The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1967. Controlling The C.LA.

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31306, 28 February 1967, Page 16

The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1967. Controlling The C.LA.

There is nothing new in the outcry about the operations of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Over a long period the methods employed by the agency, the extent to which its work is directed from within the Administration itself, the extent to which a broader Congressional supervision might be justified, and the propriety of agency procedure in subsidising and using university and student organisations for investigations in special fields have been critically discussed. The director of the agency, Mr Richard Helms, has now announced the withdrawal of aid from some groups, though Senator Russell, chairman of the Senate committee which has a supervisory association with the C.LA., has declined to say whether the National Students’ Association will be one of them. The allotment of agency funds to the association for “under-cover” work was begun, according to the former Attorney-General, Senator Robert Kennedy, by the Eisenhower Administration. If the practice is now causing any embarrassment to the association, presumably it could ask that it be ended. That course was taken last year by the Centre of International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The C.LA. helped to establish the centre with a grant of 300,000 dollars in 1951, and later supported most of its research, particularly in Communist affairs. Actually the institute’s decision to break with the C.LA. was taken—“ reluctantly ” —in 1965; but to allow contracts to be honoured, it did not become effective until June of last year. At an earlier stage—l9ss-59—C.LA. agents had worked among Michigan State University students on a foreign aid project in South Vietnam. These facts were freely commented on by correspondents of the “New York Times” who last year wrote a series of articles examining the operations of the agency. In one article the scope and cost of agency operations were indicated, although then, as to-day, the funds at its disposal were supposed to be a closely guarded secret. According to the “ New York Times ” writer, the over-all cost of United States intelligence operations exceeds 3000 m dollars a year—“more than six times the “ amount specifically allocated to the C.LA., and more “ than 2 per cent of the total Federal budget ”. One of the conclusions emerging from the “New York “ Times ” investigation was that in the C.LA. a “ sort “of Frankenstein monster” had been created that no-one could control. Its ramifications, domestic and foreign, were almost endless, the newspaper found; and in spite of the use of “spy” satellites and a wide range of electronic gadgets, there remained “ a deep involvement of human beings, who “ project the agency into awkward diplomatic “ situations, raising many issues of policy and ethics ”. Because of the clandestine nature of its activities, the agency has few opportunities to justify or defend itself. As a former director, Mr Allen Dulles, has ruefully remarked, “ the only time people pay atten- “ tion to us is when we fall flat on our face ” —as when, in August, 1962, President Kennedy angrily scotched an agency scheme to contaminate a cargo of Cuban sugar bound for Russia. Mr Kennedy, so the story went, was furious, not only because the plot would have provided the Russians with valuable propaganda material but also because “it could set “ a terrible precedent for chemical sabotage ”. Amid the present commotion about the agency’s operations in the universities, Senator Kennedy’s plea for a sympathetic appreciation of its problems seems reasonable, as does his warning that “ we are “not dealing with a dream world, but with a very “tough adversary”. The Administration must be constantly aware of its responsibility to keep a tight rein on the C.LA. The “New York Times” has urged the establishment of a permanent Congressional “watchdog” committee to keep agency activities under review. It has recognised the importance of firm Administration control, but has argued cogently that control in itself is not sufficient to the American system of government. “ The “Administration itself needs legislative scrutiny in “this field”, said the paper. “Neither in defence “nor diplomacy nor atomic matters, where secrecy “is also essential, has it even been suggested that “ Congressional advice and consent are unnecessary. “Far more significant than whether the C.LA. is “ right in subverting this or that government abroad “ is the question whether exclusive Executive control “ of the intelligence community does not subvert the “ American system of government itself “ Big George ” Chief Superintendent G. W. Alty, officer-in-charge, of the Christchurch police district, served the public well. Mr Alty was aged 24 when he joined the police, and like the present Commissioner of Police (Mr Spencer) and Commissioner-designate (Mr Urquhart) worked his way up from constable to high rank by integrity, loyalty, ability and service. As a detective sergeant in Christchurch, Mr Alty was better-known to the public 15 years ago than since he reached administrative rank. Within the police, “ Big George ”, was as well respected and liked as a detective engaged in inquiries into major crimes as in more senior posts, latterly as the most senior chief superintendent. Conversely, Mr Alty’s task as administrator was lightened by the knowledge that he could rely on men he knew doing the day-to-day work of the police as efficiently as he had done it himself. Therein lies the real strength of the New Zealand Police.