The King Is Naked, Declares Dilma
"If Brazil isn't spying on the U.S. — the world's most powerful country — Brazil's spy agencies are incompetent."
The phrase belongs to John Allen Gay, one of the editors of The National Interest, an American magazine on foreign relations; it was published yesterday in his Internet microblog during a not-so-friendly conversation with the journalist Glenn Greenwald, the author of reports on the U.S. system of espionage.
With frankness and the simplicity of 140 characters, he summarized the problem underlying the complaints against the National Security Agency (NSA): To the extent of their technical capacity, all countries tend to rely on espionage to protect their interests.
It does not follow, however, that the U.S. cannot or should not be criticized for procedures now made public, much less that it can or should develop tools to investigate virtually each and every citizen around the world. It is difficult to draw a clear line in the domain of international pragmatism, but it is easy to see that the U.S. went beyond any reasonable boundary.
President Dilma Rousseff was correct, however, using the better part of her speaking time at the 68th General Assembly of the U.N., in New York, to criticize the U.S. for the monitoring of phone calls and emails of Brazilians, including communications from Petrobras and from the president of the republic herself.
Described by the international press as "compelling," "virulent," "strong" or "harsh," Dilma's words did not bring, strictly speaking, changes in relation to what she herself had already said or done, such as suspending the state visit to the U.S., which was to occur in October. But her words clearly gained weight, however, for having been spoken at the U.N. headquarters.
Beyond indignant rhetoric, Dilma affirmed that she will defend proposals for a multilateral civil framework about the use of the internet. The idea, added the president, is to create rules to "prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war."
There are no doubts that in theory, a regulation of this nature would be welcome. It is not likely, however, that such a goal is obtainable. It is enough to note that conflicts of interest have stopped Brazil itself from approving similar legislation domestically.
Barack Obama spoke soon after Dilma, in accordance with protocol, as if he were not presiding over a country accused of violating human rights and civil liberties. Responding indirectly, he simply said that there needs to be a balance between concerns about security and concerns about privacy, preferring to address other issues, in particular the Middle East.
Obama, no doubt, knows that Dilma has reason. But, as in the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes," it is likely that he will continue unmoved.
The phrase belongs to John Allen Gay, one of the editors of The National Interest, an American magazine on foreign relations; it was published yesterday in his Internet microblog during a not-so-friendly conversation with the journalist Glenn Greenwald, the author of reports on the U.S. system of espionage.
With frankness and the simplicity of 140 characters, he summarized the problem underlying the complaints against the National Security Agency (NSA): To the extent of their technical capacity, all countries tend to rely on espionage to protect their interests.
It does not follow, however, that the U.S. cannot or should not be criticized for procedures now made public, much less that it can or should develop tools to investigate virtually each and every citizen around the world. It is difficult to draw a clear line in the domain of international pragmatism, but it is easy to see that the U.S. went beyond any reasonable boundary.
President Dilma Rousseff was correct, however, using the better part of her speaking time at the 68th General Assembly of the U.N., in New York, to criticize the U.S. for the monitoring of phone calls and emails of Brazilians, including communications from Petrobras and from the president of the republic herself.
Described by the international press as "compelling," "virulent," "strong" or "harsh," Dilma's words did not bring, strictly speaking, changes in relation to what she herself had already said or done, such as suspending the state visit to the U.S., which was to occur in October. But her words clearly gained weight, however, for having been spoken at the U.N. headquarters.
Beyond indignant rhetoric, Dilma affirmed that she will defend proposals for a multilateral civil framework about the use of the internet. The idea, added the president, is to create rules to "prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war."
There are no doubts that in theory, a regulation of this nature would be welcome. It is not likely, however, that such a goal is obtainable. It is enough to note that conflicts of interest have stopped Brazil itself from approving similar legislation domestically.
Barack Obama spoke soon after Dilma, in accordance with protocol, as if he were not presiding over a country accused of violating human rights and civil liberties. Responding indirectly, he simply said that there needs to be a balance between concerns about security and concerns about privacy, preferring to address other issues, in particular the Middle East.
Obama, no doubt, knows that Dilma has reason. But, as in the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes," it is likely that he will continue unmoved.
Previous article![]( "US Budget Politics: America Goes Dark")
