Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 05:42 PM - Edit history (2)
I think what he said was the message the US government wanted to convey. I also think there is a bit of theatre happening here. It is seriously ironic that Putin, the former head of the Russian spy organization, the KGB, is playing the role of the purer than snow statesman here. It has to be a frustrating mess for Obama and everyone.
In the case of both China and Russia, SNOWDON, not Kerry, may have hurt our relationship. My guess is that neither country was genuinely surprised by the revelations. First of all, the overall concept was already out there and second they know what they do. What it did was to give both the high ground - on issues where we and the west have always been seen as having the high ground. China expressed it well by referring to tearing the mask of sanctimony off the US.
Obama was and is in a no win situation on this. If he would have NOT led an effort to demand Snowden back, he would have been called careless with national security. However, doing so - he (and Kerry) are ridiculed or condemned for making the case against Snowden. Politically, Snowden has harmed our diplomacy. Russia already had the upper hand as we wanted them to act on various things more than they wanted anything from us. This further strengthens their hand.
Also, Kerry had a better relationship with his counterpart than other people had with their Russian counterparts - making him an obvious point man. In addition, he was high enough to make it clear that it was official without using President Obama. In addition, some are twisting that comment to mean what they want it to mean. He spoke of consequences to the relationship. There are ALWAYS consequences to relationships when someone acts in a way that either helps or harms you. Note that Kerry and Obama thanked Putin for his intelligence help on the Boston bombers. With both Russia and China, we were (and likely still are) in a process of building trust on both sides. China has been concerned that the highly touted, but never really laid out, "pivot to Asia" was designed to constrain them. We want them to act on currency manipulation, intellectual property, human rights and climate change - and they hold a lot of our debt. Anyone watching Kerry's full statements would note that even as he spoke of consequences, he immediately spoke of not wanting it to harm the relationship - and Putin and his Foreign Secretary mirrored the same sentiment.
My take on relationships between governments is that one should assume that they are acting in what they see as their national interest. There is no way, no matter how charming or persuasive a diplomat is, that another country will change to do what we want just to make that statesman happy. The only way they would change is if there is some reciprocity on something else they want more or they can be persuaded that it is in their interest. However, a diplomat who is willing to listen to concerns and find a REAL common ground solution and who is personally respectful and liked by counterparts might be able to do that persuading, but it is possible only if they can see it as in their interest. (To me, this is why someone like Susan Rice, however brilliant and however loyal to Obama, was not a good choice as SoS, unless the plan was that her portfolio not include a lot of personal diplomacy. )
As to Kerry saying Snowden was a traitor - that is exactly what I would have expected him to say. It now appears that Snowden took the BAH job with the goal of stealing documents. He took an oath to get the clearance he got - and he was lying even at that moment. I know he is a libertarian/left hero, but can we really accept a situation where EVERY programmer/analyst etc can disregardful the classifications? Not to mention, Snowden speaks of what HE could do with the data. This is not the same as what the NSA IS doing with the data.
It is true that an excellent programmer could target an individual and pull everything that involves him and then intelligently process that to get a picture of that person's life. However, only with a warrant could and would the NSA do this -- and then, they are doing EXACTLY what I want them to do. Example - I expect that this was done for the two brothers who bombed the marathon. For a rogue programmer or analyst to do this without warrant is almost certainly against the code of conduct and grounds for immediate firing. ( This would have been the equivalent of telephone operator decades ago listening into the calls she placed. This was not just a SNL skit - and it was grounds for firing. The programmer needs more skill to access the details that he is not suppose to get, but it boils down to the same thing.)
Here is a fantastic essay by David Simon, the man behind THE WIRE - http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/
What did people think Kerry meant in 2004 when he spoke of using international intelligence and policework to get the terrorists? Then, the media thought of it as weak compared to invading countries.
= new reply since forum marked as read