US Spying Allegations: Full Disclosure a Must
Published in Hokkaido Shimbun
(Japan) on 29 October 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
Suspicions are growing that the United States’ intelligence services have been spying on world leaders. If true, this inexcusable conduct could lead to a loss of confidence in the U.S. worldwide.
According to U.S. media, U.S. government officials have confirmed that the National Security Agency (NSA) tapped the phones of around 35 world leaders, including that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It is presumed that a large number of allied and friendly nations are affected; the National Security Council (NSC) has issued a statement that the current state of intelligence-gathering activities will be re-evaluated. Officials have strongly emphasized to the U.S. media that President Obama had no knowledge of the spying, but is it really possible to say that the president had no involvement at all?
The United States has an obligation to reveal the subjects, details and ultimate goals of this spying. In a phone conversation with President Obama regarding the supposed tapping of her cell phone, Chancellor Merkel apparently strongly asserted that “there should not be such monitoring of the communications of a government leader. This would be a grave breach of trust.” According to German media, spying on Merkel has been carried out for over 10 years.
Ever since former CIA employee Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the United States’ secret intelligence-gathering, America’s shadow activities have been coming to light one after another. According to the NSA, President Rousseff of Brazil canceled a planned visit to the U.S. after learning her phone had been tapped. And it’s been reported that in Mexico, President Peña Nieto’s emails were being intercepted even before he was inaugurated.
When it was first revealed that the U.S. government was amassing huge amounts of private information, it justified it as “necessary for fighting terrorism.” But what is coming to light now is spying on heads of state who have no direct link to terrorism. I don’t think it would be going too far to say that these activities are criminal. Until the full details of this excessive spying are made public, it’s going to be difficult for the United States to regain the trust of the international community.
At a conference of the heads of the European Union, the issue of the spying problem was quickly taken up, with France and Germany deciding to negotiate with the United States to prevent further spying. Contrasted with this is the response of Japan’s government. In regard to concerns that Prime Minister Abe’s phone had been tapped, Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga denied them, saying, “There are absolutely no problems.” Japan seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach, but if it cannot take a firm stance even on this issue, Japan’s whole diplomatic position could be called into question.
France, Brazil and others are now looking to propose a U.N. resolution that would establish protections for private information online and would double as a warning to the United States. It is my hope that every nation will move toward adopting it.
While it’s definitely true that information stored in cyberspace holds great value for criminal investigations, there need to be limits on how far a nation can go in acquiring it. Therefore, we must hurry and adopt a standard which takes both of these factors into account.
According to U.S. media, U.S. government officials have confirmed that the National Security Agency (NSA) tapped the phones of around 35 world leaders, including that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It is presumed that a large number of allied and friendly nations are affected; the National Security Council (NSC) has issued a statement that the current state of intelligence-gathering activities will be re-evaluated. Officials have strongly emphasized to the U.S. media that President Obama had no knowledge of the spying, but is it really possible to say that the president had no involvement at all?
The United States has an obligation to reveal the subjects, details and ultimate goals of this spying. In a phone conversation with President Obama regarding the supposed tapping of her cell phone, Chancellor Merkel apparently strongly asserted that “there should not be such monitoring of the communications of a government leader. This would be a grave breach of trust.” According to German media, spying on Merkel has been carried out for over 10 years.
Ever since former CIA employee Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the United States’ secret intelligence-gathering, America’s shadow activities have been coming to light one after another. According to the NSA, President Rousseff of Brazil canceled a planned visit to the U.S. after learning her phone had been tapped. And it’s been reported that in Mexico, President Peña Nieto’s emails were being intercepted even before he was inaugurated.
When it was first revealed that the U.S. government was amassing huge amounts of private information, it justified it as “necessary for fighting terrorism.” But what is coming to light now is spying on heads of state who have no direct link to terrorism. I don’t think it would be going too far to say that these activities are criminal. Until the full details of this excessive spying are made public, it’s going to be difficult for the United States to regain the trust of the international community.
At a conference of the heads of the European Union, the issue of the spying problem was quickly taken up, with France and Germany deciding to negotiate with the United States to prevent further spying. Contrasted with this is the response of Japan’s government. In regard to concerns that Prime Minister Abe’s phone had been tapped, Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga denied them, saying, “There are absolutely no problems.” Japan seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach, but if it cannot take a firm stance even on this issue, Japan’s whole diplomatic position could be called into question.
France, Brazil and others are now looking to propose a U.N. resolution that would establish protections for private information online and would double as a warning to the United States. It is my hope that every nation will move toward adopting it.
While it’s definitely true that information stored in cyberspace holds great value for criminal investigations, there need to be limits on how far a nation can go in acquiring it. Therefore, we must hurry and adopt a standard which takes both of these factors into account.