The Lives of Spies

At Her Majesty’s Secret Service: The Chiefs of Britain’s Intelligence Service, MI6
by Nigel West
Frontline Books, 2016, 246 pages, $50

Spymaster: The Life of Britain’s Most Decorated Cold War Spy and Head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield
by Martin Pearce
Bantam, 2016, 391 pages, $50
____________________________________

Intelligence is about people and the study of people.
                                                    —Maurice Oldfield

Nigel West has had a long-standing fascination with espionage and has published numerous books on the subject. Although some of the material in At Her Majesty’s Secret Service has also been covered in earlier books, much of it is updating rather than mere repetition.

While this new book reads well, and is often absorbing, it should be taken with reserve. It compares and contrasts the style, character and contribution of MI6 chiefs up to 2014.

Chapters are prefaced with salutary quotes on the world of intelligence. While it is axiomatic, and can never be repeated enough, secrecy is their guiding oath. Yet even that strongly held precept was not enough to save the British Secret Intelligence Service from itself. History records the grave damage incurred by several rogue MI6 officers from the Second World War until the new millennium. The early traitors, with avowedly communist sympathies, included Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and George Blake. They were unmasked, but all escaped to find refuge in Moscow. Such was the climate of suspicion and paranoia that MI6 was grievously compromised throughout its institutional life, as a frenetic search for moles within continued to haunt its chiefs.

While MI6 was obliged to defend the British realm, its inter-agency links with the CIA also suffered, with a loss of trust between Washington and London. Highly placed communist ideologues in MI6 had access to top-secret allied intelligence, which was then channelled to the Soviet Union. This treachery led to the torture and execution of many agents by the Soviet security services. It is surprising that a few MI6 officers could inflict so much damage on two agencies that co-operated during the Cold War. Simply put, it poisoned the close relationship. However, the US later experienced similar perfidy within the CIA and FBI as a few of their own trusted insiders betrayed secrets to Moscow.

To understand the ideological duplicity, one might reflect on the British establishment and the pervading influence of class which characterised if not contaminated their post-war society. In more innocent times, men (and a few women) were recruited on the basis of their personal station. If they had attended the top public schools, graduated from the Oxbridge universities and had admirable social connections then their way was clear. The “right stuff” meant that they had served in the armed forces during wartime or contributed in related civilian roles to the war effort. That cheerful myopia blinded any sober appreciation during recruitment to MI6. Positive vetting has a stated purpose to thoroughly investigate all applicants and then continually throughout their careers. A service needs a full exposition of an officer’s private life, including political motivations, ideologies held, sexuality, financial status, psychological framework, emotional stability and the ability to be discreet in handling classified information.

Homosexuality? Times have changed since this once-proscribed personal behaviour was decriminalised in Britain in 1967. Indeed, the armed forces in Britain no longer prevent the recruitment of those who avow a non-heterosexual life. However, for any intelligence service, for most of the last century, homosexuality was seen as a security risk, if its officials were open to blackmail for any (then) illegal private acts, which under the threat of exposure, could compromise their position of trust and thus their ability to safeguard secrets. It is necessary to retail this notion as it also delves into hypocrisy. West handles this responsibly, and has written an engaging and informative book. But to gauge its utility, to compare and contrast MI6 chiefs, it is incumbent upon readers to examine the life of Sir Maurice Oldfield and his tenure from 1973 to 1978.

On his retirement from MI6 in 1978, Oldfield was appointed to another high-profile role as the Co-ordinator of Security in Northern Ireland. In 1980 he was recalled from Belfast, due to ill health, and was investigated. How was his own homosexuality revealed? Various and speculative conspiracy theories have been retailed that either he was set up by the Irish Republican Army, or the perfidious hand of Britain’s rival (internal) security service (MI5) suborned him. His positive security vetting clearance was summarily withdrawn in 1980 and he retired from duties, dying in 1981.

Martin Pearce is a nephew of Oldfield. He brings much family knowledge and a respectable command of the detail on Oldfield’s background and experience. However, despite the balance he attempts, his book is mostly hagiographical, and his praise is repetitive. His sympathy for his uncle is understandable, but Oldfield needs to be studied in a wider and deeper context.

Oldfield never married. He was said to favour the young and handsome males in the firm. So much so, his acolytes were dubbed the “Maurice Dancers”. (I am indebted to Alan Judd for this droll insight.) Of all the official secrets Oldfield guarded, he would ultimately come under official interrogation for his sexual inclinations, once suspected, but then revealed by his own confession.

In any biography, beyond traversing default timelines, a reader needs to be alive to the emerging themes. To say that Oldfield was the most decorated chief of MI6 is an illogical appeal for authority if his private mendacity was institutionally held to be “indecorous”. If he lied about his homosexual predisposition, would he lie about keeping the state’s secrets? Despite that, Pearce’s biography is more authoritative than a previous and dated work from Richard Deacon (C: A Biography of Sir Maurice Oldfield, 1985). However, Deacon had forged a path which advantaged Pearce in his own attempt.

Oldfield ended a distinguished career in conflicted circumstances, as only a few close to him, beyond some officials and trusted friends, knew the full story. He was thus spared public disgrace at the full disclosure in 1987, when in parliament, Margaret Thatcher, explained the decision for his removal. To the credit of both, there was no suggestion that security had been compromised.

Sir Maurice was a homosexual, and he was for the most part discreet. Pearce is clearly sympathetic whereas West is more emphatic. Why is it necessary to labour this personal peccadillo? Any explanation delves into personal character and integrity.

Sir Maurice once boasted that, during a CIA experiment, he beat the lie-detector test. Later, as MI6 chief, he conducted an in-house purge against staff suspected of being homosexuals. Given his own tendencies, this was hypocritical. He had his reasons, as any admission of his own sexuality would have ended his career. Oldfield was deeply Christian and he knew he had to shield his private secret lest it shame his family, friends and colleagues.

Pearce has penned a compelling book but it falls apart towards the end. He has overstated his uncle’s influence at foreign tables, implying that he was a great fixer and enabler. Consider his back-channels to the Shah of Iran. His Imperial Majesty knew that he could say things to a visiting MI6 chief that he could not tell the local British ambassador. The Shah would realise that whatever he said would be quickly relayed to London and Washington. Sir Maurice had no more suasion on the Shah than US President Jimmy Carter. The Shah was pushed between liberalisation and oppression towards the end of his reign. Pearce’s account of the rise of the spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini is as ambiguous as it is vague; he has neglected to give adequate footnoting to back up his claims.

Intelligence services exist to interdict and contain threats to national sovereignty. Foreign policies and defence policies co-exist, as they both strive to forge a joint national security policy, at home and abroad, to promote, defend and assert a nation’s independence, often shared with allies. Permanent interests abide so long as they are enjoined to counter emerging threats. History has shown that threats always exist, yet they evolve in different manifestations over time. Read both of these books and learn what agents do to protect the national interest.