Cleaning up after Koudelko: Revealed what happened in BIS

Michal Koudelka should definitely end up at the head of BIS in February next year. Referring to her sources, Sabina Slonková claims this, saying that the prime minister has already told him and is looking for a replacement. Do you think this is good or bad news and why?

It's a logical message, that's a good thing about it. Koudelko's term of office is coming to an end and it would be wrong if he remained in office longer. It is not just that he performed his function theatrically and prejudicedly. Those experienced in the intelligence industry know that staying at the helm of the intelligence services for a long time is a security risk in itself. It testifies to that period in the history of the American secret services, when J. Edgar Hoover was the fifth and last director of the BOI (Bureau of Investigation) in the years 1924-1935, and then from 1935 the first director of his successor organization the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) until his death in 1972 (otherwise he would probably still be there today). A total of 48 years. It was said that it was uncertain whether the United States was run by the president (he survived five!) or by him. He knew so much about everyone that he was unkillable. Apparently Koudelk's model!

Jif you would characterize his more than ten-year era in the management of the Security Information Service?

I remember that Koudelka gave quite an interesting interview immediately after joining, so I hoped that he would follow in the footsteps of his commander, BIS director Jiří Lang. He led the service rather in the "secret" mode, especially in comparison with the spectacle that Koudelka gradually turned it into. Under his directorship, the intelligence service became a propaganda vehicle, influencing not only politicians, but especially public opinion. This role is completely unacceptable to the law. But many intelligence services in the Euro-Atlantic area behave similarly, providing public support for highly controversial political decisions by publishing "arguments" that cannot be verified in principle (intelligence services are obliged to protect the identity of their sources). That's the road to hell.

Koudelka significantly transformed the role of director of civilian counterintelligence. Before that, it was truly a secret service in the truest sense of the word secret. Its boss was not particularly visible, he did not appear in public or in the media, BIS's public communication was limited. In recent years it has been the other way around and Koudelka has become a de facto political player according to his critics. How do you think BIS should change under the leadership of the new boss?

The intelligence service needs to be "dekoudelized" to the core. The very nature of the service must change. It must, in the words of the experienced Miroslav Polreich, be a state body that tells its clients the truth. The clients of the intelligence service are executive bodies, primarily the government. The truth tends to be uncomfortable, so all communication takes place in stealth mode. News reporters sign an oath of office that they risk their own lives in the performance of their duties. Therefore, it is the duty of the director of the intelligence service to risk his eventual dismissal, but he must provide truthful information, even if it is the most unpleasant for the political intentions of the government (or alliance partners). However, an intelligent government can appreciate the fact that the credible and accurate news will be the first to be heard, even if it is bad. Even the bad ones, because he has more time to prepare a reaction to them.

Slonková also writes that Koudelka is trying to influence the choice of her successor. Can the prime minister push his own candidate without Koudelko's "sanctification"?

From this one can draw the suspicion that Koudelka has built an ideologically biased service, to put it very gently, and is now careful to keep it that way. Perhaps he is also afraid that his successor will not reveal the true meaning of this "aberration", which may stem from some deranged belief, but may also have a more serious explanation. We therefore wish the prime minister, and therefore ourselves and the entire state, to succeed in choosing a quality successor.

The BIS has faced the harshest criticism in its history under the current director. It often involved suspicions of targeted leaks to selected media, the inability to prevent certain acts (Vrbětice, for example), embarrassment with a ricin killer that did not exist, and other things.

Under Koudelka, those controlled leaks to "friendly" media via serving journalists (or "persons working for BIS") became a literal farce. This was the way cases were flicked through that were moot at best, but could often be far-fetched. The wasps could not be prevented if someone invented this form of the whole case, and thus the criminal proceedings could not even be completed. There are more evidence holes in the whole case than a classic Emmental. Nothing can be made of it, unless someone ideologically forged, like the infamous Urválek, and polished in such a way that he could even be president, God forbid, would take it up.

The ricin grotesque will be taught in intelligence cadet courses, and perhaps not just here. You can enter history properly, but also tragically, which is the case here.

Another significantly confused, apparently non-existent case is the jailing of that poor Chinese journalist who was interested in unclassified things, as journalists have been doing since time immemorial. The court did not accept the indictment and sent it back for further investigation. Embarrassment!

Koudelka himself and his supporters from today's opposition claim that the BIS under his leadership has gained great respect abroad, that it has helped the Czech Republic build the position of a sovereign country that does not allow Russian and Chinese spies to operate here. How do you see this?

I see it as a very sad and bad volunteer performance. After all, I spent a few years in the industry and had the opportunity to observe various events from a wide perspective and consult them with renowned experts. I know how badly governments lie about showing mutual respect between the services! This is indeed a false solidarity, which builds - on the basis of the threat of mutual compromise - such networks of influence from which there is no escape. Once you tell a lie, you have to keep telling it.

In addition, the intelligence services are not legislated as to which spies to prosecute - and which not to! Try asking the BIS what spies from "friendly" countries are operating here without our government's approval! Scientific, technical and industrial espionage knows no brother, no borders, no ideology. I am afraid that from this point of view, the sovereignty of our country is very questionable.

After Koudelka's departure, should BIS cut itself off from his era and rebuild itself? What should the new director change as a priority - whether in the service culture, personnel policy, external communication style, or in the focus of activity - to restore trust and return to maximum professionalism?

Yes, fundamental change is necessary. The new management of the service should implement everything that the law imposes on the service. And beware: only that and nothing else! State institutions can only do what the law tells them to do. There is not even a word about publishing annual reports! The law clearly defines who is the recipient of intelligence information. They are listed entities, but the public is not there. And the media, by no means. Intelligence services must provide accurate and verified information in a timely manner to the correct addressees. That's all. The intelligence services should therefore dive back into the "secret" modus operandi.

The government should learn what the intelligence services are not for and learn to task and coordinate and control them within their legal mandate. The Chamber of Deputies should establish advisory bodies to its committees and commissions dealing with intelligence matters, composed of emeritus intelligence officers, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, police officers and other experts. These advisory bodies should be permanent, rolling over from one electoral term to another, to ensure continuity of parliamentary oversight for MPs.