The United Nations and the Rationale for Collective Intelligence ...

understood, and perhaps presented in a much simpler and clearer context to bureaucrats.

Another reason, and perhaps further justification for a need to broaden the concept and parameter of research in this subject, is the degree of scepticism with which scholars have previously and perhaps continue to regard the idea of UN intelligence capability. This pessimistic view, which is manifested in different guises, also serves as a further barrier in the study of the subject. First, there are those who believe that the subject matter is too farfetched and that a study of this kind would be pointless. For example, one commentator argued in a reply to the query about the feasibility of a UN intelligence capability: ‘What would the UN need intelligence for?’ Another commentator retorted even more succinctly: ‘Then you probably know there is no intelligence in the UN system. Nothing to study! I just think it's a nonstarter, at least for this century’.³ Although the intentions of these respondents were to question the relevance of this kind of enquiry, they nonetheless added important perspective to the entire project. There are also attitudes which border on fear, especially among intelligence practitioners and staffs at the United Nations Headquarters (UNHQ), but this is understandable considering the sensitivity of the subject matter as well as a real concern for careers and job security.⁴ However, this also means that individuals and scholars who could have made valuable contributions have declined to comment on any question containing the word ‘intelligence’.

Many scholars have argued and advised that the term ‘information’ could be substituted for ‘intelligence’. This, to say the least, would mean a misrepresentation of the context of the study on two levels: First, it would mean compromising both the moral and ethical foundation upon which a robust research process is based, as well as misleading the respondents and getting correspondingly incorrect feedback, which might incidentally misrepresent the subject of the inquiry. Secondly, changing the term of reference for the study would also have the effect of compromising the main objectives of the study, since the principal aim is to understand intelligence in its different manifestations within a strictly defined context.