Agent of influence fear is back

This Agent of Influence concept has a long history. In 1974 American journalist John Barron published KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents in which he claimed that Soviet agents cultivated people in other countries to influence their governments' policies.

This belief was behind security and intelligence agency targeting of Australian anti-Vietnam war campaigners who were exercising their democratic right to oppose the war. Anyone protesting could be accused of acting on behalf of foreign interests and ASIO opened files on many Australian activists.

This Agent of Influence idea was taken up by Justice Robert Hope who headed two royal commissions into Australia's security and intelligence affairs.

Hope set out his view of the concept in his 1977 report where he said an Agent of Influence was a person who could be induced to use his influence to persuade others to adopt policies favourable to an interested foreign power.

"A person is not to be regarded as an Agent of Influence merely because he does or says things publicly or privately, favourable to a particular foreign power, or because he has been persuaded to do so by the available material about that power," he said.

"Clandestinity of persuasion is a hallmark of this type of operation, coupled with secrecy about its success on the part of the 'agent'."

Hope revived the concept again when he was called to conduct the 1983 Royal Commission into the Combe/Ivanov affair, where David Combe, the former National Secretary of the Labor Party, was alleged to have compromised Australia's national security by dealing with Soviet agent Valery Ivanov. Hope found that Combe had been targeted but concluded that there was no evidence of intelligence breaches or security threats.

In the course of this process huge personal damage was done to David Combe and others around him.

Today the Agent of Influence is back in vogue thanks to Labor Senator Sam Dastyari who solicited donations from a Chinese business to cover personal expenses. The allegation is that this led him to adopt a more pro-Chinese position on competing country claims in the South China Sea.

The issue has been given added impetus by a report quoting the US Ambassador John Berry saying that the US government is alarmed by Chinese donations and Chinese influence in Australia's domestic politics and wants reform of our electoral system.

Foremost among those demonising Chinese activities in Australia is Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Last month Jennings told us that the Chinese embassy and consulate in Australia was mobilising community groups to protest against The Hague international tribunal ruling against Chinese claims over waters in the South China Sea.

He referred to the chairman and key funder of the Australia-Chinese Relations Institute at University of Technology, Sydney, Xiangmo Huang, who advised against knee-jerk reactions.

But is Jennings himself free from foreign influence?

Former head of the Prime Minister's Department, John Menadue, has pointed out the close links between Jennings' think-tank, ASPI, and the Australia/US Defence and Intelligence Complex.

ASPI's 2014-15 annual report reveals that 56 per cent of its $5.9 million funding came from the Department of Defence.

Of the rest, 22 per cent came from sponsors including corporations heavily involved in supplying military hardware or services across the world, such as Airbus Group, BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Thales.

Jennings is a former senior defence official who headed the technical advisory panel for the defence white paper.

He is also a strong advocate for the submarine contract the Australian government recently awarded to France. (An article by him in The Australian earlier this year was headed "Vive the choice of French sub.")

The French certainly appreciate his contribution. ASPI's website tells us that in February 2016 he was awarded the French decoration of Knight in the National Order of Legion d'Honneur.

One can only assume that not all his discussions with the French that led to him winning this honour were in public.

So the question arises: Would any private discussions satisfy Justice Hope's "clandestinity" criterion to make him an Agent of Influence?

In truth the whole concept is cold-war McCarthyist nonsense.

In a democracy we're all entitled to try to influence each other in private and public discussions.

There is no shortage of "think-tanks" trotting out the US line and no shortage of academics, journalists and officials who have had a junket or all-expenses-paid posting to a US institution. Contrary to what these advocates appear to believe, US interests do not always coincide with those of Australia.

Dastyari should not have been so greedy as to ask for his expenses to be paid by someone else.

But far more worrying than his subsequent reported comments on the South China Sea were those of then Labor Defence spokesman, Stephen Conroy, who said Australia should authorise its forces to both sail and fly over Chinese artificial islands in the region.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop rightly responded that Australia should be working to reduce tensions in the region, not increase them.

South East Asian leaders meeting at the recent East Asia Summit also wisely chose not to highlight the matter, allowing for calmer private discussions to resolve their differences with China.

As I write, media reports suggest that the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is of the same mind.

In a televised speech last week he said the Philippines would not participate in expeditions patrolling the South China Sea to avoid being involved in a hostile act. "I just want to patrol our territorial waters," he said.

Left to their own devices, without interferences from war-mongering outsiders in Australia or elsewhere, the countries of the region will be able to arrive at a peaceful resolution to their territorial claims.