The disturbing truth about Echelon

12.00 pm - By KIM SENGUPTA and STEPHEN CASTLE

LONDON - One after the other the shutters in Washington came down on the European Union delegation, as soon as they mentioned Echelon.

No one in the US Government would even admit that the electronic spying system, the most powerful in the world, even existed. And if it did, they made clear, they would rather not go into it.

The National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and even the Department of Commerce refused to talk to the committee of MEPs on a fact-finding trip this month.

Stonewalled wherever they turned, they left, angry and frustrated, cutting short their trip.

Yesterday, as the European Parliament's groundbreaking report into the global spy network was published in Brussels, the MEPs who had been left out in the cold knew who to blame.

Not just the US authorities but the British government, they are convinced, which had colluded in the obstruction.

The 108-page report, the fruit of seven months of investigation by the parliament, did nothing to dampen the controversy and acrimony long associated with the clandestine network, and raised fresh, disturbing questions.

Echelon was set up during the Cold War by the US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to collate electronic intelligence.

The network has grown to keep pace with the explosion in information technology. Today the spy system gives 55,000 British and American operatives access to data gathered by 120 spy satellites worldwide.

Every minute of every day, the system can process three million electronic communications.

The spy network is very much an Anglo-American show, with the Americans as senior partners, run from Fort Meade in Maryland, Menwith Hill, North Yorkshire and GCHQ at Cheltenham, although 750 Americans operate an intercept station in Germany near Bad Aibling, taken over by the US Army in 1952.

One of Echelon's primary roles has been to gather industrial espionage from European companies for US ones, say some intelligence experts.

The French were said to have lost a $US6 billion ($14 billion) contract for Airbus with the Saudi government to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, thanks to Echelon intercepts of faxes and telephone calls.

There has also been scathing criticism of Britain ­ and its obsession with secrecy ­ from European partners for having its allegiance over the spy system with the "Anglo-Saxon" club rather than with Europe.

The MEPs who began their investigation were alarmed at learning their mobile phones be used to track their movements and could be transformed into bugging devices; the technology had been invented to shut off the ringer and download conversations.

But in yesterday's revealing report, the MEPs did not prove all the claims made about the spy system. They failed to prove conclusively that Echelon had been used by the US, or indeed Britain, for commercial spying on European competitors. And its scope is not as extensive as had been feared.

But the report warned businesses and ordinary individuals that they are being spied on and that users should encrypt their e-mails.

It said: "That a global system for intercepting communications exists ... is no longer in doubt. They do tap into private, civilian and corporate communications."

Impotent to do anything much about America, the MEPs pointed out that Britain could be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

And, as the report was being debated in Brussels, they voiced their suspicion of a British hand in ensuring their investigation in Washington DC went nowhere.

Gerhard Schmid, the vice-president of the European parliament, who drafted the report for the MEP Echelon committee, said: " We think perhaps it was one half of this famous Anglo-American partnership telling the people in Washington not to be too open with us."

Elly Plooij-Van Gorsel, vice-chairwoman of the committee, added: "The way we were treated in Washington was very insulting to a senior mission. We were very surprised when all these meetings began to be cancelled by officials using exactly the same language. The visit had been arranged by the EU mission in the US and we had been told it was all right. We are very concerned about the role we think the British Government has played in this. There is a lot of concern it was they who had told the Americans not to speak to us.

"But we must also question the behaviour of the British. When Britain held the [EU] presidency in 1997 I asked about Echelon and I was told it did not exist. Britain will have to decide where it wants to stand. How can we have a common European Union security policy if they (Britain) continue with this attitude towards other member states."

The committee members did meet the oversight committee of Congress and former intelligence officials and civil liberties groups.

"Not one government official would even admit even the name Echelon," said Ms Plooij-Van Gorsel.

"The only person who did was James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA. He said it was just a codename for a search engine." Mr Woolsey had conceded that the US did spy on European companies "but only because they bribe" to get lucrative contracts.

Although European states criticise Britain and the US they have been busy building their own electronic eavesdropping networks. France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark all have similar systems in place. But Echelon and the British connection is a difficult field for UK MEPs.

Neil MacCormick, an SNP MEP, said: "Obviously, national security should be protected, but the UK government must be aware of its obligation not just towards human rights but member states of the European Union."

The four-year search for the truth about Echelon began in one of the more obscure outposts of the European Parliament, the Scientific and Technological Options Assessments unit, which keeps MEPs abreast of complicated areas of new technology.

In the Seventies, the Labour MEP Glyn Ford had read a book called The Technologies of Political Control. He wondered whether the parliament's researchers could lift the lid on the murky world on electronic surveillance?

Mr Ford pulled out of the race for an official position on the committee, after eyebrows were raised in the Labour hierarchy.

Yesterday, Mr Ford said he did not want to pursue past agendas but was looking forward. "Maybe you cannot prove that Echelon exists but you can make a reasonable judgement," he said.

"There are good reasons to believe it exists and it has been abused. There may not be hard evidence that it has been abused but we want a system to guarantee that it isn't."

Mr Ford and his colleagues say the work raises fundamental issues about the respect for individual rights. But Echelon is not always the all-pervasive, powerful monster sometimes portrayed.

"Often", he says, " it just takes them so long to analyse this stuff that it is useless. Maybe, in three weeks, they will find out that The Independent is planning to write an article on Echelon today."

- INDEPENDENT