US-European relations rocked by the Snowden affair. July 11, 2013

1)
The genesis of the issue
Revelations by Edward Snowden, a former US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, about the state of US intelligence activities have rocked US-European relations.

The series of upheavals was first triggered in early June when he revealed the NSA's communications interception activities in the US targeting civilians.

2)
This alone had a sufficient impact, but the catalyst for the rapid development into a direct issue in US-EU relations came on June 29, when the German magazine Der Spiegel, based on information provided by Snowden, published a report on the NSA's interceptions of communications between the EU Delegation in Washington.

The EU Delegation to the UN in New York and The following report was that the NSA had carried out intelligence activities, including the interception of communications, against the EU headquarters organisation in Brussels, based on information provided by Snowden.

This was followed by a report in The Guardian (UK) on intelligence activities against the embassies of countries in the US, including European countries, which sparked a debate.

3)
In response, the EU and other European countries have been protesting, demanding that the US Government cease such intelligence activities and investigate and explain the facts. This paper will, therefore, summarise what is at stake in this series of disturbances from the perspective of US-EU relations and examine the differences in the positions of European countries on this issue.

4)
What is at stake?
Despite the heated media coverage and the increasing statements made by US and European leaders and experts, it is not always clear what is at stake about the disturbances. Emotionally, there is an argument that intelligence activities such as eavesdropping and intrusion into information systems, as revealed in this case, should not occur between the US and Europe, which are supposed to be allies bound together by shared values and trust.

5)
However, US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry, on the other side of the argument, have promised to provide all the information requested by countries.

But I have also argued that efforts to learn about different countries' thinking through means other than public information are a natural, so to speak, everyday mission for intelligence agencies, and many countries do it, if not specifically (see, for example, President Obama's press conference of July 1).

Nevertheless, there may be a difference of judgment at the individual level regarding whether to consider it morally unacceptable or to accept it as an unavoidable reality in international relations.

6)
Not all countries would be involved in such intelligence activities. There have been various instances of this type of problem in the past, not only between adversaries but also between friendly and allied countries, and each time, it has been sensationalised in the media. Nevertheless, it is also a reality that the problem was settled after some time, and relations between the countries concerned were not decisively worsened.

7)
This in itself may indicate the reality that intelligence activities among state agencies are, to a certain extent, considered to be interwoven. No evidence has emerged to suggest that the current issue is a qualitative departure from such reality or past cases.

(It may be possible to point out that the current US activities are different in terms of quantity (scale) rather than 'quality', but it would be difficult to draw that line, and quantitative comparisons with past activities would not be something that could be publicly discussed.)

8)
If US intelligence activities targeting European government agencies are not an essential problem, the problems posed by the disturbances can be summed up in two points. The first is the immediate and short-term impact on US-European relations.

Even if the activities by US intelligence agencies were only a routine mission, once the uproar reached this level, it could not help but hurt natural US-European relations as well.

9)
Given public sentiment, European governments cannot afford not to see this as a problem now that there have been reports. Despite suggestions of postponement by France (see below), trade negotiations between the US and the EU have started as planned. Still, some time and concrete measures will likely be required to rebuild trust during essential talks.

In addition, if France and others follow the UK's example and seek an agreement with the US not to conduct intelligence activities targeting each other's government agencies - which would not be of a nature to be negotiated in the surface world - it may take time to settle the issue.

10)
Second is the issue of personal data (data) protection. Negotiations between the US and the EU, especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, have sometimes been extremely tough on the handling of personal data, including the provision of such data to the US authorities.

Therefore, on the European side, interception of communications targeted at (European) civilians is more problematic than intelligence activities targeted at government agencies.

11)
Indeed, even though intelligence operations against government agencies were the norm in that part of the world, interception of communications targeted at the public was a new problem. This is serious and could sometimes undermine the main principles on which countries, including the US and Europe, rely, such as democracy and the rule of law.

Therefore, this issue is of far greater importance. The European press is currently focusing on the sensational issue of intelligence activities against allies, but once this wave has passed to some extent, interest is likely to return to the original issue of intelligence gathering activities targeting civilians, which have been a problem since early June, and the US response to the revelation of these activities.

12)
The emergence of intelligence activities targeting government agencies could be assessed as a disincentive to addressing the more critical issue of activities against the general public from the standpoint of focusing on the issue of activities against the general public.

13)
For the United States, there is the issue of counter-terrorism and civil liberties, as well as the issue of how to ensure information management in the government, a second Snowden.

Regarding the issue of asylum for the suspect, it is reported that asylum applications have been submitted to several European countries. Some have already decided to reject the applications, while others are still under review, at least procedurally.

14)
However, given the relationship with the United States, which is vehemently opposed to repatriation, it is unlikely that European countries will accept asylum, and the asylum issue will unlikely become a point of contention in US-European relations.

