There has been a growing disconnect between the inherent qualities of US citizensand the actions of their government. The election of Barack Obama to the Oval Officefive years ago demonstrated the essentially liberal spirit of the American people. Butthe same cannot be said of the US governance structure, which very often pursuespolicies designed to help the few who are major contributors to political candidatesthan the millions who vote for them.
Because of the immense influence of powerful interest groups over the corporationsthat control much of the media in the US, the people of that country are seldom givenan informed choice about events, especially those relating to foreign affairs.
To this day, many Americans believe that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafisupported al-Qaida leaders. The reality is, Saddam and Gadhafi both were targets ofal-Qaida assassination plots for a long time because, whatever their other faults mighthave been, both subscribed to moderate theologies rather than the extreme version ofIslam.
For years, the US has been lecturing China on hacking Internet accounts. It is almostcertain that some entities, individuals or groups, in China do hack Internet accounts.But then all - repeat all -major powers do the same and make China the scapegoat.
The US has escaped any attention concerning its state-sponsored hacking programs.In fact, the US as well as the European Union member states have been silent aboutthe fact that they have the maximum number of surveillance cameras per thousandpeople.
That's why former CIA agent and National Security Agency specialist EdwardSnowden's exposure of some of the details about the NSA's gargantuan program toclandestinely scoop up information from across the world should be considered apublic service. Were the sole purpose of such theft of data the prevention of terroristacts, as is being claimed by the Obama administration, the world would not have beenas angered by Snowden's revelations as it is now. It's clear the US has used Osamabin Laden and his fanatic band of followers as a pretext to snoop around the world.
Using the cover of the "war on terror", the US has given itself untrammeled access toinformation that can be used to further not only security, but also commercial interests.
For example, take the case of a policymaker in a major developing country - say, India- who adopts a policy to protect domestic interests. In case such a policy threatensAmerican goals, the US could get dubious entities to call the policymaker over thephone or send him/her some e-mails. Using such communications, the US officials canthen launch a phishing expedition across offshore banking centers to see if thepolitician has illegal accounts. And if the officials get any incriminating evidence, theycan simply blackmail the policymaker into complying with the dictates of the USadministration or destroy his career by leaking information about his/her ill-gottenwealth.
The unfettered access of the US to offshore banking data means that policymakersacross the globe, many of whom are corrupt, are at the constant risk of exposure ifthey refuse to play ball with the US at the cost of their domestic industries.
Since major international Internet service providers are based in the US, the private e-mails and phone calls of more than 2 billion people across the globe can be madeavailable to US authorities and their NATO allies. This could include details about theirpersonal lives, which could be leaked to the media whenever they take a firm stance toprotect their countries' interests against the diktats of the US or its NATO allies. TheIraq "Oil for Food" scandal was an apt example of how a so-called independentcommission (headed by former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker) foundonly those people guilty of malpractice who were known to be resisting US pressure.
The Volcker report reportedly preferred not to name a prominent Indian politician,considered close to the US, even though she was one of the suspected beneficiaries ofthe scandal. But the report didn't show a similar forbearance toward former Indianforeign minister K. Natwar Singh, who is a life-long proponent of non-alignment, amovement that the US and NATO detest. Ultimately, a lobby within the Indiangovernment forced Natwar Singh to resign from the federal cabinet, much to the reliefof those who found his adherence to nonpartisan principles irksome.
How many independent-minded politicians across the globe have fallen prey to theinformation gleaned by the NSA? How many companies based in the US and otherNATO member countries have benefited from illegally collected data on theircompetitors in other countries?
Since politicians in the US and other NATO member states can pretend to be actingagainst potential terrorist funds to hack the accounts of individuals and companies inother countries for the benefit of their local enterprises, it would be naive to think thatthey have not used such information to also promote their political interests.
Therefore, the use of the NSA as a phishing net, designed to get information fromhundreds of millions of individuals and companies wholly unrelated to terrorism, neednot merely be condemned, but also subjected to penalties.
No comments:
Post a Comment