MICHAEL BETTANEY,ALSO KNOWNAS MICHAEL MALKINA SPOOK INTHE CPGB
by Larry O'Hara
BACKGROUND
swards the end of 2000, myself andother anti-fascists
becameincreasingly concerned at the
activities of Terry Liddle, then a GreenParty member, who was
seeking to entangleGreens and Leftists in working
politicalalliances with open racists and fascists,Eventually, after
an enquiry, Liddle wasasked to leave the Green Party because
hecould not provide a consistent andsatisfactory explanation for
playing footsiewith fascists. At the height of thiscontroversy,
Weekly Worker, paper of the'Communist Party of Great Britain'
cameout openly in support of Liddle (not even amember), and used
their influence toprevent the Socialist Alliance (unlikeGreens)
even investigating Liddle [1],Being Stalinists, they did not print
GreenAnarchist's reply to their attacks, nor mineto one from Liddle
[2]. The CPGB'sdefence of Liddle was so strenuous,
andevidence-free, it led me to wonder exactlywhy they might be
doing this. Was Liddleenjoying the protection of a state asset
orassets inside the CPGB. A chilling thought,but one at least in
principle worthy ofconsideration because the CPGB have inthe ranks
a former MI5 officer, MichaelBettaney, using the name Michael
Malkin.
WHO MICHAELBETTANEY IS
Bettaney was perhaps the mostsignificant MI5 defector of
recenttimes. Hejoined MI5 in September1975 and after training
worked inNorthernIreland between June 1976 and September1978. He
then worked in MI5'sinternational 'counter-terrorism' section,
tillSeptember 1980, then MI5's trainingsection till December 1982.
FromDecember 1982 he worked in the MI5 (K)section countering the
KGB, remainingthere until his arrest in September 1983.Bettaney's
arrest was triggered by the factthat sometime in 1982 he became
sodisillusioned as to think he should givesecrets to the USSR. In
April 1983 he firstcontacted the KGB's Head of Londonstation,
offering him names of MIS agentsand other choice morsels. Anatoly
Gouk,his contact, believed these approaches ahoax, and never met
Bettaney. He did,however, tell his Deputy. Oleg Gordievsky,an MI6
asset. He told the British who sooncaught Bettaney. He went on
trial in 1984,resulting in a 23 year prison sentence.Bettaney was
an unusual defector becausehis motivations were primarily
ideological,not financial. So far, therefore, whileBettaney would
not win prizes for politicalliteracy (genuine socialists saw
through theUSSR as far back as 1956 at least, if not thePrague
Spring of 1968), a believable tale.
Notes Froz.
BETTANEY AS A PERSON
Hailing from a working classbackground, Bettaney won a placeat
Oxford University in 1969, and
from then on things went downhill.According to Private Eye
(house magazineof the Oxbridge elite) Bettaney was "knownto all his
friends at Oxford as a fascist loon,striding about the quads giving
fascistsalutes and inviting the future leaders of thenation back to
his room for a rendering ofthe Horst Wessel" [3]. Such
exhibitionismhelped him blend into his surroundings, oras the 1985
Security Commission Report(hereafter SCR) into his case coyly
stated"his extra-curricular activities whilst atOxford centred on
the Officer TrainingCorps" [4],Given this Report (SCR) will feature
inthisarticle, it is worth noting Bettaney"indicated he welcomed
this opportunity ofa discussion with the Commission" (p.5).He first
met them on 26th November 1984,13 days after his appeal was
dismissed. Hedid not spill his guts just to the Commissioneitheras
early as July 1984 one report saidhis statements to Special Branch
filled 170pages [5], So, whatever he may (or maynot) have learnt
from the IRA, counter-interrogation technique clearly wasn'tamong
it. Pertinently, Bettaney has nevermade any specific public
refutation of facteoutlined in the report using his own name-so
until he does we must presume heaccepts it as a factual record.