Indeed, France, on the other hand, which is vehemently opposed to the problem, did not grant permission for the plane Snowden may have been on board to pass through its airspace.

In the future, even if he is granted asylum in South America, various questions remain as to whether there is a route from the airport in Moscow, where he is reportedly currently staying, to reach his asylum destination without passing through the airspace of any US ally.

15)
Differences in temperature within Europe
It is difficult to predict how long and how this series of issues will converge at this stage.

It will depend on, among other things, the contents of secret documents that may be revealed further in the future and the US response to European governments and the EU's demands for investigations and explanations.

However, this is not a simple picture of the US versus Europe. Considerable differences in the response to this issue, even within Europe, may need to be noted.

16)
First of all, the UK. In a series of problems, some of the intelligence activities of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a UK government agency, came to light, for example, the intelligence activities of the G20 Heads of State and Government at the G20 Summit in London in 2009. The UK was forced to defend itself at the June G8 meeting held in Northern Ireland.

17)
However, the issue itself is, at least on the surface, being put to rest. Nevertheless, the UK media has been reporting extensively on the Snowden issue and the fact that European countries, including EU institutions, have been the target of US intelligence activities daily.

However, a 'high profile' atmosphere cannot be denied there. As the Spiegel report demonstrates, one of the main reasons for this may be that the UK (and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were not subject to US intelligence activities.

18)
The UK is not a victim. Perhaps this is why a dispassionate argument seems to dominate in the UK (at least in the high street press) that US activities are nothing special in the intelligence world and that it is not in the national interest to make this a political issue.

British government officials and intellectuals seem to be in a mood of 'what the hell is going on', given that the country has its own world-class and powerful intelligence agency (MI6), which has a wealth of experience and knowledge.

This may also be an aspect of defence against the exposure of activities by their intelligence services in a series of media reports.

19)
The situation in Germany is somewhat more complex. In a country where memories of the East German Government's secret police (Stasi) during the Cold War are still fresh, aversion to citizen surveillance by government agencies is extreme.

For this reason, even before the specifics of US intelligence activities against European governments, including Germany, became apparent, the German GovernGovernmentssed strong concerns about the NSA's interception of communications and other activities targeting ordinary citizens.

When US President Obama visited Berlin in June, German Chancellor Merkel firmly pressed for action. She also urged US President Barack Obama, who visited Berlin in June, to take decisive action on this issue.

20)
In addition, at the public level, there may be an emotional backlash against the fact that Germany, as a NATO ally, has been the target of intelligence activities. At the same time, the UK and Canada have been excluded from such activities.

21)
On the other hand, as Spiegel magazine makes clear, it is also true that the German Government's intelligence agency, the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), has closely cooperated with the NSA, and the German government has to explain this to its citizens. In other words, the government cannot be solely critical of the US.

22)
France has been the most vigorous opponent to this issue, at least on the surface. In a press conference on July 1, President Hollande stated that such actions should be "stopped immediately" and linked them to the free trade agreement (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: TTIP) that has been agreed to begin negotiations between the US and the EU.

He added: "For the first time, we have a guarantee [that no further intelligence activities will be conducted] against France and Europe. Negotiations will only be possible once assurances (that there will be no further intelligence activities) have been given to France and Europe as a whole".

23)
First, France resisted the TTIP negotiations until the very end, and it appears that it intended to use this issue to check the TTIP negotiations, which were about to start the following week (the talks began in Washington on July 8, as scheduled).

On the other hand, President Hollande's firm stance has raised questions about his innocence.

24)
They say France is 'renowned' as a country with active foreign intelligence activities and is not qualified to criticise other countries. That being the case, the President's reaction is probably a political act, symbolised by the TTIP link, rather than one that stems from a sense of victimisation for the intelligence activities carried out.

25)
The EU is in a slightly different position than the major European countries with other aspects. It has been pointed out that the representative offices in Washington and New York, referred to in a 2010 internal document reported by Spiegel, have since been relocated, so eavesdropping and interception of e-mails, etc., are already a problem of the past.

26)
However, the EU, which does not have its intelligence services, has been a one-sided victim of US intelligence activities. In an editorial (July 1), the Financial Times (UK) pointed out that in dealing with such problems, the EU has no choice but to increase its intelligence protection capabilities. This would probably require UK assistance, which is itself a sensitive issue.

27)
The background to the powerful opposition of the European Parliament, one of the central institutions that make up the EU, led by President Schulz, is that the Parliament has long pursued the activities of Echelon, which is considered a US-led intelligence network.

How will the US, Europe, and the EU overcome this issue? It is likely to be a touchstone for the current state of US-EU relations.

Snowden's decision to expose mass surveillance in Tokyo: What did he discover during his time at a US intelligence agency?
https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/320807

US-European relations rocked by the Snowden affair. July 11, 2013

US-European relations rocked by the Snowden affair. July 11, 2013

Snowden (2016) - 7.3/10

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983)