FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The German-US No-Spy Arrangement

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It was not bound to happen and it is unlikely to.  The huffing that tends to accompany recrimination and disagreement about espionage revelations is predictable.  Elected representatives need to earn their keep and stay in the good books of their electorates.  Intelligence officials know better – they are paid to be dirty, to find material, to think the worst of the other side.  The show must go on, and intelligence agencies are part of the theatre set that demands that very fact.

In August, it was agreed that Germany and the United States would hold talks over a bilateral “no-spy” deal.  By all means, spy together, but not on each other.  There was even some discussion about a possible spying alliance along the Five Eyes arrangement similar to that shared with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.  US Congressmen Tim Ryan and Charles Dent certainly feel that a sixth eye would be valuable, requesting last November in a letter to President Barack Obama that the administration “essentially enters into negotiations to strike an agreement extending the Five Eyes Intelligence Pact and include Germany” (Deutsche Welle, Nov 22, 2013).

This curious set of circumstances in international relations seemingly raised the bar: the German chancellor Angela Merkel needed to convince Obama that hacking and observing her emails was simply not on.  A cordon sanitaire was needed.

Obama’s reaction has been one of assurance rather than full hearted commitment.  He had told Merkel that the US “is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of chancellor Merkel”.  The German press began to get suspicious.  At the very least, they sensed something was wrong in the current state of dragging negotiations.  The Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted a source on Tuesday claiming that US officials had exercised a good bit of mendacity: they lied to us.  But much of this is simply an effort to front up to the German public.  The Americans have a role to play in this drama of deceit – they must have been the stonewallers, the fabricators. The Germans have to be seen as morally indignant.

In fact, the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) does not want the resources to dry up – they can still call on NSA intelligence and other US sources when required, at least in some measure.  As the US State Department’s deputy spokesperson Marie Harf explains, “the goal of these discussions have been to further intensify and strengthen cooperation between the US and German intelligence services.  The US and Germany already cooperate extensively in the areas of security and intelligence to address global threats that we all face” (AP, Jan 14).  No talk of cordons sanitaires there.

A no-spy arrangement also works both ways – it imposes a drought, engineers a famine of sorts.  Given that intelligence agencies work on the principle of accumulating information, this is not a state of affairs either side wants.  The prize remains information, however useful it is.  Privacy tends to sulk in the corner.

The politicians, on the other hand, have an audience to play to.  Their world also involves theatre, but the stage set is dramatically different. For them, images have to be convincing, the sale plausible. The big bad NSA of the USA is a popular target, but what of the German intelligence service?  For that reason, it is far better to be keeping up the appearance that negotiations are pending, yet still exercise some wriggling room by claiming the Americans are being stubborn.  In the words of Der Spiegel, “The No-Spy deal is alive”, even though it is a case of “forced optimism” (Jan 15).

Washington, in response, is simply pretending German law makers don’t exist, at least in the form of grievances.  Witness the suggestions of blissful ignorance on the part of Harf, who claimed that she was unaware of reports that German negotiators were unhappy with the way talks were proceeding (AP, Jan 14).

A few German political figures are suggesting that the high ground must be taken.  Thomas Opperman, the caucus leader of the Social Democrats, partners in Merkel’s coalition, is pressing for a full fledged “no-spy” agreement claiming that its “failure” would be untenable, changing “the political character of relations” between the two countries.

Stephan Mayer, the new internal affairs spokesman for Merkel’s parliamentary group, told Reuters on Tuesday that a form of retaliation was on the cards to counter American stubbornness.  “The Americans understand one language very well, and that is the language of business.”  Should talks fail, Germany might well consider “whether US firms receive government contracts from the German side or public institutions.” Mayer may be on to something, in a roundabout way.

German companies have also been alarmed at the revelations of the Prism program, Tempora and XKeyscore.  As noted in Der Spiegel (Jul 23, 2013), “Many firms are now worried that the intelligence services aren’t just trying to pinpoint terrorists but to get at German industrial secrets as well.  They fear that their lead over US, British and French competitors would be at risk.”

In the end, the Anglophone empire of intelligence services, in terms of what they share with each other, will come first.  Much of that relationship arises because prejudices attract like prejudices.  The Germans have been allowed a foot in, but only partially.  They offer too much and pose a formidable competitive angle through their small and medium-sized business sector termed Mittelstand.  Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain do not necessarily produce the quality of material Germany does, certainly in the realm of industrial espionage.  Far better to spy on them, those pharmaceutical wizards, the mechanical innovators, the state of the art engineers.  German-made remains potent.  For the Anglophones, they are far more useful that way.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 27, 2017
Anthony DiMaggio
Media Ban! Making Sense of the War Between Trump and the Press
Dave Lindorff
Resume Inflation at the NSC: Lt. General McMaster’s Silver Star Was Essentially Earned for Target Practice
Conn Hallinan
Is Trump Moderating US Foreign Policy? Hardly
Norman Pollack
Political Castration of State: Militarization of Government
Kenneth Surin
Inside Dharavi, a Mumbai Slum
Lawrence Davidson
Truth vs. Trump
Binoy Kampmark
The Extradition Saga of Kim Dotcom
Robert Fisk
Why a Victory Over ISIS in Mosul Might Spell Defeat in Deir Ezzor
David Swanson
Open Guantanamo!
Ted Rall
The Republicans May Impeach Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Why Should Trump―or Anyone―Be Able to Launch a Nuclear War?
Andrew Stewart
Down with Obamacare, Up with Single Payer!
Colin Todhunter
Message to John Beddington and the Oxford Martin Commission
David Macaray
UFOs: The Myth That Won’t Die?
Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail