Edited by Anita Dixon
The EU vs. the US: Drawing the Battle Lines
Reports about the surveillance of European Union diplomatic offices by American intelligence agencies — in particular, the National Security Agency — have sparked a new controversy connected to the Edward Snowden case. Several Western publications have reported that the U.S. bugged 38 targets, including foreign embassies and diplomatic missions from EU countries as well as countries such as Japan, South Korea, India and Mexico. The European Parliament insisted that it would not let the Americans’ actions go without consequences, and the European Commission is threatening to impose retaliatory measures.
The first “shot” was fired by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which published an article about how American intelligence agencies were wiretapping the phones and intercepting the electronic communications of high-ranking European Union officials, including members of the EU Council of Ministers. It turned out to be quite a simple case: American intelligence gatherers bugged the computers and telephones of representatives of the EU in Washington, in New York City at the United Nations headquarters and in Brussels at the European Council headquarters, where an EU summit was being held at the time of the publication of the German article. Soon thereafter, the British newspaper the Guardian jumped into the fray, and during the last weekend in June, a whole wave of new information about the eavesdropping swept across the entire planet, from Canada to New Zealand.
Subsequently, comments filtered in from politicians and diplomats representing Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and a number of other countries. Some demanded an explanation from Washington. Others immediately began contemplating possible retaliatory measures.
"If the media reports are accurate, then this recalls the methods used by enemies during the Cold War," remarked German Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. "It is beyond comprehension that our friends in the United States see Europeans as enemies.”
Laurent Fabius, the French minister of foreign affairs, demanded clarification from the United States, and Christiane Taubira, the minister of justice, characterized Washington’s actions as “an act of unspeakable hostility.”
"Partners do not spy on each other," said Luxembourg-based European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Viviane Reding.
“Clarity, honesty and transparency — that’s what we can and must expect from our friends and allies. The Americans must explain themselves immediately,” asserted French politician and current European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Michel Barnier.
Washington declared that it would respond to the spying charges “through diplomatic channels.” According to a statement from the national intelligence director’s office, the U.S. is ready to discuss the situation in the format of two-party talks. This is likely just an initial reaction. After it recovers from the shock, the State Department will issue more statements, but it’s already too late for them to hush up the scandal and shrug it off with clichéd phrases. High-ranking EU bureaucrats are indignant and want the U.S. to make amends.
But here’s what is interesting: When, a month and a half ago, The Guardian reported that during the 2009 G20 summit, American spies set up inside a British Royal Air Force station attempted to intercept the phone calls of then-President Dmitry Medvedev and the Russian delegation, there were no voices of indignation to be heard from the European Commission or the European Parliament. They were also somewhat inert at the beginning of the Edward Snowden case, when it came to light that American intelligence agencies have been carrying out surveillance on millions of “typical” Americans and Europeans. It would seem that the European elite and the European bureaucracy are concerned only when their own right to privacy is being violated.
When Allies Become Adversaries
"If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely serious matter which will have a severe impact on EU-U.S. relations," warned European Parliament President Martin Schulz.
How can the European Union respond to such a violation of the rights of EU bureaucrats?
One of the possible and most obvious courses of action is to yet again refuse to sign an agreement with the U.S. on the protection of personal information on the Internet. Brussels and Washington have been painstakingly working out this document for a long time. The reason is that the two sides differ in their approaches to the protection of personal information. To simplify the picture a bit, the European Commission favors a set of measures aimed at increasing privacy on the Internet, while the American side is insisting on more “transparency” of users of the World Wide Web.
This spying scandal gives European politicians every reason to believe that the U.S. has its own interpretation of “the protection of personal information.” But once again refusing to sign this agreement is a symbolic step. In any case, what difference does it make whether or not the rules regulating Internet usage in the U.S. are in harmony with those in Europe? Intelligence agencies, after all, play by their own rules that are not influenced by treaties and established human rights.
The consequences for Washington will be even more serious if Europe decides to target the U.S. by cutting off the negotiations over the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA), which some deem an “economic NATO.” “The EU must immediately suspend negotiations with the U.S. over the TAFTA free trade agreement,” declared Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leader of the Greens/European Free Alliance faction in the European Parliament. That position is gaining more and more supporters.
The TAFTA project has progressed rapidly. On Feb. 2, 2013, at the annual Munich Security Conference, American Vice President Joe Biden stated that agreement on TAFTA was “within our reach,” and on Feb. 8 EU leaders pledged their support of the agreement. As a result, Europe would make money, and the U.S. would get a new market. Now Washington and Brussels may have to agree to disagree. As strange as it sounds, the current scandal might cause Europeans to take another look at the Russian “Wider Europe” initiative, which called for the creation of a free trade zone stretching “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”
It’s possible that the European theater of the Snowden saga will draw new battle lines between Washington and Brussels by causing the European Union to form its own defense infrastructure. If the gears of NATO are almost completely in the United States’ hands, then for now the few security services that exist in the European Union have assumed a certain self-dependence. One way or another, the idea of modernization, as well as the dissolution of NATO and the formation of new united armed powers in the European Union have been discussed for the last several years by experts, parliaments and governments alike. Now the Europeans can put their words into action.
Finally, this scandal might encourage the European Union to think about its role on the international stage. Right now, the U.S. sees the EU as its “little brother.” But the two allies are quite comparable in terms of their respective economic strength: the EU accounts for 19.8 percent of the world’s gross domestic product; the U.S. accounts for 21 percent. Experts affirm that things can’t go on the way they are now. Europe is more frequently and more actively proclaiming its self-sufficiency and expressing its desire to become an independent player in the international arena.