Simultaneouswith being a Communist (by 1983 that is)Bettaney saw
himself as a Catholic. GivenLiberation Theology, that juxtaposition
isnot as ludicrous as itmight seem to some.
Bettaney's criminal record and personalbehaviour pattern are of
some relevance inwhat follows, so Ishall briefly rehearsethem. In
1970 he was convicted of fare-dodging on British Rail (SCR p.7). On
hisvery first posting (in Northern Ireland) hebegan drinking
heavily (SCR p.12) and wasagain warned about excessive drinking
inMay 1981 (p.13). On 11/10/82 he wasarrested by two WPCs for being
"so drunkhe was able to stand unaided" and the nextday pleaded
guilty in court to being drunkin a public place & was fined
(p.14). On19/10/82 he was again caught fare-dodgingand pleaded
guilty incourt to this 11/11/82.In July 1982 and July 1983,
Bettaney gotdrunk at parties and came out with suchgems as "I'm
working for the wrong side","come and see me in my dacha when
Iretire" & so on (SCR p.17). Apart fromshowing him to be very
partial to unlimiteddrinking, the above points to Bettaney as aweak
tortured individual, not at ease withhimself. An object of pity,
really. Thathowever, is not the whole of it
BETTANEY INIRELANDA SERIOUS GAME
G!iven the pivotal importance oft Irelandto the Britishruling
class ingeneral, and secret state inparticular, it is no surprise
the Security-Commission Report did not even admitBettaney had
worked in Ireland,examination of that being inan
unpublishedappendix. From other sources though,tantalising
fragments of Bettaney's Irishactivities, using the name
Edmondsemerge. His immediate boss in NorthernIreland was Stella
Rimington, indirectlyalluded to in SCR (p.16) but they changeher
gender, and Rimingtonbeing Bettaney'sboss is one more detail
omitted from herrecent autobiography [6].
Bettaney himself handled a number ofagents, of whom we only know
the name ofone, Willy Carlin. Carlin became very closeto Martin
McGuinness of Sinn Fein and(according to himself) helped
influenceMcGuinness' political evolution [7]. Whileon remand in
Brixton jail, Bettaney isbelieved to have passed on sufficient
detailsto IRA prisoners as to enable them tonarrow enquiries down
to Carlin, whoescaped with minutes to spare. Itmay wellbe that
Bettaney gave Carlin away out ofideological motives, although there
is apotentially more troubling reason. MightBettaney have feared
Carlin knew about hisown personal operations in Ireland and
wastherefore a liability?Ionly ask.
There is a vague parallel (Iput it no higher)between Bettaney's
known career inIrelandand that of SAS provocateur Robert Nairac,who
prided himself on 'local knowledge'and posing as a Republican
infiltrated suchcircles. Simultaneously, Nairac carried
outplausibly deniable operations includingmurderMs gun was used at
the sectarianmurder of Catholics at the Miami ShowBand massacre in
1975 [8], Bettaney (likeNairac) apparently affected IrishRepublican
sympathies and beganwandering alone into Republican areas.This may
have just been foolhardiness, butwas there something more to it?
MarkUrban, in a 1992 book, reports this(sourced) allegation.
Apparently "Bettaneylater told colleagues inLondon that he hada
number of close escapes in Ulster. Once,he said, he had narrowly
avoided beingcaught in a bomb blast. On anotheroccasion he claimed
to have hidden in onepart of the house as paramilitaries broke
thekneecaps of someone suspected cf being aninformer" [9]. These
are troublingfragments. Uunder what circurrrsrances wasBettaney
present at both ejectsif treyhappened? Urban was untble t:
:reply
The Borderland SS-r-t 2:c--2X2
elsewhere. We ask the question ofsupposed revolutionary
communistBettaney-what covert operations did heundertake, and did
he indeed betray Carlinto the IRA? Carlin certainly thinks so
[10],If Carlin (and others who allege this) arewrong, why does
Bettaney not answerthem? Iask this not out of concern for
MI5assets, but because it has a bearing onBettaney's previous
activity in Ireland. Atthe time Carlin's cover was blown he
wastrying to facilitate the move of Sinn Fein toa peaceful path.
