, President Donald Trump blamed China again on the same day (April 30) for not doing enough to contain the virus: “We just got hit by a vicious virus that should never have been allowed to escape China.”

Significantly, the original text of the DNI, officially released on Thursday, contains only 104 words. It says, “The intelligence community (IC) also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the Covid-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” However, it also adds: “The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

This short statement made the Wall Street Journal call it a ‘rare move’ and ‘unusual public statement’.

It emphasised more on what the intelligence community would do in Wuhan to determine whether the coronavirus may have escaped from a laboratory there, “the city where the pandemic began”. In other words, the final outcome of their enquiries has not yet come.

Unusual drama is being witnessed within the US government system on this subject. On March 9, the Time had reported that an annual report on the worldwide threat assessment from the DNI to the House Intelligence Committee that was to have been delivered by March 12 was ‘postponed’ by the White House without assigning any reason. The paper said after questioning two unidentified persons who had seen the report that the report had said that the US was not ‘ready’ for a global pandemic. It added: “Democratic staffers say they do not expect the report to be released any time soon.”

The Time blamed the Trump administration for effecting cuts in funding and the staff for pandemic preparedness to respond to an outbreak instead of acting on these recurrent warnings and bolstering America’s ability. In May 2018, Trump’s aides dismissed the National Security Council’s global health security staff and moved to cut its budget. All these are confusing the affected public.

Was The Wall Street Journal labelling the present DNI report as ‘rare move’ and ‘unusual’ a hint of a war within US agencies on this subject as the US is approaching the November elections? It would be calamitous if that happens. Such inter-agency wars had happened from 1981 during the early years of the Reagan presidency involving the White House and the State Department, thus lowering the prestige of the government. However, now it is different — a pandemic is killing thousands of patients.

In June 1981, Secretary of State Alexander Haig wanted a CIA estimate on the Soviet involvement in global terrorism. He wanted to help President Ronald Reagan, who had questioned the very legitimacy of the Soviet Union in his first press conference on January 28, 1981. William Casey, CIA Director since March 1981, wanted a ‘strong’ CIA estimate. The first draft made by the CIA ‘shocked’ Casey, according to former CIA director Robert Gates. The draft referred to the distinction the Soviets had made between national liberation groups and those inciting terrorism.

Casey was annoyed that the CIA analysts were arguing like defence lawyers in courts. He was so upset that he asked for a draft from the Defence Intelligence Agency. A struggle ensued between different intelligence agencies. What finally emerged as an estimate titled ‘The Soviet role in revolutionary violence’ was a mélange of various ideas, including the CIA’s original views. Gates said in his memoirs: “All in all, there was no line between policy advocacy and intelligence for Bill Casey.”

Another incident happened in September 1983 when the actors had changed. On September 1, 1983, a South Korean flight, KAL 007 (Boeing 747), from New York to Seoul via Alaska was shot down by the Soviet Union for deviating from its path. In that process, 269 passengers and the crew were killed. A majority of the passengers were from South Korea. Initially, the Soviet Union denied any knowledge about the incident. Later, they said that it was a spy plane on a MASINT (measurement and signal intelligence) mission.

This raised a huge outcry in all democratic countries. On the same day, George Shultz, who was Secretary of State, wanted to quote this as another instance of the cruelty of the ‘Evil Empire’, a phrase coined by President Reagan on March 8, 1983. Shultz insisted on getting raw footage from the CIA and other intelligence agencies to hurriedly condemn the Soviet Union of barbarism, despite knowing that it was a passenger plane which might have deviated from its path.

However, a story published by the New York Times on October 7, 1983 embarrassed and infuriated Shultz. It said, based on a leak, that the Soviet air defence might have misidentified KAL 007 as an American Boeing RC-135 reconnaissance spy plane which was hovering around that area to monitor a Soviet ICBM test. Shultz felt cheated by the CIA as he felt that the agency had deliberately withheld this vital information before his hard-hitting press conference on September 1. Gates quotes Shultz in his memoirs: “They (CIA) have no compunctions about fooling you.”

The Directorate of National Intelligence has recently undergone some churnings, not enhancing its reputation. In February this year, President Trump dismissed acting Director Joseph Maguire over some policy differences. Surprisingly, his replacement was his confidante Richard Grenell, with no experience in intelligence, who is still shown as US Ambassador to Germany.

It was known in February that Grenell would hold both charges concurrently. Intelligence veterans are now questioning: “How, exactly does one oversee America’s 17 intelligence agencies while sitting in an embassy in Berlin over 4,000 miles away from Washington, DC? Or, if the other way around, how does one act as an effective Ambassador to Germany while being 4,000 miles away in Washington?”