Commentary
When I was in late elementary school, I realized I could not see the blackboard very well. Reluctantly, I accepted that I needed to have my eyesight tested. Sure enough, I was nearsighted (myopic) and got glasses.
I am not sure if this is acceptable these days, but I was called “four eyes” as a consequence. Later, in my mid-50s, after undergoing laser eye surgery to correct my myopia, I became farsighted and now have to wear reading glasses (does that make me six-eyed?). I am not alone in this, but it is a nuisance.
Another “eyed” entity may soon experience some trouble: the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance. Will it be reduced to Four Eyes?
For those unfamiliar with this group, the Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing arrangement among five Anglo-centric nations that began during World War II. Initially, the alliance was between the United Kingdom and the United States; Canada later joined, followed by Australia and New Zealand. It is by far the most successful and significant intelligence collaboration in human history.
I had a front-row seat in the Five Eyes for 32 years, working with the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada’s two most crucial spy agencies. I had access to highly sensitive data that we shared with our allies, receiving equally valuable intelligence in return.
However, this collaboration may be at risk. The new U.S. administration has made it abundantly clear that it views everything through the narrow lens of “what’s in it for us?” If it perceives, rightly or wrongly, that it is giving more than it is receiving, it threatens to end the relationship.
Related Stories
In truth, Canada benefits far more from this intelligence exchange than it contributes. This imbalance stems from our limited intelligence capabilities, our smaller presence on the global stage, and, perhaps most critically, our weak intelligence and national security culture (which I have lamented in these pages for years). Simply put, we do not invest enough in intelligence collection and processing. To be clear, what we do produce is of high quality (at least it was when I worked in the field), but it pales in comparison to what our allies provide.
It is not unimaginable that the United States, under its transactional leadership, may one day decide it is no longer in its interest to share intelligence with Canada if we do not reciprocate adequately. The same could happen to other members of the alliance. There is precedent for such action: in the 1980s, the United States temporarily cut New Zealand out of the alliance over a dispute about docking a naval vessel suspected of carrying nuclear arms.
Should this scenario unfold (and I sincerely hope it does not), Canada will face both significant costs and potential opportunities. First and foremost, consumers of Five Eyes intelligence in Canada will see a dramatic reduction in the volume of information they receive. Most of the foreign intelligence used in Canada is not produced domestically. Consequently, our decision-makers will be less equipped to develop policies and assess global developments.
On the opportunity side, this crisis could reignite the long-standing debate over why Canada remains the only Five Eyes member without a dedicated foreign intelligence agency (unlike the CIA in the United States or MI6 in the United Kingdom). While the CSE collects foreign intelligence, it is limited to signals intelligence (SIGINT). CSIS has a foreign intelligence mandate under Section 16 of the CSIS Act, but it can only collect human intelligence (HUMINT) on the intentions of foreign actors “in Canada”—a contradiction for “foreign” intelligence.
Despite the federal government’s categorical rejection of discussions on such an agency, the time may be ripe to seriously consider creating a foreign HUMINT service. Establishing such an agency would require substantial investment and years to become effective, but it may be necessary to safeguard our interests.
In the end, the dissolution of the Five Eyes alliance would weaken all its members and benefit none. Unfortunately, that may not matter to the powers that be. Still, it would be a tragedy to see this alliance unravel after 75 years of crucial and highly effective cooperation. I hope my pessimism proves unwarranted.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