IfBettaney was prepared togive Carlin up to a presumed certain
death,is it not reasonable to suspect that duringhis tour of dutv
Bettaney might have beeninvolved in covert actions leading to
themurder of MI5 targets? Isn't this what MI5do (or get others toV?
Will not suspicionslinger as long as Bettaney does not comeclean on
Ireland? Despite the plethora ofTV programmes and documentaries
onIreland, Bettaney has never contributed anycredited interviews.
Why not? After all,Bettaney has divulged selective details ofsome
MI5 operationsfor instance thatthere was a high level asset in the
NUMduring the 1984-5 strike [11],
WHATIAM & AM NOT SAYINGIam not saying Bettaney never tried
todefect to the USSR. Iam saying Bettaneyseems a volatile
untrustworthy individualwho has over the years veered from
oneextreme view to another, and for whombetrayal seems a constant
companion.Certainly, Bettaney was imprisoned waybeyond when he
could have got parole(1991), seven years in fact. Storiesrubbishing
Bettaney were placed m themedia to delay his release [1Z].
However,this is not necessarily inconsistent with apossibility that
towards the end of his timeinjail, Bettaney inight (just might)
have cuta deal to avoid getting out even later thanhe d.id. This
prospect only deservesconsideration because of concerns/questions
arising from Bettaney's currentactivities within the CPGB. These
are:
1) Bettaney's use of pseudonymsGiven, as Bettaney says in an
obscureinternet newsgroup "many individuals onthe left, one way or
another, know myidentity", why stop all Weekly Workerreaders
knowing exactly whose opinionshey are reading? It is disturbing
even thisinternet post only happened due to priormention by Green
Anarchist of Bettaney'spresence in the CPGB. In other words, itwas
forced out, grudgingly. Thanks though.2) Bettaney's
IrishoutputUsing the pseudonym Malkin (which hedoesn't deny is him)
[13] Bettaney writesfrequently about Northern Ireland.However, in
his columns a number of keyplayers' do not feature--MI5,
Armyintelligence, MI6 and RUC Special Brancheven. Typical is a
recent offering stating
that "if at all the peace is threatened lies inthe hands of the
orange paramilitaries andtheir political friends" [14], The
only'friends' mentioned are Ulster Loyalists.Can Malkin & the
CPGB explain thiscurious omission, indeed why a wordsearch on their
internet paper archivesreveals no mention of Brian Nelson,
FredHolroyd, Colin Wallace et al. In otherwords, a Northern Ireland
without shadowystate agencies. Ludicrous (at best).3) The memoir
question: inprincipleGiven Richard Tomlinson, StellaRimington and
even David Shayler haveserved up autobiographies, why
hasn'tBettaney too? After all does he not agreewith Weekly Worker,
contributor MauriceBernal that "anything which casts even
aminuscule ray of light on the work of thespecial services or which
damages themcan only be good from the point of view ofour movement"
(1/6/00). Does Bettaney notthink he (a supposed Marxist) might say
atleast as much of interest as these three?
4) The Official Secrets Act defenceIf Bettaney is barred by
having signed theOfficial Secrets Act from commenting onsensitive
security matters, why did Malkinwrite in Weekly Worker
(31/5/01)rubbishing allegations MI6 might haveinfiltrated UKIP (see
p.26-8 of thismagazine) in terms that strongly implyknowledge of
secret state workings?Specifically, Imean the assertion "it
israther hard to imagine the head ofMI6...ordering [people] to
penetrate UKIP.Even those whose knowledge of thesecurity services
is acquired from readingspy memoirs and John Le Carre novelsknow
this is not how things are done". Howis it done Mr Bettaney,
I'dlike to know. Oris Bettaney allowed/willing to write aboutthe
secret state only on condition herubbishes the idea thev intervene
in politicstoday, whether in Ireland, UKIP orelsewhere? If so, why
should we believehim? IfBettaney can write about MI6, whynot MIS?