Of course, this does not mark a point of no return for the Europeans — they won’t say, “Since American intelligence agencies were spying on us, we’re going to start living on our own tomorrow without so much as a glance back at ‘Big Brother.’” But the scandal over the surveillance of European bureaucrats and diplomats does give Europe a serious reason to rethink its relationships with its old allies — and to begin looking for new ones.
The first “shot” was fired by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which published an article about how American intelligence agencies were wiretapping the phones and intercepting the electronic communications of high-ranking European Union officials, including members of the EU Council of Ministers. It turned out to be quite a simple case: American intelligence gatherers bugged the computers and telephones of representatives of the EU in Washington, in New York City at the United Nations headquarters and in Brussels at the European Council headquarters, where an EU summit was being held at the time of the publication of the German article. Soon thereafter, the British newspaper the Guardian jumped into the fray, and during the last weekend in June, a whole wave of new information about the eavesdropping swept across the entire planet, from Canada to New Zealand.
Subsequently, comments filtered in from politicians and diplomats representing Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and a number of other countries. Some demanded an explanation from Washington. Others immediately began contemplating possible retaliatory measures.
"If the media reports are accurate, then this recalls the methods used by enemies during the Cold War," remarked German Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. "It is beyond comprehension that our friends in the United States see Europeans as enemies.”
Laurent Fabius, the French minister of foreign affairs, demanded clarification from the United States, and Christiane Taubira, the minister of justice, characterized Washington’s actions as “an act of unspeakable hostility.”
"Partners do not spy on each other," said Luxembourg-based European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Viviane Reding.
“Clarity, honesty and transparency — that’s what we can and must expect from our friends and allies. The Americans must explain themselves immediately,” asserted French politician and current European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Michel Barnier.
Washington declared that it would respond to the spying charges “through diplomatic channels.” According to a statement from the national intelligence director’s office, the U.S. is ready to discuss the situation in the format of two-party talks. This is likely just an initial reaction. After it recovers from the shock, the State Department will issue more statements, but it’s already too late for them to hush up the scandal and shrug it off with clichéd phrases. High-ranking EU bureaucrats are indignant and want the U.S. to make amends.
But here’s what is interesting: When, a month and a half ago, The Guardian reported that during the 2009 G20 summit, American spies set up inside a British Royal Air Force station attempted to intercept the phone calls of then-President Dmitry Medvedev and the Russian delegation, there were no voices of indignation to be heard from the European Commission or the European Parliament. They were also somewhat inert at the beginning of the Edward Snowden case, when it came to light that American intelligence agencies have been carrying out surveillance on millions of “typical” Americans and Europeans. It would seem that the European elite and the European bureaucracy are concerned only when their own right to privacy is being violated.
When Allies Become Adversaries
"If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely serious matter which will have a severe impact on EU-U.S. relations," warned European Parliament President Martin Schulz.
How can the European Union respond to such a violation of the rights of EU bureaucrats?
One of the possible and most obvious courses of action is to yet again refuse to sign an agreement with the U.S. on the protection of personal information on the Internet. Brussels and Washington have been painstakingly working out this document for a long time. The reason is that the two sides differ in their approaches to the protection of personal information. To simplify the picture a bit, the European Commission favors a set of measures aimed at increasing privacy on the Internet, while the American side is insisting on more “transparency” of users of the World Wide Web.
This spying scandal gives European politicians every reason to believe that the U.S. has its own interpretation of “the protection of personal information.” But once again refusing to sign this agreement is a symbolic step. In any case, what difference does it make whether or not the rules regulating Internet usage in the U.S. are in harmony with those in Europe? Intelligence agencies, after all, play by their own rules that are not influenced by treaties and established human rights.
The consequences for Washington will be even more serious if Europe decides to target the U.S. by cutting off the negotiations over the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA), which some deem an “economic NATO.” “The EU must immediately suspend negotiations with the U.S. over the TAFTA free trade agreement,” declared Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leader of the Greens/European Free Alliance faction in the European Parliament. That position is gaining more and more supporters.
The TAFTA project has progressed rapidly. On Feb. 2, 2013, at the annual Munich Security Conference, American Vice President Joe Biden stated that agreement on TAFTA was “within our reach,” and on Feb. 8 EU leaders pledged their support of the agreement. As a result, Europe would make money, and the U.S. would get a new market. Now Washington and Brussels may have to agree to disagree. As strange as it sounds, the current scandal might cause Europeans to take another look at the Russian “Wider Europe” initiative, which called for the creation of a free trade zone stretching “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”
It’s possible that the European theater of the Snowden saga will draw new battle lines between Washington and Brussels by causing the European Union to form its own defense infrastructure. If the gears of NATO are almost completely in the United States’ hands, then for now the few security services that exist in the European Union have assumed a certain self-dependence. One way or another, the idea of modernization, as well as the dissolution of NATO and the formation of new united armed powers in the European Union have been discussed for the last several years by experts, parliaments and governments alike. Now the Europeans can put their words into action.
Finally, this scandal might encourage the European Union to think about its role on the international stage. Right now, the U.S. sees the EU as its “little brother.” But the two allies are quite comparable in terms of their respective economic strength: the EU accounts for 19.8 percent of the world’s gross domestic product; the U.S. accounts for 21 percent. Experts affirm that things can’t go on the way they are now. Europe is more frequently and more actively proclaiming its self-sufficiency and expressing its desire to become an independent player in the international arena.
Of course, this does not mark a point of no return for the Europeans — they won’t say, “Since American intelligence agencies were spying on us, we’re going to start living on our own tomorrow without so much as a glance back at ‘Big Brother.’” But the scandal over the surveillance of European bureaucrats and diplomats does give Europe a serious reason to rethink its relationships with its old allies — and to begin looking for new ones.