“Here’s my strategy on the
Cold War: we win, they lose” — President Ronald Reagan.
Russia’s granting of temporary asylum to ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden holds significant meaning for US-Russia relations. However, the time that it had taken Russian President Vladimir Putin to do so (with Snowden waiting in the transit zone of Moscow airport for a whole 38 days for a response to his request for asylum) raises considerable questions as to where US-Russia relations are headed.
The sudden chill in US-Russia relations may hold obvious consequences for Snowden obtaining permanent asylum in Russia. The reason for Putin’s delay in granting Snowden this temporary asylum at all was, as he put it, to not offend the United States. However, there is evidence to the contrary. For instance, last year, Russia banned adoption of Russian children by US families. This was a clear sign of how Putin possibly views the state of Russia’s relationship with the United States. This raises the question of whether there were ever any intentions of having better relations with Washington.
As a consequence, President Obama cancelled a meeting with Putin before the G20 summit, the White House stating: “There was not enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda.” From the US perspective, there may be several issues to consider in making such a statement. There is US frustration over Russia’s reluctance to confront Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons. There is also the Russian support of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the consequent civil war in Syria, which has evolved into a human rights catastrophe. The US administration’s impatience with the Russian standstill on the reduction of nuclear weapons also adds to these frustrations.
As can be seen clearly, the “bilateral agenda” referred to by the White House was quite heavy as it was and with the addition of Russia’s granting of temporary asylum to Snowden, this sends a very potent and obvious diplomatic message to the United States and has possibly escalated the tensions between the two countries. The signal being sent to the United States is that Russia has taken this opportunity to embarrass the United States and that possibly, there is nothing that the US is willing to offer Russia that is important enough to balance Snowden’s asylum request.
The message was received by Washington loud and clear. However, another very essential message may have been ignored in the process: the very reasons why Edward Snowden is wanted as a criminal in the United States. How much different is the United States than Russia in the fact that it has been caught red-handed spying and collecting intelligence data on its own citizens? Furthermore, to deem the one person who has dared to divulge this information to the public for the general good a criminal seems to be a statement that goes against the very core of what the United States may consider itself to be so different from Russia in: its extremely high regard for free speech and human rights. Granted, Snowden was a government employee in secret service agencies bound by the rules and regulations of conduct of such agencies. However, he in no violated and exposed military secrets that jeopardise the United States in any way. His actions were based on informing the general public of illegal measures taken by their government, violating their privacy to keep intelligence tabs on them, that too knowing full well the risks it entailed with regard to his own life.
The tensions in US-Russian relations are obviously based on vast differences in political ideology in general. However, it would seem that the appearance of Snowden in the US-Russian diplomatic scene has exposed a new twist in the situation. From the perspective of the United States, how far can it go in preserving its position of viewing differences in its bilateral agenda with Russia based on something that it has firmly stood against Russia for and is doing itself: standing against the principles of free speech?
Whatever the future holds, there may be one very positive outcome on the horizon. There are many voices claiming that Snowden can at least be credited with forcing a debate and dialogue on what constitutes legitimate boundaries of privacy and government surveillance. The United States has been forced to take stock of its diplomatic relations with Russia. This may also be an opportune time for the US to reflect on where its ‘foolproof’ system of surveillance went utterly wrong and what the parameters of ‘privacy’ actually mean.
The writer is an English and French professor and columnist residing in the USA and France. She can be reached at [email protected]