If Bettaney is constrained by theOfficial Secrets Act, why say in
May 1998"my release becomes unconditional nextJanuary. Perhaps
Iwill have something tosay then" [15].Why hasn't he?
5) The output of MauriceBernalAn infrequent contributor to
WeeklyWorker. Bernal has written about StellaRimington. twice
(1/6/00 & 4/10/01).Bettaney by contrast has not mentioned
her.Bernal's review of Rimington's bookconcurs with the misleading
view that"communists and revolutionaries are nodoubt regarded
currently as a very lowpriority" (4/10/01). Just like the
whiningspook Shayler. this is not Malkin's viewregarding himself
(internet posting25/2/01). Would the CPGB (and Bettaney)agree that
in the light of MI5 redefining'subversion' as 'terrorism' (well
before
11/9/01) anybody taking this complacentview seriously would be
prey todisinformation (see NFB 2 p.3-18). Does'Bernal' know nothing
of MI5 operations, inwhich case why write like he does? InWeekly
Worker (1/6/00) Bernal stated "justas Bettaney had been smeared as
a drunk,Massiter was written off as a nutcase",Describing Bettaney
as a drunk, howeverhurtful, has (had) some basis in fact.
DidBettaney not advise Bernal of this? AreBernal & Bettaney the
same person?
6) The memoir question: inpracticeCan Bettaney confirm or deny
this claimpublished in Dublin's Phoenix magazine(22/6/01) a
publication immune fromBritishDA Notice censorship. Specifically"
earlier this year...the MI5 traitor hit on theidea of telling his
former chiefs that heintended to move to Ireland to write
thedefinitive story of MI5 activities in theFour Green
Fields-naming many of thoseIrish citizens who spied for London
oraccepted the Queen's shilling under thecounter. Understandably,
Michael wasprevailed upon to desist, in return for agratuity in
lieu of the pension he didn't getwhen he was banged up after his
OldBailey trial" If true, is not Bettaneyhopelessly compromisedhow
cansomebody having a recent and publiclyundisclosed (by the
recipient) fiscalrelationship with MI5 (or MI6) henceforthbe
trusted in any genuine Left group?7) Input into CPGB decisionsWhat
views has Malkin advanced aboutTerry Liddle & his fascist
collaborationconsistent CPGB defence of Searchlightagainst charges
of being an MI5 front--vile accusations Genoa black blocwere/are
agent provocateurs?Finally, given the excellent track recordof
Socialist Alliance members RedAction (for example) in challenging
MI5,are they/will they now be happy withCPGB participation in such,
especiallywhen Malkin seems a frequent CPGBdelegate/commentator on
SA matters?1 Weekly Worker 7/12/002 'Convergence & Liddle:
Against the CPGBWhitewash' (Green Anarchist 11/12/00)3 PrivateEye
4/5/844 May 1985 CMND 95145 PrivateEye 5/7/846 Stella Rimington
'Open Secret' (Hutchinson2001)p.l75-67 Sunday Times 21/5/00 Liam
Clarke & NickFielding8 see Fred Holroyd 'War Without
Honour(Medium 1989) passim, which John Parker'Death of A Hero'
(Metro 1999) p.80-104valiantly tries to refute.9 Mark Urban 'Big
Boys Rules' (Faber & Faber1992)p.9910 FN7 (above), also see
Punch 133 20/6/0111 Seamas Milne 'The Enemy Within
Pan1995)p.391-212 see Mail on Sunday 4/6/95 (Nick rn'.tzi13 see UK
Left Network 25/2/0114 Weekly Worker 19/7/01.see also5/79115 BBC
News Online 13/5.98
Notes From The Borderland ISSUE 4 WINTER 2001-2002 Page 51
