Who’s the biggest spy? US and UK changing masks
As the Snowden-related disclosures continue to flow, each new one refuting the last dissembling statements of the desperate spies, diplomats around the world must be cursing the overweening ambitions of the NSA and its vassals.
American ambassadors are being
summoned from their fortified embassies to account for US
malfeasance in country after country: Brazil, Spain, France and,
of course, Germany.
In this last country there has been scandal after scandal: first the hoovering up of billions of private communications; then the revelation that the German intelligence agency, the BND, had been an enthusiastic partner of the NSA in developing the XKeyScore program and more; then, despite this, humiliatingly to learn that Germany is only considered a third party intelligence partner by the Yanks – putting them on a par with countries such as Iran, China and Russia.
The pièces de résistance, however, are the two most recent disclosures: that Angela Merkel's private phone had been targeted and that there was a NSA spy base embedded in the US embassy in Berlin. This, reportedly, has now ceased operations as the US government tries to appease an incandescent Merkel.
Now it is the turn of the Brits, whose ambassador, Simon McDonald, was also this week given a carpeting by the German Foreign Minister – for doing precisely what the Americans did and hiding a GCHQ spy outpost at the British embassy in Berlin, flouting all kinds of treaties and diplomatic protocols in the process.
As the embassy was only built in the early 1990s after German reunification, they cannot even claim that this is merely a hangover from the bad old days of the Cold War.
Of course, the Germans are particularly sensitive to encroaching surveillance states, after experiencing the horrors of the Gestapo and the Stasi. How much more concerned need they be, when faced with the sheer scale of the modern technological capability?
Even before the Snowden story broke, German courts were upholding the constitution in the face of government moves to expand the intelligence capability to fight the "war on terror."
Indeed, even some mega-corporations took a stand.
In 2009, on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the head of T-Mobile in German refused to store the communications data of ordinary Germans, on the off-chance that one or two of them might subsequently turn terrorist – the good of the many outweighed the threat from a few. So the Brits are somewhat out of favor with the rest of Europe, and especially Germany.
It was clear, with the revelations about GCHQ's Tempora program and the huge funding acquired from the NSA, that GCHQ was no longer primarily concerned with protecting British national security, but had become the European offshoot of the NSA.
Indeed, internal documents have shown a management obsession with pleasing their American paymasters.
This is the very heart of the so-called special relationship - the combined capabilities of the NSA and GCHQ (UK Government Communications Headquarters).
Even as the old British Empire crumbled in the mid-20th century, the spooks could still build outposts for eavesdropping in hotspots around the world: Cyprus, the Middle East, Hong Kong and, er, Berlin. They were happy to offer up the product to their new American overlords, as this gave them a continuing place at the international top table.
This the British would find very difficult to relinquish. And this is why, in stark contrast to all other European countries, the politicians have moved to defend the spies, why the monochrome phrase "we never discuss intelligence matters" is now wearily rolled out on a daily basis, and why intelligence lackeys across the national media have defended the status quo and respect the voluntary DA Notice gagging order.
It is not the Guardian that has damaged British national security (a legally nebulous concept) by printing the truth about our spy agencies working for the NSA and trampling over our basic rights and freedoms. It is the spies themselves that have caused the harm, by running amok with legally dubious surveillance schemes, kidnapping suspects around the world, and getting involved in torture.
So Thursday November 7 is potentially an historic date in the annals of British intelligence. For the very first time in their 100-year-history, the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will be called to account by the Intelligence and Security Committee in parliament.
Not only that, the event will be live streamed so we plebs can hear what is being done secretly in our names. Well, almost live streamed ? apparently there will be a few seconds delay to ensure no "damage to national security" occurs.
My mind is boggling somewhat at the possibility that three spooks who have made it to the top of their respective organizations would be so inept as to blurt out state secrets on live TV, but you never know...
So, can we hope for a full and frank discussion around the Snowden disclosures? Well, probably not.
I have written at length before about the cozy establishment ineptitude of Prime Minister David Cameron's hand-picked stooges, who populate the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Plus the chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind (himself a former Foreign Secretary notionally in charge of MI6 and GCHQ), has not only publicly supported the work of GCHQ, post-Snowden, but has also ruled out any discussion of "technological capabilities" at the hearing.
I hope to be surprised. After all, even the US – the home of the NSA and cause of all this pain – is holding congressional hearings and having national debates.
But I fear the good old British establishment will yet again rally around and protect its own. Whitewash all round!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.