Snowden as an Instrument of Soft Power

From the very beginning, the Edward Snowden saga has had all the trappings of an adventure movie: A modest National Security Agency (NSA) agent decided that he could no longer be at peace with the U.S. government’s violation of its citizens’ right to privacy and embarked on a lonely campaign against the system.

But the breathtaking “hunt for Snowden” stopped dead in its tracks in the hallways of Sheremetyevo Airport when an airplane full of journalists departed for Cuba without the story’s protagonist. Since then, nothing much has happened for several weeks. In the background of the slow-moving exchange of diplomatic information between the governments of Russia and the U.S., the only noteworthy event was a brief, exclusive press conference, out of which arose more questions than answers.

But it’s likely that yesterday’s events [July 23] will breathe new life into the story, which has been stalled for a whole month.

For starters, an RIA Novosti reporter with ties to the staff of Sheremetyevo’s capsule hotel (where Snowden has presumably been living all this time) broke the news that he is no longer there. Later in the day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was quoted as saying at a routine press briefing that there is “ample precedent and legal justification” for Moscow to extradite Snowden. This declaration is the latest in a series of pronouncements from U.S. officials indicating that the only satisfying solution to the “Snowden problem” will be his deportation back to the States.

Meanwhile, it has been a week since Snowden submitted an official request for asylum to Russia’s Federal Migration Service; if everything goes according to plan, the “Sheremetyevo stowaway” will have permission to leave the airport’s transit zone.

But let’s suppose, hypothetically, that Snowden doesn’t remain in Russia and somehow or another goes back to the United States to stand trial. Who will support him there?

Actually, Snowden has many supporters in the U.S., and they’re not as weak as it may seem. Public opinion surveys, which various agencies have been conducting since the beginning of June, consistently show that most Americans approve of Snowden’s actions, believe that the government has gone too far and see the government’s monitoring of online correspondences, search engine queries and phone conversations as an infringement on U.S. citizens’ right to privacy.

On the online petition site We the People, a petition calling for the government to pardon Snowden has already gathered more than 130,000 signatures. This is 30,000 more signatures than the 100,000 required for the petition to receive an official response from a representative of the government; this number continues to grow with each day.

So the former NSA agent’s return to his homeland would make him the darling of the American mass media, which as of late has practically lost interest in his fate.

Moreover, it’s not just everyday Americans who support Snowden. Among those speaking out in defense of Snowden have been well-known, influential politicians and journalists, including such diverse figures as the anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky, Democratic Socialist Cornel West, Republican Senator Ted Cruz and his conservative libertarian colleagues Ron and Rand Paul. Also to be found among the ranks of Snowden supporters are filmmakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone (both famous for their criticism of the practices of the U.S. government), the former chief justice of New Jersey’s supreme court, the popular Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano, and Glenn Beck, perhaps America’s most widely known conservative radio personality.

All it would take to demonstrate that Snowden has supporters of all political stripes who have little in common besides their support for the former NSA agent would be to name the first and last person from that list. There’s no doubt that if the unofficial hero of America stands before a judge, his advocates will be able to deliver real political support and mass demonstrations in his defense.

But why? The reason is that Snowden is seen as an incarnation of the phenomenon of American “soft power.” After all, he presented himself as the defender of the very same rights and freedoms that the U.S. has claimed to be at the center of its campaign of humanitarianism around the world over the course of many years. Here’s a paradox: the U.S. government is trying to get its hands on the person who stated many times that his main objective was to ignite a public discussion about what the world we live in should be like, and about whether or not national security concerns should trump citizens’ inalienable rights and freedoms. Standing up for Snowden and granting him asylum in Russia (if such a decision is made) means defending the values that are usually associated with American democracy rather than the modern Russian political system, with respect to the freedom of information. The derisive chuckling of those who sneered about the disillusioned intelligence agent’s list of potential countries in which to seek asylum will soon cease to make sense, something for which neither Snowden nor the Venezuelan government can be blamed.

And the assertion (or conviction) that Snowden is a criminal according to American law doesn’t at all contradict the statement that he has become a symbolic figure: In an expression of the sincerity of American political ideals, everyday American citizens and influential societal and political figures alike have rushed to his defense.

The question is whether or not Russia will be able to turn the American into a tool of its very own breed of soft power.