WikiLeaks sheds light on Akrotiri and rendition BRITAIN’S CONCERNS over Cypriot “hypersensitivity” and human rights violations regarding use of Akrotiri airbase for CIA rendition flights were dismissed by the US as risking the spread of terrorism, revealed US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.
The cables document a series of exchanges between US and British officials on concerns that the British government, through use of its RAF Akrotiri airbase by US spy planes, could be complicit in the torture of suspects. Despite calling US use of Akrotiri “sloppy”, the UK eventually backed down from its demands for more flight information on covert or potentially controversial missions, aligning itself with the US view that such requests were “burdensome”.
The exchange reveals information never before made public, regarding Akrotiri’s use by U2 spy planes for ‘operational’ intelligence flights over Lebanon, Turkey and northern Iraq. The intelligence gained was then shared with US allies, likely the Lebanese and Turkish governments, raising the spectre of Cyprus being used as a floating air carrier for US planes to spy on Kurdish activities on behalf of Turkey. Perhaps it was this scenario that led a British senior official to tell her American counterpart that the Cypriots could turn off the lights if they found out.
The cables also shine a light on the importance Britain attaches to the Akrotiri base, the not so subtle imbalance in the military and intelligence-sharing relationship between the US and UK, and the varying weight afforded human rights and counter-terrorism in what is could be interpreted as a zero-sum game.
The brief diplomatic tussle begins with a cable from the US Embassy in London on April 16, 2008, informing Washington that the UK was asking for greater details of all rendition flights over its territory so that British ministers could weigh up whether they “put the UK at risk of being complicit in unlawful acts”.
The request is passed on in a letter written by Will Jessett, the then Ministry of Defence’s Director of Counter Terrorism (CT). Jesset notes that the four-monthly approval cycles for U2 sorties flown from RAF Akrotiri did not cover the UK’s needs regarding “sensitive intelligence gathering operations, for example where information is passed to third parties”.
Jessett highlights UK concern over indirectly aiding the commission of unlawful acts by US allies on the basis of information gathered through British assistance provided to the US.
A further risk, he notes, would be for other governments to become aware of these flights. “In particular, there are sensitivities with Government of Cyprus regarding the use of Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus,” he said.
In briefing Washington, the embassy described the new procedure as “burdensome” and an “unnecessary layer of bureaucracy”.
In the following cable on May 14, 2008, the UK says its concern over human rights violations “could jeopardise future use of British territory”. It also notes concern regarding flights over Lebanon, highlighting the US State Department’s own human rights reports of torture by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).
The British government said it expected the US to monitor use of intelligence and ensure the LAF lives up to its commitment to maintain high human rights standards. A Foreign Office (FCO) official noted that “the highly cautious approach is a reflection of Parliamentary, public, and media attention to issues involving UK complicity in human rights violations”.
The US Embassy’s response was that the British were piling on concerns and “unrealistic” conditions, potentially making it “burdensome” to get intelligence flights approved.
It recommended to Washington that US raises concern that such “excessive conditions...will hinder, if not obstruct, our cooperative counterterrorism efforts”.
While the US shares the UK’s concerns that “human rights not be sacrificed for the sake of CT (counter terrorism), we cannot take a risk-avoidance approach to CT in which the fear of potentially violating human rights allows terrorism to proliferate in Lebanon.”
The next leaked cable suggests that the UK took the hint about obstructing counterterrorism cooperation and played ball.
In a cable dated May 20, 2008, the then FCO Director General for Defence and Intelligence Mariot Leslie is reported expressing regret to senior US official John Rood that dialogue over intel flights had become “unnecessary confrontational” and “prickly”.
She noted that the British government “desperately needs” the British bases for its own intelligence gathering and operations and was committed to keeping them available to the US and France.
However, she pointed out that the Cypriots are hypersensitive about the British presence in Cyprus and could “turn off the utilities at any time”. In addition, the government was coming under tremendous parliamentary, public and media pressure to maintain sovereign control of its territories, especially Akrotiri.
Leslie said US use of Akrotiri had gotten “sloppy”. Using subtle diplomacy, she showed annoyance at lower-level officials making such high demands of the US, but did insist that all clearance requests for intel flights be made between government and not military officials. Leslie also dropped the request for assurances on best practices of the Lebanese army, saying that US knowledge of Britain’s concerns on human rights would suffice.
According to the cable, Leslie did state frankly that the UK objected to some of what the US does, like renditions.
Spokesman for the British Bases, Captain James Mansell yesterday refused to comment on leaked information. Asked how many countries used Akrotiri airbase, he said: “We don’t comment on third party use of the airfield.”
In 2007, a report adopted by the European Parliament alleged that over 1,200 rendition flights carrying terrorist suspects to other countries to be tortured were carried out in 14 EU countries, including Cyprus. From those CIA flights, 57 landed at Larnaca airport.
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/wikil ... n/20101203
Cypriots could turn off the lights if they found out.
It seems the UK and international powers still require the Cypriots to be divided. Because if I decode the above statment it states Cypriots as one if united can ask the UK to leave SBA. We all knew this one way or another but evidence just supports our views.
