Since Edward Snowden blew the cover on America’s vast surveillance operation against everyone from international allies to ordinary citizens – all in the name of “national security” – the world has felt anything but “secure”, not least Americans themselves, whose very sense of a national character was betrayed by their government …. Koli Mitra shares…
I’m neither traitor nor hero. I’m an American.
– Edward Snowden.
When Edward Snowden walked out of the airport in Moscow after being stuck there, stateless, for two months, someone remarked that he must be relieved to finally “breathe the free Moscow air.” So many ironies are compressed into that statement – and the whole Snowden saga – that it’s hard to know where to begin unpacking it.
Russian president Vladimir Putin’s comment that Snowden could stay in Russia temporarily on the condition that he ceases to engage in activities that harm Russia’s “American allies” sounded so odd, that even Putin himself had to acknowledge it. In truth, the not-always-latent hostility in the U.S.-Russia “alliance” is really the ONLY reason Snowden is there. Russia is not exactly celebrated for its record on free-speech or privacy rights, the bases of Snowden’s current predicament. Russia’s decision to let Snowden stay almost certainly isn’t based on principle.
Even apart from the scintillating Cold-War-themed historical drama element in all this, the fact that Snowden has the “free air” of Russia to look forward to is a striking thought. For Americans – especially those of us who still choose to value that part of our identity, and even consider ourselves patriotic, without choosing to descend into the xenophobic “patriotic” tribalism that’s been rising to prominence for some time– it’s a frightening wake up call. We’re more accustomed to seeing people fleeing to the United States. It seems the “natural” direction of flight.
I can think of at least one political refugee who fled her country after getting into trouble for, among other things, criticizing her government for being “too pro-American”; yet, even she chose to seek—and was granted – sanctuary in America. All my life, I’ve known political asylees living ordinary lives in America – as students, cab drivers, doctors, lawyers, even lawyers working for government – who openly and relentlessly criticize America – its culture, its foreign policy, its food, the alleged intellectual inferiority of its people – but somehow they never consider returning to their countries of origin, and become agitated if questioned regarding this choice. My observation is not meant to condemn them. It’s meant to point out that, despite its flaws, America really is a place where dissent is generally allowed, even embraced.
The “wake up call” doesn’t necessarily erode the confidence that “dissent” will continue to be tolerated in ordinary American life. It’s more sinister. It’s a creeping suspicion that dissent is irrelevant, because the governing class (including both major political parties) is so powerful that it essentially finds “dissent” toothless. The powerful can afford to let us chatter on in protest or discontent because if one of us ever becomes a serious problem (either as a genuine security threat or as a political inconvenience) they’ll know all our vulnerabilities and our exact location. Ironically, the United States Constitution guarantees that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” by the government. “ Yet the government is violating that promised sense of security in mass scale, all in the name of providing for our national “security.”
If Snowden were granted asylum somewhere similar to the U.S., someplace with a free press and/or a relatively free civil society, like the Netherlands, or India, or Iceland (Snowden’s first choice), I might feel less disheartened. As it is, though, I’m not only watching my government possibly flout a host of my constitution’s guarantees (against unreasonable searches, against violations of personal privacy, against suppression of speech and more…) but I am watching all the world’s so-called liberal democracies, where people supposedly care about human rights, shun this young man who is being hunted by the world’s most powerful government.
I can’t conclude either way about whether Snowden is “innocent”. It’s certainly possible that his revelations exposed his nation to threats against which it has a right to shield itself. But can we decide his guilt without a fair trial? Can he get a fair trial anymore? Not one country in the so called “free world” thought, “let’s give him a place to stay and an opportunity to prepare for his defence until a fair trial can be arranged”? None of America’s real “allies” in the free world had the political courage to mediate between their powerful ally and one of its citizens who is arguably now a persecuted political dissident? And who gets to decide whether the government, accused of violating ourmost sacred laws, is “innocent”?
The histories of most countries, especially those that have become rich and powerful, tend to be rife with human rights violations: exploitation, violence, imperialism. Most thinking Americans are aware (and frequently critical) of our country’s history of imperialism and other misdeeds. Yet, when we criticize our government, we don’t typically look to other countries – certainly not Russia – for guidance on how to behave. Rather, we appeal to our own national values and argue for holding ourselves to a “higher standard.” Years ago, I spoke to a woman who complained sullenly about the double standard in how Americans are treated in “places like Iran and Libya, but we are expected to respect their rights as equals when they’re here.” I responded, quite righteously “You really want us to take human rights policy cues from Iran or Libya?” Remarkably, that seemed to sway her.
Something about the ideals we consider definitive of our national character makes us aspire to be the kind of country that doesn’t cross certain lines. Snowden himself insists his actions are true to American values. He says it’s the government that’s “unchained itself from the (American) constitution.” Daniel Ellsberg of the 1970s Pentagon Papers fame has called Snowden a “patriot” – a term Ellsberg also used to describe Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), who is now in solitary confinement for having revealed evidence of the government’s extralegal activities. When I say “we” I don’t, of course,claim to represent all Americans. I do believe, however, that most ordinary Americans have some degree of un-cynical expectation that our country should uphold the rights and freedoms spelled out in our constitution and meet some common sense standards of fairness and be held “accountable” when it fails. We usually feel pretty comfortable that our march through history has generally taken us forward in the right direction. That’s why the rise of neo-conservatism has been so alarming to us. We had hoped all that had peaked with the Bush presidency and that we were now on the road to repair. So many events of the Obama presidency, the latest being Edward Snowden’s revelations and his subsequent life on the run, have shaken that faith to the core.
