No-Spy Agreement on the Brink of Collapse: The End of an Illusion
Published in Sueddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 14 January 2014
by Heribert Parntl (link to
original)
Nothing is sadder than the death of an illusion. It was evidently an illusion to believe that the U.S. will abandon, or at least limit, its spy actions in Germany, against Germany and against German citizens. That the NSA has total access to communication data corresponds to the total refusal of U.S. policy to at least commit to moderation.
It was obviously also an illusion to believe the surveillance of citizens, authorities, companies and organizations that became known in the summer of last year were only an aberration, only an excess of the NSA and not U.S. policy in toto. And it was also obviously an illusion to believe that it would only take a few confidential conversations to rectify the situation.
It is not all right. The recalcitrance on the no-spy agreement between the U.S. and Germany is disturbing, like the bugging operations are and were. The arguments for hesitating are exposed in all three points.
First: The Americans argue that when America reaches an agreement with Germany banning the spying, it would have to reach similar agreements with all other possible countries. Not all other possible countries are members of NATO. Germany is an ally. Allies don’t treat one another like potential enemies. The alliance in which they have aligned themselves is called the defense community. Until now, one could believe that with this alliance, the law and the constitutional state — the concept of “rule of law” — should be defended. That was, and is, obviously a fallacy.
Second: The U.S. has always claimed it was going in alone to defend against terrorists. If that were really the only matter, America could reach an agreement in which it would be obligated not only to not listen to the chancellor. Are Americans implying that the Social Democratic Party chairman, or the Bavarian prime minister, or the chair of the Bishop’s Conference have terrorist intentions? The U.S. refusal makes it obvious that the war on terrorism serves only as a pretense. And third, the flat-out refusal of the U.S. to relinquish spy activities shows that the U.S. thinks it holds “supra legem” — that it stands above the law. Germany must clarify for the U.S. that its espionage is punishable by German law.
In November, Chancellery Minister Pofalla said that “the no-spy agreement with the U.S. is on track.” That was false; maybe it was a lie. It was wrong, like Pofalla’s assertion from August that the accusation of “total espionage” was “off the table.” Nothing is off the table. There is rather the question of whether, during the 2013 election campaign, the Christian Democratic Union-Free Democratic Party administration was possibly deceiving the people about the seriousness of the spying situation.
It was obviously also an illusion to believe the surveillance of citizens, authorities, companies and organizations that became known in the summer of last year were only an aberration, only an excess of the NSA and not U.S. policy in toto. And it was also obviously an illusion to believe that it would only take a few confidential conversations to rectify the situation.
It is not all right. The recalcitrance on the no-spy agreement between the U.S. and Germany is disturbing, like the bugging operations are and were. The arguments for hesitating are exposed in all three points.
First: The Americans argue that when America reaches an agreement with Germany banning the spying, it would have to reach similar agreements with all other possible countries. Not all other possible countries are members of NATO. Germany is an ally. Allies don’t treat one another like potential enemies. The alliance in which they have aligned themselves is called the defense community. Until now, one could believe that with this alliance, the law and the constitutional state — the concept of “rule of law” — should be defended. That was, and is, obviously a fallacy.
Second: The U.S. has always claimed it was going in alone to defend against terrorists. If that were really the only matter, America could reach an agreement in which it would be obligated not only to not listen to the chancellor. Are Americans implying that the Social Democratic Party chairman, or the Bavarian prime minister, or the chair of the Bishop’s Conference have terrorist intentions? The U.S. refusal makes it obvious that the war on terrorism serves only as a pretense. And third, the flat-out refusal of the U.S. to relinquish spy activities shows that the U.S. thinks it holds “supra legem” — that it stands above the law. Germany must clarify for the U.S. that its espionage is punishable by German law.
In November, Chancellery Minister Pofalla said that “the no-spy agreement with the U.S. is on track.” That was false; maybe it was a lie. It was wrong, like Pofalla’s assertion from August that the accusation of “total espionage” was “off the table.” Nothing is off the table. There is rather the question of whether, during the 2013 election campaign, the Christian Democratic Union-Free Democratic Party administration was possibly deceiving the people about the seriousness of the spying situation.