Talk:UKUSA Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

South Africa highlighted on the map[edit]

Why is South Africa highlighted on the map in the upper right corner, but not mentioned anywhere in the article?

South Africa is not part of UKUSA. Map updated

NZ removal[edit]

why has someone removed references to new zealand from this and the echelon article ?

Not sure, but they've been reverted. — Matt Crypto 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Does anyone have a source for this? I understood that the details of the UKUSA agreement have not been made public (although we have some idea):

The primary purpose of UKUSA is to service the ECHELON monitoring system.

I've moved it here temporarily from the article for now. — Matt Crypto 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


The reference I added qualifying the description of UKUSA as English-speaking nations (the Anglosphere) by including the words "primarily caucasian" has been reverted.

The countries in the UKUSA group are all within the Anglosphere, but they are also countries that have primarily caucasian populations. Anglosphere countries that do not have primarily caucasian populations are not within the UKUSA group (South Africa, various Carribean states, arguably India etc.). The qualifier "primarily caucasian" adds something to the article, and I invite someone who agrees with me (perhaps you, NormanEinstein, if you agree) to re-revert it). Or to come up with a better phrase that incorporates the idea, of course...

This is an arbitrary attempt to introduce PoV into the article. It's not a relevant point, and it's not a something that binds the countries together for the purposes of this treaty. If it were, where is France and Germany in it? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
France and Germany are not English speaking. There are English-speaking countries in the world. There are countries whose populations are primarily caucasian. UKUSA is a group of coutries formed at the intersection of these two groups. I would argue this is not PoV, it is a verifiable observation, much like the observation already present in the article that the countries involved in UKUSA are English-speaking.
I do not assert that the coutries involved in UKUSA are involved because they are caucasian, so if you feel that my edit suggested that, I would hope someone would be able to reword it so that the observation was present, but without that inference. To paraphrase you N328KF, if UKUSA is an alliance of English-speaking nations, where is South Africa or Jamaica?
I was surprised to learn that some people consider South Africa part of the 'anglosphere'. It's not an English speaking country any more than India is, i.e. English is one of many official languages. Mirror Vax 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not asserting any sort of analog between being an English-speaking nation and being part of the UKUSA. I just don't think mentioning race is pertinent, as UKUSA is primarily a geopolitical alliance. Not to mention that all of the countries in the UKUSA Community could easily with regarded as melting pots. It's not as if someone said "Lets us all WASPs band together!" I will take issue with any attempt to skew the article in that direction.
And to address Mirror Vax, last time I was in South Africa, if you wanted to talk to someone outside of your home community, you would speak either English (most likely) or Afrikaans (not quite as likely.) But that's an aside... —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Should the reference to English-speaking be deleted?
Language (and a common political heritage) is far more responsible for a common bond here than race. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ireland is a good example of a largely English-speaking Caucasian state that is not part of the community.
Ireland is a different matter. Neutral during WWII, not NATO member, etc. Not really part of the big western alliance unlike Aus, NZ. Or NZ used to be, at least. Until the anti nuke thing. Maybe it should say English Speaking Cold War Ally or something similar--HTait 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to say NZ and Australia had ANZUS instead of NATO - South Pacific isn't really very North Atlantic.--HTait 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The 5 member countries are English speaking naval powers, so this may be about freedom of the seas. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the 5 member countries’ populations are English-speaking, White and Protestant. That’s why Ireland doesn’t fit the bill. – This might seem simplistic, but I guess it’s true. It’s always easier to agree with people who are just like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change 'English-speaking nations' to 'countries in the Anglosphere'. Canada is not an English speaking nation, it is a bilingual nation, and if I'm not mistaken New Zealand also has 3 official languages. Basser g 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The leadership issue[edit]

I'm wary of making categoric statements about the nature of the AusCaNZUKUS relationships without access to the agreement document. Some fora have a rotating chairmanship with one of the five member states assuming control for a fixed period.

With that in mind, without an explicit reference I'd prefer that no attribution is made.

The original UKUSA agreement has been superceded by a number of amendments over time.

ALR (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Does such an organization as "UKUSA" exist? Where is it based? Who funds it? Who runs it? If I want to send it a letter, is there a mailing address? As it stands, this article shows little verifiable content and might deserve deletion. Lex Medlin (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The terms UKUSA and ECHELON have no meaning and are in fact an attempt at dis-information. The only correct term for the intelligence sharing arrangement between the UK, USA, AUS, CAN and NZ is 'Five-Eyes', or FVEY for short. This is not an organisation, so there are no headquaters or mailing address. It is a long established intelligence gathering and sharing agreement between these five English-speaking nations, to combat enemies in common, and to prosecute trans-national criminal activity, such as the profileration of nuclear weapons, people-smuggling, terrorism, and the like. It exists, comsumes billions of dollars each year, and remains almost completely unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof that caveat exists[edit]

This BBC news item ("Secret terror files left on train" dates 11 June 2008) proves that the caveat associated with the UKUSA agreement is real. A Top Secret document about Al-Qaeda Vulnerabilities was left on a train. The classification and caveat "UK TOP SECRET STRAP2 CAN/AUS/UK/US EYES ONLY" can be seen in the photograph. A paragraph further down translates the caveat's abbreviations into English as "For UK, US, Canadian and Australian eyes only".

