USA, spying and the aftermath
The President of the United States of America (USA), Barack Obama, announced last week that the USA would stop the interception of millions of private electronic communications, including those of foreign heads of state.
Advertisement
The announcement formed part of sweeping reforms of the National Security Agency (NSA), the organisation said to have engaged in the acts.
Towards the end of last year, the fugitive former NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, leaked documents at his disposal to some media organisations in Europe and America which pointed to the fact that the NSA spied on millions of people worldwide including heads of states of friendly nations. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was named as one of the heads of state whose private cell phone was tapped.
The outrage it caused in Germany is a matter of public record. The German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, took the unusual step of summoning the American Ambassador to Germany, John B Emerson, to explain the action by the USA government. It was clear that a meltdown in relations had begun.
Merkel herself placed an angry call on Barack Obama to discuss the issue. She told Obama: “Eavesdropping among friends is never acceptable.” Thereafter, she met with France’s President Francois Hollande for a discussion on the issue. They both went ahead to condemn the act.
While the Germans were beside themselves with anger, Brazil, another victim of the NSA’s spying and a key ally of the USA, had taken certain measures to register its protest. Brazilian President Dilma cancelled a trip to the USA, further deepening the rift. France, Mexico, Spain and other victims of the wire tapping engaged in acts that sent the message clearly that they were angered by the clandestine activities of the USA.
It emerged, when the revelations were made, that the NSA, apart from bugging phones, gathers nearly 200 million text messages a day from around the world and has put a software in almost 100,000 computers, allowing it to spy on those devices.
America’s face-saving response
The first statement on the issue was made by an American Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, who said President Obama was not aware of the wire-tapping of friendly heads of state, as if that absolved the administration or the entire country of the act. The next move was to invite the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, to clarify the wire-tapping acts engaged in by the NSA.
Other Trending Stories
President Obama, in the telephone conversation with Merkel, denied the allegations and assured her that “The United States is not monitoring and will not monitor” the calls of Angela Merkel. The USA was clearly embarrassed by Snowden’s revelations.
Obama’s recent announcement
In a speech last Friday, January 17, Mr Obama banned US eavesdropping on leaders of friendly countries and allies.
He took steps to re-assure Americans and foreigners alike that the US would take into account privacy concerns.
“The reforms I am proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected , even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe,” he said.
The deceit
While the statement was meant to fend off concerns about US surveillance activities, it failed to announce measures to dismantle the US electronic spying programme.
Even while the Obama government was busy putting final touches to his speech, the NSA was still engaging in electronic surveillance.
President Obama promised that the USA would not eavesdrop on the heads of state of friendly countries and allies “unless there is a compelling national security purpose.” What is that supposed to mean?
What is “compelling national security purpose” and who determines that? What Obama has succeeded in doing is to fool the world into believing that he regrets the wire-tapping incidents that have occurred in the past and that measures have been put in place to ensure they do not recur. So long as the electronic spying infrastructure remains in place, our private conversations and other forms of communications will be monitored.
If the USA is the one to determine what a “compelling national security purpose” is, it means it can monitor the calls of heads of state anywhere in the world if it believes it has compelling reasons to do so. Therefore, the assurance he sought to give that calls of heads of state would not be monitored is a false one.
Friends don’t spy on each other
Americans (both government and people) are extremely paranoid. The country has inflicted more harm on people all over the world than any other nation in modern history but it does not want to be given a dose of its own medicine.
From the First and Second World Wars to Korea and Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to its support for dictators in Africa, Asia, Latin America and other parts of the world, America is responsible, in my opinion, for more than 100 million deaths.
It has sneaked across national borders, plotting and sponsoring coups, wars and other activities that have led to loss of lives. It has used nuclear, chemical and other deadly weapons all over the world in the name of national security.
Advertisement
Any nation which thinks that it is only its security that matters and ignores the interest of others, including friends, is not worth partnering. Any nation which engages in clandestine activities against its own friends is one that must be viewed with a lot of suspicion.
Perhaps it will be in the interest of Europe, Brazil, Mexico, China and all other nations which consider the US as their friend to take a second look at the relationship and come to the realisation that the “friend” tag put on them by the US is just, for lack of a better expression, “mere rhetoric.” Actions speak louder than words.
writer’s email: mark.vinorkor@graphic.com.gh