0
Shares
Pinterest Google+

Leaked documents from former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden have yet again sent international politics reeling with further indications that the U.S. is spying on friends and foes alike. Allies including the European UnionBrazil, France, and Germany have not been spared from intrusive U.S. surveillance programs, leading some to argue that the basic premise of trust within “alliance” has been broken, and that the basic concept must be redefined. However, shock and awe stemming from Snowden’s newest NSA leaks tend to be overzealous in  claims that the fundamental fabric of an alliance has been broken. The degree of insult expressed by world leaders such as Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff and Germany’s Angela Merkel are of course within reason. An “alliance,” for all intents and purposes, is a “friendship” among nations. Thus any friendship, most would assume, should be built on fundamental trust between parties.

“We need trust among allies and partners,” Merkel has replied, underlining the degree of grave insult with which the intrusions have been received.

In reality, however, trust is not always central to a functioning and thriving international alliance in the global system.  Alliances among states almost always boil down to shared interests. Economic and security concerns are therefore central to any functioning partnership between states. There is nothing in this concept about the common courtesy of blind trust. Political gripes, including insults perceived among leaders and/or societies, can shape the tone of these friendships. But they rarely shift the fundamental fabric underpinning an alliance. The recent NSA leaks will lay this reality bare.

Friendships among states are, after all, fundamentally selfish in nature. They are based on desires for mutual gain. World leaders may find their rapport personally enjoyable, but refuse to align their policies. Conversely, world leaders can be personally insulted without much policy change (an affronted leader can respond in turn with a diplomatic punch, for example, as President Rousseff cancelled a state visit to Washington in September). Little, however, should be expected to change in official policy, and the basic premise of the U.S.-Brazilian relationship will likely remain strong. Brazil’s mutual economic interests with the United States, as the country’s eighth largest trading partner, for example, will stand firm.

What’s more, spying on friends is nothing new in world politics. In just one example, as the U.S. and the British were nurturing a strong friendship after World War II, both governments continued to verify information sent between each other in routine espionage-like intelligence gathering. The U.S. engaged in the “Venona Project” to spy on Soviet message traffic during Cold War tensions, and worked to decrypt documents being sent between Moscow and the British Embassy in Washington. During a routine check, two British double-agents working for the Soviets, Donald MacLean and Guy Burgess, were discovered, indicating that U.S. verification of British documentation was crucial for U.S. intelligence at the time, and blind acceptance of British intelligence would not suffice. The U.S. has also been a victim of “friendly espionage,” when ally Israel bought sensitive information from a U.S. analyst, Jonathan Pollard, to check on the U.S. in 1987. While the U.S. reacted with anger, jailing Pollard and expressing anger at the diplomatic snub, the U.S. continued to respond in kind, in fact, spying on ally Italy in 2003 in an effort to thwart a terrorist suspected to have a safe haven in Italy. These unflattering moments helped underline that blind trust could not be assumed, and yet these alliances continued to remain firm in their substance.

Beyond this “realist” critique that trust does not matter in alliances, however, it must be recognized that the newest NSA leaks will not be without their impact in global politics. While they may not shake the core of state interests within the global system, they very well may shake the framework of security and communication practices between states. The alliance, at its purest form, has not changed so much as the dynamics of friendship and diplomacy have. The international community must grapple with the hyper-connected space that defines 21st century politics and interaction. Ever-enduring threats coming from global terror networks, sub-national actors, and political fragmentation have shattered traditional conceptions of sovereignty and have chipped away at traditional information channels that once stood firm in global diplomatic practice. The U.S. has set the precedent that its modern security apparatus will be based on a lack of trust (or, that is, a concept of “trust, but verify”). Washington should not be surprised if the world follows suit.

 

Author

  • Rachel George

    Rachel is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the London School of Economics. She holds a BA in Politics from Princeton and an MA in Middle Eastern Studies from Harvard. Her interests include journalism, media, U.S. foreign policy, human rights, and international law.

Previous post

Going beyond numbers: are social networks the key to the city?

Next post

You're not welcome