Editorial | Mr Tapia’s claim of espionage

It is surprising that it is Donald Tapia’s latest prodding of Jamaica to eschew Huawei, or other Chinese companies’ 5G digital technology, that has got the attention. That warning, even with his addition of the question of where Jamaica would stand in the event of a Sino-American war, is now standard for the outgoing US ambassador and the receding Trump administration.

But Mr Tapia, in his valedictory interview with this newspaper, made a stunning claim, which, on the face of it, is an unflattering, if not indictable, comment about US counter-intelligence capabilities. It is one, too, that should be exercising Jamaica’s national security officials and its telecommunications overlords – in the public and private sectors.

Ambassador Tapia claimed that the Chinese had, via a domestic network, bugged his telephone. This was confirmed by the head of the telecoms, who the ambassador confronted with his suspicion. This eavesdropping, Mr Tapia warned, risked jeopardising the intelligence-sharing arrangement between the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) and the US security system.

A claim by an American diplomat that he and his delegation are being spied on by a powerful adversary, or even a friendly nation, is not outlandish. That is par for the course in global relations.

For instance, in 2015, Wikileaks released documents showing that America’s National Security Agency surreptitiously listened to the phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her staff, despite Mrs Merkel, during Barack Obama’s presidency, being hailed as an “inseparable” US ally. Mrs Merkel’s predecessor and their staff were similarly spied on. Edward Snowden’s information dump was replete with other instances of America keeping clandestine watch on its allies.

NO ALLEGIANCE

No country, if any, owes its existence to the United States more than Israel. But the Israelis also spy on America. It was only last week that one of those spies, Jonathan Pollard, a US Navy analyst who served 30 years in an American jail, received a hero’s welcome in Israel at the end of his parole.

Mr Tapia’s claim of being wiretapped on a domestic network, however, raises a number of issues. First is the implication that he would, or would be allowed to, have sensitive conversations over unsecured phone lines – whether fixed or mobile. That is in the basic training manuals of diplomats. Moreover, given America’s technological know-how and the capabilities that we suspect to reside in its Jamaica operation, it is a bit surprising.

Further, that the alleged bugging was so readily detected by, and obvious to, the telecoms operator, suggests that the supposed Chinese persons who bugged the phone lines are either clumsy or incompetent. Or both.

In any event, on the discovery of any such wiretap, which would be in breach of Jamaica’s laws, the telecoms had a legal obligation to report the trespass on its network to the Jamaican authorities. On the verification of the breach, Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith would have been obligated to call in the Chinese ambassador with a diplomatic note of protest to be delivered to Beijing. Additionally, anyone in the Chinese Embassy with diplomatic cover, who was identified as the person who carried out the wiretap, should have been declared p ersona non grata. If the person was not a diplomat, he or she should have been arrested and charged in accordance with Jamaican law.

PUBLIC RELATIONS COUP

As an extension of this process, had Americans shared the information with Jamaica, and Kingston had followed the outlined protocols, that would have been a grand opportunity to embarrass the Chinese, delivering a public relations coup for the United States that would have been far more effective than Mr Tapia and Mike Pompeo’s lectures on the security risks of using Huawei’s 5G technology.

Then there is the question of spycraft. Unless the Americans had compelling reasons to do otherwise, being quiet about the alleged bug could have been a possibility to mislead and false flag the Chinese.

There, however, remains a critical factor in this matter that requires clarification from Prime Minister Andrew Holness, who is also the defence minister, and the national security minister, Horace Chang.

In June, Mr Tapia complained of foot-dragging on a new intelligence-sharing agreement to replace one that had lapsed more than four years earlier. The new memorandum was recently initialled. Mr Tapia says it is in danger.

Intelligence sharing with the United States is important in Jamaica’s fight against the flow of guns, narcotics and other contraband into the island, which fuels crime. If, indeed, the agreement has been compromised by China’s claimed third-party espionage, Jamaicans have a right to know. Which brings us back to what should happen if someone breaks the law, or a state operates outside of diplomatic norms.

Prime Minister Holness should unravel matters for us.