The civil servant was punished for his security breach by being demoted 3 ranks (with appropriate large pay reduction), prosecuted and fined £2,500.
Comment: If that is what they do to one of their own people who made a mistake imagine how tough they get with outsiders caught spying on them. Andrew Swallow (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the document in the photo has the caveat as "CAN/AUS/UK/US". This is a bit odd as the convention is for the countries to be alphabetical, i.e. AUS/CAN/UK/US as here: Stanley Oliver (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course that also excludes NZ who are supposed to be part of the agreement Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
New Zealand left over nuclear weapons. It has rejoined but frequently gets treated as part of Australia. Andrew Swallow (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


So is this an officially confirmed agreement, unofficial speculation, or simply a convenient term for the status quo? For a topic of this importance it would be nice to see either some official sources, or a clearer introduction that mentions their absence. Leushenko (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See New documents on UKUSA history [1] BillRobinsonCanada (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Section needs to have small separate colonial sites. (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

UK–USA Security AgreementUKUSA Agreement — Per documents officially released by both the Government Communications Headquarters and the National Security Agency, this agreement is referred to as the UKUSA Agreement. This name is subsequently used by media sources reporting on the story, as written in new references used for the article. The NSA press release provides a pronunciation guide, indicating that "UKUSA" should not be read as two separate entities. (The National Archives) (National Security Agency) Arsonal (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Support as per Arsonal's reasons. YLee (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Hey, i'm not good with wiki images, but can someone colour in the Falkland on the map please? Thanl you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Should "Five Eyes" redirect to "AUSCANNZUKUS" or "UKUSA Agreement"?[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Five Eyes#Proposed redirect to AUSCANNZUKUS. sroc (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal[edit]

--Gary Dee 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove the actual spying operations[edit]

I would like to suggest the option of removing the examples of actual spying operations from this article, maybe to one of the articles about the NSA spying scandals. This article is about the UKUSA-agreement/Five Eyes, and I think we should keep it close to the actual subject. The various spying operations are often conducted by NSA or by one or more of its partners, but they are not specific UKUSA operations. The only thing is that information related to those operations might be releasable to the Five Eyes partners. P2Peter (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Global surveillance[edit]

Further information: Global surveillance

This article is about the UKUSA Agreement. The Global surveillance template (on the right) was added to the section on Global coverage, which I replaced with a Further information template (above) linking to the Global surveillance article. Whizz40 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The absence of the Russian and Chinese spies and spy organisations from that list is very suspicious. Particularly since they are the people who are hacking into your computer at work. Andrew Swallow (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If the scope is global, they should be included. Whizz40 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This template adds 4,000 bytes and over 50 links to the article without any prose or sources cited so it is not a small or uncontroversial change. If there are aspects in the template that are relevant and important to the UKUSA Agreement they should be written into the article with context and sources cited.

This template serves readers well on the main articles like global surveillance, 2013 disclosures, mass surveillance, but it doesn't serve readers of this article well because it is not about the UKUSA Agreement. Whizz40 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

I think that Five Eyes could be merged into this article. There seems to be almost nothing that distinguishes them from each other. Both are somewhat long, and they convey most of the same information. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC).

Given that two weeks have now passed, I plan to begin working on a merge immediately. If anyone wants to help or comment it will be in my user space at User:Gluons12/sandbox/UKUSA_Agreement. However, if anyone has any objection please raise it here, as it seems that it might be a challenging merge. As of 15 June, 2016, I have copied the UKUSA Agreement page to the link above, and I hope to get started on it in earnest soon. Thanks, Gluons12 talk 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC).

  • Here I see the problem that "five eyes" is the popular term in common usage and when people google it they'd like to find a Wikipedia article of the same name. --Fixuture (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The term can be listed in the lead as an alternative name. Rob984 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Largely the same topic. Rob984 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support David J Johnson (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Five Eyes is indeed the better known and much catchier name, but a merge with the alternate name bolded in lead would help readers find what they need in a single article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but the resulting article should be at Five Eyes, per WP:COMMONNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyuszika7H (talkcontribs) 16:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment If UKUSA Agreement does become a redirect to the "Five Eyes" article, 1946 details should be added to the 1943 BRUSA Agreement article, which I will do anyway Hugo999 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think it would be ridiculous to merge a topic about five countries into a topic about two countries (UK/USA; it's in the name), under the claim that doing so encompasses the overall topic better. FVEY is about MULTIPLE nations cooperating, globally, not just the UK and USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)