The Edward Snowden saga is far from over. Last week, the Guardian and Der Spiegel broke a story, based on evidence reportedly found within the documents released by Snowden, that the NSA has been monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell-phone since as early as 2002, when she headed the Christian Democratic Party. The surveillance, naturally, was met with widespread condemnation, both here in the U.S., even from those who called the Snowden leaks an “act of treason,” and of course in Europe. Most understandably, the biggest outcry came from Merkel herself, in the form of a personal phone call with President Obama.
Many months ago, I asked a question of the Pentagon (of which the NSA is a part) in regards to North Korea: why would we, the American people, believe you after the falsities that led us to Iraq? A more dangerous question has now formed: why would anyone in the world, particularly the foreign leaders like Chancellor Merkel who we supposedly respect and rely on, offer the American intelligence and diplomatic community a shred of trust?
In response to these allegations, the White House has only been able to offer the most incriminating of responses: it is not and will not monitor her communications. As Roger Cohen at the New York Times writes, this assurance is “tantamount to confirmation through omission that in the past it has.”
Some, like Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI), expect the world to believe their untenable though impassioned defense that these NSA activities are worth their intransigence, if only to keep us safe. I disagree, and claim that we will find the opposite occur. The often-tenuous diplomatic and personal relationships on which the global security to which Rogers appeals are built will crumble, lost amidst a haze of accusations and breaches of trust.
What is just as fascinating as the story itself is the way that it has been discussed here in America. An interesting exchange took place last Friday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Discussing the Merkel revelations, Sam Stein, the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent, said, “To a certain extent I’m not surprised we spy on foreign leaders. There’s got to be a historical precedent, in the telephone age.” Harold Ford Jr., a former congressman from Tennessee, quickly interrupted: “Are you saying you’re not surprised we’re spying on Angela Merkel? … You’re not surprised by that, I am surprised by that.”
What is so dangerous is the air of inevitability that has come to accompany the actions of the American intelligence community. It’s a question of what’s worse: that NSA surveillance has illegally reached into the deepest echelon’s of foreign governments, establishing secret intelligence centers in these nations, or the fact that, frankly, many aren’t surprised that it has. I understand Mr. Ford’s indignation — but I also sympathize with Mr. Stein. If the NSA had no qualms in surveilling those many millions of private cellular records, what would stop them from doing so to 35 of the world’s leaders? What is so dangerous is the air of inevitability (though thankfully not acceptance) that has come to accompany the actions of the American intelligence community.
Many, including myself, are guilty of what could be called a complex of denial. It has always been understood that America spies on foreign leaders, and of course there exists historical precedence for such activities. But with this year’s Snowden revelations, and particularly with this recent story, what has previously been easily ignored can and should be ignored no longer. What is unfortunate is that it might take an infringement of the rights of just one person, Ms. Merkel, to lead to a dialogue that should not be secreted away in the name of national security.