Spies for Peace?

A transnational peace activist for roughly half a century, Nigel Young has spent his life on the margins of political and state boundaries. Below Young reveals what he has learned to be a fine line between espionage and conflict research (i.e. “the perfect cover”).

By Nigel Young

By the time I first moved into peace research in 1963, I had become aware of the State’s interests (or often several States’ interests) in the anti-war movement: McCarthyist informers, Cold War agent provocateurs, intelligence sniffers, as well as plain opportunists, con-men, the confused, and mavericks – it was not only phone taps and men in macs. And then there were some odd characters in the peace movement itself, like Bertrand Russell’s secretary, R. Schoenman, and on the margins Pergamon Press’ Robert Maxwell, or the MP John Stonehouse in the U.K. The Quakerly dictum, “think the best of everyone you meet”, was certainly the one that many of us aspired to, but how many “strikes” before someone was out of the reach of trust and credibility? During the anti-draft movement in the U.S.A., the “plants” were obvious, their jeans and denim didn’t fit, they were awkward and not very with it, and their sunglasses were not cool. But they sowed mutual suspicion and that was enough. Many groups broke up. And during and after McCarthyism, in the 1960s, I directly experienced the entry of agents, often ex-military, into peace studies and action roles – not so much to gain information as much as to disrupt, divide and dismantle.

Those who work on the margins of states and boundaries – spies and peaceniks – have a lot in common. They sift the same information. They share not only their extra-national orientations, but their ambivalent loyalties and often the frontiers, or “walls” – around which they work in. I remember one occasion when a somewhat eccentric combat military officer, turned critic, turned journalist, turned researcher, (and temporary colleague) asked me, “But why would a spy be in peace research?” My response was immediate: “Because it is the perfect cover!” It’s one better than journalism, or refugee work, better than the U.N. and far better than the diplomatic corps. The genuine conflict researcher has legitimate roles in zones of conflict and violence and talks to both – or all sides – the IRA, the Brits, the Loyalist paras, the police, always “listening” carefully. The difference is between the overt (if still confidential) and the covert, the dissembler.

Of course, peace researchers are not free of their own agendas; even for more universal values. I made myself very unpopular in one North American University seminar by saying that I would have been sorely tempted to help Klaus Fuchs (the Atom Spy) escape if I was sure it could have helped nuclear disarmament. And I knew people who succumbed to similar temptations; or to covertly support one of the big battalions in a moment of crisis. Inevitably, transnational activism and study brought us into contact with senior military or ex-military, or intelligence – some as colleagues. Some turned for help to us; I still recall the unnameable high ranking North Vietnamese intelligence officer defecting (with my and others’ help) to Scandinavia, via embassies in Europe. It was he who had sought assistance. Very real, human, not an imagined ghost; he was desperate to tell his story, at length; though how much of it he told I’m not sure; but it had the passionate ring of authenticity and a plethora of details.

Most of us are caught up, one way or another, in the vast moral web of “security,” and there are cases where some doubtful choices are made and dilemmas faced. Indeed peace researchers or conflict transformers who nest on the edges of society (like spies) and who cross all sorts of borders and boundaries are inevitably drawn to the same sites and arouse the same suspicions. But the former at least aspire to openness. After 1998, I recall in working in an environmental peace project on the borders of former Yugoslavia and Albania, when simply gathering information aroused the suspicions of the Serbs, Montenegrins and Kosovars. Why? My very good map was from the U.S. army (Washington DC); my companion spoke Serb-Croatian (as it still was) as well as some Albanian. So the map, the language and being on sensitive frontiers put one alongside the State department people, the “in the know” journalists, the professional travel writers (another good cover) and the ex-military (who could never help being dismissive of academics!) and the highly (overly) informed “mountaineers.” In one way or another, probably most of them were serving states (not necessarily their own) but we were not. However, not all our goals were contradictory. If there was a key difference in roles it was transparency: we were not selectively, secretly reporting for and to a political paymaster – but openly to “civil society” and we were who we said we were; and tried to respect confidences, if we could. But nevertheless, they formed quite an interesting club, and “our woman in Tirana” was smart, interesting, cultured – not always sober – not always transparent, but the stuff of novels.

As Colgate University’s Cooley Professor of Peace Studies, Nigel Young held the first endorsed Peace Studies Chair in North America. He was also a co-founder of the UK’s first Peace Studies Department at the University of Bradford (1973) and has authored, co-authored, and edited many works in the field.  He is Editor in Chief of The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace.