Statistically, New York police shoot more often at blacks than at whites–by about 700 percent. But, statistically blacks are armed and shoot at police more often than whites–by over 700 percent, according to national statistics and the NYPD’s annual firearms discharge report.
Recently, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani commented on the recent police shooting deaths in New York and referenced the statistic that, “Ninety-three percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks. We’re talking about the exception here.”
“Again statistically speaking this is not a significant number,” commented [John Jay Criminal Justice Professor Dr. Maria Maki] Haberfeld, “given the fact that many of these shootings were justified because the people who were shot were armed and dangerous.”
Statistically. the main killer of blacks when it comes to violent deaths is other blacks. US-wide, around 8,000 blacks were killed every year between 1976 and 2011, and 94 percent of those were killed by other blacks. Of those 8,000 around 2.8 percent were killed by police.
“The overwhelming majority of black victims are killed by black perpetrators and NOT the police,” noted Haberfeld.
Haberfeld stated that she did not feel that numbers would provide the whole picture, however.
“In general, I believe that police work cannot be simply understood by the analysis of sheer numbers.”
I think this is an instance of two sides shouting past each other, instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue. I cannot say I am surprised, not only is criminal justice reform is an emotional issue, talking past your opponent has become the norm in modern public discourse.
Most officers do the right thing–they are hard working, fair, and just. But those who are not tarnish the badge, undermine efforts to build trust between police and society, and ultimately make an inherently dangerous job even more dangerous–they must be held accountable.
When Dr. Haberfeld callously appeals to the “statistical insignificance” of NYPD shootings, she is missing her own point. “Police work cannot be simply understood by the analysis of sheer numbers”, and neither can police homicide rates–these numbers represent peoples lives.
If even one innocent person is killed by someone whose job description is “to serve and protect”, and that person walks away with impunity, this should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the notions of justice and rule of law.
I believe most people simply want officers held to the same standards as the law abiding citizens they serve, particularly when it comes to violent crimes. When a police officer commits a violent crime, it would be in everyone’s best interest (except the officer who committed the crime) for that officer to be held accountable. As I said in my last post, officers should not be above or below the law, but equal to ordinary people.
However, by definition society holds all people to a higher standard than violent criminals, and police officers should be no exception. When Rudy Giuliani says something to the effect of “what about all the black on black crime?”, he is making a false equivalence. We do not have to choose between reducing minority crime rates and reforming the criminal justice system (in fact, these issues are often closely related)–it is not an either / or situation.
Yes most homicides of black men are “black on black”. It is not that NYC or America is not addressing the socioeconomic and cultural underpinnings of minority crime. It is that these issues are multifaceted, affected both by policies at different levels of government and by people who are often at odds about how to achieve progress (not to mention spoilers who purposefully undermine progressive policy in order to maintain the status-quo for personal benefit).
It is simply much easier to enact change in the criminal justice system than throughout society as a whole. The former is comprised of a number of small, organized institutions that must adhere to changes mandated by overseeing bodies, while the latter numbers in the hundreds of millions and is as variable as free will itself.
Two reforms, special prosecutors for grand jury proceedings police officers, and lapel cameras, could lead to meaningful improvements in the criminal justice system with marginal investments. Lapel cameras would vindicate the use of necessary force, while providing an important piece of evidence for holding “bad” cops accountable (just because the Eric Garner video did not lead to an indictment does not mean lapel cameras are not an important piece of the criminal justice reform puzzle).
—
Reconciliation begins with the extension of an olive branch. It is up to police departments to extend this olive branch by deliberating in good faith with community leaders about how to build trust between officers and the communities they serve. The first move falls on police departments, because they are more organized and disciplined than their opposition.
Once this branch (or branches, as it must happen around the country at the municipal level) is extended, it is up to community leaders to rise to the occasion, and take the risk of pursuing reasonable reform rather than making absurd demands / publicly demonizing police officers (and vice-versa).
There is enough blame to go around for the criminal justice reform movement to grind to a halt, resulting in a status-quo that is increasingly dangerous for both police officers and the minority communities they serve.
There is also a vast swath of middle ground between police departments and community leaders–if only we can learn to deliberate instead of shouting past one another.
People around the world are thrilled by the ease and convenience of their smartphones and Internet services, but they aren’t willing to trade their privacy to get more of it.
That is the top-line finding of a new study of 15,000 consumers in 15 countries…The study, conducted by Edelman Berland, a market research firm, and sponsored by EMC, the data storage giant, has some other intriguing results with implications for business. Consumers worldwide seem to strongly agree with the notion that there should be laws “to prohibit businesses from buying an selling data without my opt-in consent” — 87 percent.
When asked to name the leading threats to online privacy in the future, 51 percent of the global panel of consumers picked “businesses using, trading or selling my personal data for financial gain without my knowledge or benefit.” That was well ahead of the 35 percent who selected “lone/crazy hackers, hacker groups or anarchist types.” The prying eyes of government — “my government spying on me” — was cited as a serious privacy threat by only 21 percent, even in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks that showed the sweeping surveillance programs of American and British intelligence agencies.
It is worth noting that among countries surveyed, those with a higher standard of living where generally less willing to trade privacy for “convenience”. In countries where people are less well off, they are more willing to trade some of their privacy for conveniences (saving time / money)–lending credence to the idea that privacy is, to a certain extent, a luxury.
In the aftermath of the Snowden leaks, it is a bit surprising to see people around the globe so much more concerned with businesses selling their data (51%) than government “spying” (21%). I have maintained that I do not believe government “spying” is a serious threat to personal privacy, (so long as the government in question is an accountable, transparent, and democratic government) and it seems that most people around the world generally agree that private businesses trading our information is a greater threat to privacy than government surveillance.
There is also a qualitative difference between private data collection and government surveillance. Private companies trade data for money, while the government collects information for security reasons. The government is directly accountable to people and is supposed to have societies best interests at heart, as opposed private businesses, which are accountable to markets and are motivated by profit maximization.
Despite outrage drummed up by civil rights and privacy activists, people seem to understand the different functions of these two forms of data collection. According to respondents, people were most willing to trade privacy for “being protected from terrorist and/or criminal activity” (54%) than any other reason offered (the next highest answer, for comparison, was a tie between better access to information / knowledge and easier access to healthcare information, at 45%).
—
There are notable limitations to determining global preferences from a 15,000 person sample that covers only 15 countries. However, the surveys results do suggest that globally people are not as concerned with government spying as one may expect.
Perhaps as governments such as the U.S. have become more willing to engage in public discourse about surveillance and offer reforms, people have had their fears assuaged. Or perhaps people, not seeing government surveillance negatively affecting their lives, are willing to trust their government in the name of security and crime prevention (especially governments that have earned that trust through a history of good governance).
I get annoying telemarketers, spam emails, and advertisement text messages from companies that have bought my personal information on a daily basis. Private companies are much more willing to use (and therefore likely to abuse) personal data. Furthermore, the conveniences this information supplies are extremely trivial when compared with security / crime protection.
“Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be — a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.” –Barack Obama, 2014 West Point Commencement Speech
Yesterday, President Obama delivered the commencement speech at West Pt. (full text). The President took the opportunity to lay out his vision for American foreign policy, hitting on many points discussed here at NN:
1) The Human Rights Roots of Terrorism and Conflict: Most conflicts are, at their root, related to human rights violations (Protracted Social Conflicts) . Over time, if unsupported, legitimate grievances can be overridden by opportunistic forces hoping to advance very different agendas. President Obama correctly hit on the important roles sustainable human development and democratic empowerment play in preventing future conflicts and creating new markets for shared prosperity. By recognizing the importance of human rights concerns in security matters, we can work towards preventing future conflicts.
2) The Cost of Traditional Warefare: The War on Terror has resulted in nearly 7,000 U.S. combat deaths, 50,000 wounded military personnel (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Veterans suffering with psychological ailments such as PTSD), and $8 trillion in spending and interest payments. Given these costs, its is imperative that unilateral military action be reserved as a last resort to direct threats to America’s National security.
3) A Global D.I.M.E. Foreign Policy Framework: Military intervention is only one of the tools available to influence international affairs, as part of a broader “D.I.M.E” (Diplomatic, Intelligence, Military, Economic) framework. The situation in Ukraine highlights how a strong network of institutions can use these tools to counter military threats: Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions. Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions. NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies. The IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy. OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine. This mobilization of world opinion and institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda, Russian troops on the border, and armed militias.
4) Strengthening Multilateral Security Forces: Some threats require a military response–America cannot continue to shoulder such a disproportionate share of global security costs. I regularly echo the call for our NATO partners to more equitably share the costs of global security.
5) Capacity Building in [Potential] Conflict Regions: In response to the high cost of American “boots on the ground”, and in an effort to promote security partnerships globally, the U.S. military has renewed its focus on training local forces to deal with threats. Training local forces is cheaper, keeps American lives out of harms way, and avoids the anti-American sentiment often associated with direct intervention. Furthermore, local forces naturally have a better understanding of both their enemy and the terrain.
That is not to say training local forces always goes smoothly, there are often complications related to local allegiances and ancillary resources. However, this is all the more reason to have American’s involved in training local units. Many of the qualitative concerns regarding trust can only be addressed through prolonged relationship building. Training and oversight, alongside their primary function of developing more effective security forces, also provide an opportunity to establish these necessary relationships.
Furthermore, building local capacity goes beyond establishing military relationships. In order for the international community to successfully support human rights / democratic movements, we must establish reliable relationships across a range of actors. Leaving only a strong military, without supporting the institutions which champion human rights, is not likely to lead to sustainable democracy.
—
There will always be the need for both “soft” and “hard” power in international affairs–every type of response has its strengths and weaknesses, its costs and benefits. It is important to remember that “hard power” does not necessarily require unilateral military action. By more equally distributing the costs associated with global security, and building the capacity of trustworthy local partners in conflict regions, hard power can be utilized in a more sustainable and preventative fashion.
Since hard and soft power are complimentary, making these global security reforms is an essential component of the emerging global D.I.M.E. framework. Furthermore, to the extent that security is a necessary precondition for sustainable human development, the global D.I.M.E framework is an indispensable component of the broader global partnership for development.
In 2012, The European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize, a symbolic award mean to show appreciation for the global importance of a unified European in the midst of the continents most serious economic downturn since WWII:
The European Union‘s three presidents have collected the Nobel peace prize in Oslo in recognition of six decades of work promoting “peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights”.
David Cameron was one of six EU leaders who decided not to attend. But his deputy, Nick Clegg, was there to represent the UK at the Nobel Institute.
Attendees heard the Nobel committee president, Thorbjoern Jagland, praise the EU’s role in transforming a European “continent of war” into a “continent of peace”.
“That should not be taken for granted – we have to struggle for it every day,” he said.
European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said: “This is an award for the European project – for the people and the institutions – that day after day, for the last 60 years, have built a new Europe. “We will honour this prize and we will preserve what has been achieved. It is in the common interest of our citizens. And it will allow Europe to contribute in shaping that ‘better organised world’ in line with the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law that we cherish and believe in.
Indeed, I have advocated for a stronger role for Europe in ensuring global security, promoting democracy, human rights and rule of law throughout my “End of Team America World Police” series. Europe has to play a greater role in security both for budgetary and practicality reasons; it is much closer to Africa and the Middle East, the U.S. public is war weary, and we cannot have groups such as Boko Haram, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), and the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula thinking they can act with impunity (or join forces).
These far-right and far-left groups will not win anything approaching enough seats to take control. But they could get around a quarter of them, amplifying their voice in debate and giving them more opportunities to slow down measures that the Brussels bureaucracy and international economists say could help save Europe from a Japan-style “lost decade” of anemic growth and policy stasis.
These include initiatives to bind the 18 countries that use euro currency closer together and open up Europe’s markets to greater competition, including from the United States.
Set up in the 1950s as a common assembly to introduce an element of democracy into the nascent European project, the parliament became directly elected in 1979 as part of push to narrow the chasm between Europeans and the arcane work of integrating their economies that few ordinary people cared about and even fewer could understand.
This anti-EU sentiment, while expected during times of economic downturn, is actually counter-effective. The issue holding back the EU recovery is insufficient integration; and this is not news. Since well before the existence of the Euro, economists have known that while some factors favored the chances of Eurozone success (such as geographic proximity and high level of trade, what is sometimes known as the gravity theory of international trade), others factors raised red flags (lack of fiscal integration, cultural and language differences which hold back the flow of residents from high unemployment to low unemployment areas).
The U.S. is an optimal currency union; everyone speaks English, and can move about the country fairly easily. Furthermore, we have the worlds largest Federal Government and most powerful National Bank anchoring the economy. As bad as the Great Recession was in America, it was irrefutably worse in Europe (and not because of their generous social welfare systems, because of the lack of fiscal integration).
And now the anti-EU sentiments are hunkering down for the zombie apocalypse, instead of fostering the closer bonds (both fiscal and cultural) needed to return the EU to a position of global leadership and prosperity. A strong unified Europe is important both for the European Economy and global security and development, hopefully whoever wins seats in the EU Parliamentary Election understands this.
On Wednesday, I wrapped up the class I’ve been teaching all semester: “The Great Recession: Causes and Consequences.” (Slides for the lectures are available via my blog.) And while teaching the course was fun, I found myself turning at the end to an agonizing question: Why, at the moment it was most needed and could have done the most good, did economics fail?
I don’t mean that economics was useless to policy makers. On the contrary, the discipline has had a lot to offer. While it’s true that few economists saw the crisis coming — mainly, I’d argue, because few realized how fragile our deregulated financial system had become, and how vulnerable debt-burdened families were to a plunge in housing prices — the clean little secret of recent years is that, since the fall of Lehman Brothers, basic textbook macroeconomics has performed very well.
But policy makers and politicians have ignored both the textbooks and the lessons of history. And the result has been a vast economic and human catastrophe, with trillions of dollars of productive potential squandered and millions of families placed in dire straits for no good reason.
Essentially, economics didn’t fail, policy-makers failed ECON 101. Any economist worth a damn understands that economics is always “context-sensitive”. Appropriate economic policies are different during “good times” and economic downturns; economic policy should be “counter-cyclical”, saving up during good times to pay for essential safety net and stimulus programs out of a surplus in bad times. Instead we had the Bush Administration give tax breaks during good times, part of a much larger misguided concept of “starve-the-beast” economic policy.
Of course one could argue most policymakers are aware of the economics and just beholden to vested interests, in which case I would say your probably right more often than not.
And amazingly, across the pond. a parallel dismissal of textbook economics is also playing out in Europe. Instead of pursuing closer fiscal and cultural integration, the EU seem to be drifting apart.
—
Economics: Art or Science?
I have always believed that Economics is more “art” than “science”, particularly when it comes to responding to crises. In such instances, policy responses have to be made before robust economic analyses can be conducted; policy makers have to rely on intuition and historic lessons, alongside economic theory and context.
But it is not scientific deficit which has led economics to “fail” in recent history. From dogmatic misinterpretation of Adam Smiths “Invisible Hand” (only in the presence of proper safeguards and regulations), to the inflationary / rising borrowing cost effects of fiscal expansion (not in a liquidity trap), to the benefits of currency unions (but only under certain conditions, as explained above), it has been an inability / unwillingness by “conservative” factions on both sides of the Atlantic to grasp the conditions in which certain economic theories operate. As an economist, the solutions to the short-term problems facing advanced economies are frustratingly obvious.
Sometimes I think the only solution is teach everyone economics and political science once in middle school and again in high school. In a functioning democracy people set the agenda, does it not make sense invest in an informed (and therefore more engaged) citizenry?
—
America the Anecdotal:
America has indeed become the anecdotal nation. We do not have to be, it is a collective conscious choice we have made (or a series of choices we choose not to make). It seems Europe has become anecdotal as well.
Maybe it is part of a concerted effort by fast food chains and entertainment conglomerates to brainwash…No–we cannot blame conspiracies. Sure, vested interests will do all they can to maintain power imbalances, but is this really an excuse, or have the people who live in the world’s most modernized, democratic societies just become lazy and complacent?
I leave my readers with a quote from Matt Taibbi’s best seller “Griftopia”, “America is no longer a country that cares about experts. In fact, it hates experts. If you can’t fit a story into the culture-war storyline in ten seconds or less, it dies. (2 Taibbi references in blogs this week; you go Matt!)”
It takes a bit more civic responsibility to build egalitarian, progressive societies; I for one think it’s worth the effort.
Days after declaring Martial Law, Thai General Prayuth Chan-ocha announced a Military Coup on Thursday. Since then the Military has stationed troops in major cities, suspended the constitution, enacted a curfew, put a halt to both pro and anti-government protests, taken certain channels and media outlets out of circulation, and detained former PM Yingluck and members of her government. Classic Coup actions.
The Thai army says it will remain neutral and wants to enact certain reforms before holding elections. If this is indeed possible, this Coup could be less disruptive than previous Coups. The big question is what form will reforms take? Will they increase transparency and accountability, curbing the potential for future corruption? Or will they involve drastic legislative redistricting, in an attempt to marginalize the political voice of rural Thailand? Can the army orchestrate meaningful reforms while remaining a neutral intermediary between rival political parties?
The answers to these questions will likely determine how the Coup plays out. There is, however, something reassuring about the Thai army calling this a Coup, especially in comparison to Egypt’s “non-Coup”.By acknowledging this was in fact Coup, the Army is at least taking responsibility for what happens next in Thailand. We should not, for instance, expect a bloody crackdown as we saw in Egypt.
—
In a previous post, I emphasized the determinative role armed forces can play in regime change. All things equal, it is always best for the military to stay out of politics and focus on security and defense issues. But all things are not equal; countries face unrest for a variety of reasons, and this unrest can turn violent and often has adverse economic consequences, as it has in Thailand.
One could certainly question the necessity of this Coup, violence has not recently escalated and Prime Minister Yingluck agreed to step down 2 weeks ago. Economic deterioration seems to be the most obvious catalyst in this instance. Either way a Coup has occurred, and the focus now shifts to the actions of the Thai army.
If the Army is indeed committed to the things it says, it may be possible for a Coup to play a constructive role in Thailand’s political crisis. Last month the U.N. highlighted this constructive role security forces can play in peace efforts:
The United Nations Security Council today called on countries emerging from conflict and all those assisting them to prioritize the development of domestic police and national defence forces that maintain rule of law and respect human rights, in its first-ever stand-alone resolution on security sector reform.
Stressing that it is the sovereign right and the primary responsibility of the countries concerned to reform their security institutions, the Council, through the resolution, encouraged the UN and other international partners to strengthen their approach to training and other assistance, and to integrate it with other efforts to help rebuild national institutions.
Mr. Ban reaffirmed some of the principles of security sector reform outlined in his latest report on the issue, including the linkage between security efforts and broader processes of political and institutional reforms in the countries in question.
“Strengthening operational effectiveness must be combined with efforts to build a strong governance framework, robust accountability and oversight mechanisms, and a culture of integrity and respect for human rights. National ownership is imperative,” he said.
Security is a necessary prerequisite for stability, human development and economic growth. There is nothing inherently good or bad about security forces. They can restore order and champion principles of democracy, human rights, and rule of law, or they can kill with impunity. There is something very interesting and deeply psychological about the broad spectrum of roles armed forces can play in society–it is in many ways a microcosm of free will.
Thailand is not Egypt, there is no reason to think just because there was a Coup, that the human rights environment in Thailand will deteriorate as it has in Egypt. However, certain actions by the Thai army certainly raise eyebrows, such as imposition of a curfew and suspensions of press freedom. Also, the Thai military’s track record does not inspire confidence; perhaps today is a new day?
All we can do now is wait and see, and hope the Thai army backs up its neutral rhetoric with appropriate actions and reforms. Except more on this topic in the coming weeks.
According to a recently release United Nations report, depression is the number one cause of illness and disability globally among adolescents (10-19 yrs old):
We hope this report will focus high-level attention on the health needs of 10 to 19-year-olds and serve as a springboard for accelerated action on adolescent health,” said Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director-General for Family, Women and Children’s Health at the UN World Health Organization (WHO).
An estimated 1.3 million adolescents died in 2012, largely from preventable causes, according to the UN agency’s Health for the world’s adolescents online report released today.
Depression was found to the be the greatest cause of illness and disability in this age group, with suicide raking third as the cause of death among young people.
Economists conceptualize a world populated by calculating, unemotional maximizers. This view shapes our understanding of many crucial elements of development economics–from how rural villagers save, to how parents decide on whether to send their children to school.
Psychological research, however, has documented the incompleteness of this perspective. Individuals have self-control and time inconsistency problems. They can give into shortrun temptations and later regret it. They can have strong feelings about others that drive them to commit both generous and spiteful acts. They often passively accept defaults rather than make active choices. They let the institutions around them make choices for them. And they may misread new data in a ways that fit their beliefs. In short, the rational maximization model may not be a very good approximation of human behavior.
While this journal article does not explicitly cite mental illness or depression, due to my own experiences with depression my thoughts turned to the subject. There is no one cause of depression; there are elements of both “nature” (genetic predisposition) and “nurture” (experiences in life). However, “nurture” causes tend to be more direct and therefore preventable: dehumanization / pessimism related to poverty, uncertainty about the future, and unemployment:
In the shadow of the Great Recession lies a deep depression: Youths in their 20s and early 30s are hitting new lows. Compared with older workers who have lost their jobs, young people face more complex and layered hardships that could last most of their lives. They are experiencing disproportionately high unemployment, stretching indefinitely into the future, in an increasingly unequal and uncertain social landscape. And just when they are most in need of social support, the recession has led lawmakers to erode the welfare and employment programs that youths need to move themselves — and the economy they have inherited — toward recovery.
For young people in the United States and Europe, there is an emotional layer to this economic malaise. According to a recent U.K. survey of 2,161 people ages 16 to 25 by nonprofit advocacy group the Prince’s Trust, the unemployment epidemic is driving a mental-health crisis. While overall happiness levels for the surveyed youths stayed about level over the past year, reported emotional health fell significantly for the segment that is out of the workforce and not in school or job training. These young people experienced feelings of despondency and hopelessness at a higher rate than their peers. Chronically unemployed youths were more likely to have experienced panic attacks, engaged in self-harming behavior or felt suicidal. Mental-health problems struck 4 in 10 jobless young people “as a direct result of unemployment,” according to the Prince’s Trust.
One woman interviewed for the study said, “Being out of work stripped away my self-worth and made me feel like a waste of space.”
Depression stunts personal development; how can someone invest in themselves or act as a long-term “rational maximizer” when they cannot see any hope in their future? But children are the future, and the number one illness affecting them is depression. To not pay the price to treat depression in adolescents is incredibly shortsighted–perhaps policy makers also do not act as “rational maximizers”, at least if the thing we hope to maximize is long-term social welfare.
Adam Lankford, a professor from the University of Alabama, concluded that many suicide terrorists weren’t ideologues at all—but were, in fact, classically suicidal. He cited Israeli scholarly research of would-be Palestinian bombers: Forty percent of them exhibited suicidal tendencies; 13 percent had already attempted suicide, unrelated to terrorism. Lankford went on to mention a 9/11 hijacker who wrote a final note to his wife and lamented how he never lived up to her expectations. Lankford described other terrorists in Palestine and Chechnya who were in poor health, recently divorced, or financially insolvent in the months prior to an attack. He also talked about the terrorist recruiters who admitted to looking for the “sad guys” for martyrdom.
While this study is far from conclusive, it would be closed-minded to refuse to consider the relationship between mental illness and terrorism. People with depression are often looking for meaning and companionship; joining a terrorist organization provides both.
And this security risk is hardly confined to the developing world; one would be hard pressed to find a mass killing anywhere in the world that is not linked to some form of mental illness. To be fair, no statistical relationship between teen depression and violent crime has been established, although this does not rule out the strong possibility that there is some relationship between mental illness and violence.
—
As someone who has experienced depression, this reports findings hit close to home. I am fortunate to have been born into an upper-middle class American family and receive top notch treatment–most people are not so lucky. Depression and other forms of mental illness are often seen as a “rich person’s disease”, and treatment as a luxury. This study refutes this misconception–depression can affect anyone; old or young, rich or poor. The universality of depression gives hope that it is an issue the global community can rally around and adequately address.
Increased access to mental healthcare must be part of healthcare reforms in both developed and developing nations. This is not an abstract concept, inaction has real costs that affect many people. Further compounding this problem is the existence of a stigma against people with mental illnesses (which is likely more prevalent in less developed places). When one feels ashamed of having a mental illness, the condition generally becomes worse and treatment is not sought. Part of the solution may be educating people to break this stigma.
The prevalence of depression amongst the world’s youth is alarming, but unfortunately to this social scientist / previously depressed young adult, it is not surprising. If depression can affect people who have had all their needs met, imagine how prevalent (and under-diagnosed) it must be the world’s most impoverished areas. Failure to treat mental illness not only impedes an individual’s positive liberties, it can also result in the most grievous violation of ones negative liberties possible–murder.
For some, finding employment is enough to alleviate the symptoms of depression. For others, treatment and therapy are required. Many anti-social behaviors can be tempered by a global push to address depression in adolescents, hopefully this U.N. report focuses a stronger spotlight on preventing and treating adolescent depression.
(Disclaimer: This blog is based on generalizations, specific democratic movements deviate by varying degrees from theoretical democratic transitions explored here)
—
By happenstance, years ago I ended up in an undergraduate elective class at SUNY Binghamton– “Machiavelli and the Renaissance”. Although it was a random elective course from what seems like a lifetime ago, the analyses of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” have stuck with me (particularly, the concepts of virtú and l’occasione).
(I suppose Machiavelli would have said there is no happenstance, and that fortuna dictates the future of men. Furthermore, Machiavelli is regarded by many as a father of modern political science, so these concepts sticking with me is not so coincidental either. But I digress…)
“it would appear if they owed anything to fortune except opportunity (l’occasione), which gave them matter into which introduce whatever form they thought good; without the opportunity, their virtú would have been wasted, and without virtú the opportunity would have been in vain…The more the innovator is though of as subverting and replacing a previously existing structure of custom and legitimacy, the more he will have to cope with the contingencies of suddenly disoriented behavior and the greater will be his exposure to fortuna.”
Scholars debate exactly the meaning of Machiavellian virtú, but most agree it has something to do with strength, cunning, and an element of ruthlessness; the characteristics needed to maintain rule in a principality. L’occasione refers to the opportunity for these characteristics to shine through. Fortuna refers to chance, or things outside individual control.
Machiavelli was referring to ideal characteristics of a Prince; during the time he lived, the predominant governmental structure was the principality. I believe these lessons are still appropriate today, in the context of democratic transitions.
In the context of modern political theory and democratic transitions, virtútakes on a different meaning. In the following analysis, virtú refers to the popular sentiment for human rights that underlies attempted democratic transitions. L’occasione refers to the opportunity for virtú to crystallize into a concerted democratic movement.
The virtú of democracy–the human rights based approach to development–is not going away; it is a central foreign policy tool of “Western” powers, and is championed at the highest level of global governance (the U.N.). Furthermore, due to their empowering nature, human rights and liberal democracy are concepts that will continue to be championed by the masses. L‘occasione, however, is fleeting.
I recently wrote how time is an enemy of legitimate democratic grievances. Over time, legitimate grievances are overrun by opportunistic forces seeking wealth / power. However, other forces also oppose democratic transitions.
One of these forces is those seeking to maintain the status-quo; vested interests invoke the specter of chaos and insecurity–the fear of the unknown–to undermine the legitimacy of their opposition.
Another opposing force in the current context–financial constraints due to The Great Recession–has lead to lackluster support for budding democracy movements. It is due to the very nature of democratic governance that The Great Recession has hindered support for democratic movements more-so than it has hindered support from those supporting authoritarian rule.
—
Financial aid for democratic movements, whether it comes from individual governments or IEOs such as the I.M.F, tends to come with constraining preconditions. These movements need to be able to prove they are legitimate and in control of different factions present in the oppositions. They have to prove they are committed to human rights and liberal democracy. They also have to agree to unpopular fiscal decisions, in order to prove they will be able to pay back loans in the future.
Democracies are accountable to their people (indirectly through freedoms of press / expression / assembly, as well as directly through elections). In the context of The Great Recession, it is difficult to “sell” sending aid abroad with pressing social problems at home and austerity proponents calling for budget cuts. In order to garner support, democratic governments impose conditions on loans to prove they are not throwing money away.
Authoritarian governments are naturally more insulated from domestic concerns. They are also more sensitive to currently authoritarian states transitioning to democracies; they see democratic transitions in the context of the global democratization movement and an existential threat to their survival. Therefore, they are generally willing to provide support under the condition that it will help the incumbent regime stay in power. Furthermore, authoritarian regimes tend to be high organized and built on a system of loyalty; the issues of organization and unity are not present (unlike in the opposing democratic movement).
—
Democracies tend to be the countries with the highest levels of wealth and standard of living. Therefore, one would expect that democracies would be better equipped to financially support democratic transitions than authoritarian regimes would be to support their allies.
However, there are many contextual realities (addressed earlier in this blog) that buck this expectation. Authoritarian regimes are more insulated from domestic pressures, and believe they have more at risk from losing an ally than democracies believe they have from gaining a new ally.
Democratic transitions need to be supported, or else they will be overrun by opportunistic factions /vested interests who wish to remain in power. Countries do not stay in political limbo for long, either democratic aspirations are realized or a pivot back towards authoritarianism is cemented. Once an opportunity for democratic transition is gone, there is know telling when it will present itself again.
Those supporting authoritarianism do not hold back in their support. A mechanism for supporting budding democratic movements must be established and adequately funded–perhaps alongside the UN Democratic Governance Trust Fund. Failure to do so sends the wrong messages, that the international community does not care about people with legitimate democratic aspirations, and/or that democracy cannot work in certain contexts.
Neither of these messages are true, but the international community must put its money is; as the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words”. Perhaps instead of extending loans, we should consider supporting democratic transitions as part of development aid, money which will be paid back in the future through increased trade opportunities and greater regional / global security.
Ever since Edward Snowden leaked information on NSA data collection, there has been public uproar about the Federal government spying on the everyday communications of American citizens. There has been the undeniably positive aspect of creating open public discourse about the programs and some improvements/reforms/safeguards in the transparency/operations of the FISA court, for which we oddly enough owe Mr. Snowden, a wanted fugitive, some thanks. I have argued in previous posts that while Mr. Snowden’s actions were clearly illegal, it does highlight the need for an effective ombudsman office in America, something that is inexplicably lacking lacking in our otherwise modern democracy.
I have, however, also been of the same mind as intelligence officials when it comes to the importance of these data collection programs. South Park did a funny parody about data collection, highlight the narcissism and irrational egomaniac-ism (personified in one Eric Cartman) needed to actually believe the NSA is concerned with your day-to-day activities. Every week it seems a new “revelation” is leaked about data collection. Most recently, it was that the NSA creates “profiles” of persons of interest to better understand their movements:
Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.
“Metadata can be very revealing,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “Knowing things like the number someone just dialed or the location of the person’s cellphone is going to allow them to assemble a picture of what someone is up to. It’s the digital equivalent of tailing a suspect.”
Well no shit people, do we really think the most sophisticated intelligence and security organizations in the world are relying solely on phone numbers to track people it believes are a threat to national security? Personally, such an incomplete analysis would worry me and call into question the NSAs efficacy. If the NSA believes a person is a threat, of course they will use any intelligence available to create a “picture” of what that person is doing, this is common sense. New rule of thumb; going forward anything you do online (phone calls, emails, credit card transactions, status updates, check-ins, etc.) is no longer 100% private. Don’t like it? move out into the woods and live like the Amish.
—
There are real concerns related to data collection. One is that private corporations are trading peoples information like some sort of digital currency. The other is that there has been relatively no fiscal debate about the C-B analysis of data collection:
Privacy advocates fear that consumers do not realize just how much of their private information is on their phones and how much is made vulnerable simply by downloading and using apps, searching the mobile Web or even just going about daily life with a phone in your pocket. And this new focus on tracking users through their devices and online habits comes against the backdrop of a spirited public debate on privacy and government surveillance.
For advertisers, intimate knowledge of users has long been the promise of mobile phones. But only now are numerous mobile advertising services that most people have never heard of — like Drawbridge, Flurry, Velti and SessionM — exploiting that knowledge, largely based on monitoring the apps we use and the places we go. This makes it ever harder for mobile users to escape the gaze of private companies, whether insurance firms or shoemakers.
Ultimately, the tech giants, whose principal business is selling advertising, stand to gain. Advertisers using the new mobile tracking methods include Ford Motor, American Express, Fidelity, Expedia, Quiznos and Groupon.
Neither state nor federal law prohibits the collection or sharing of data by third parties. In California, app developers are required to post a privacy policy and to clearly state what personal information they collect and how they share it. Still, that leaves much mystery for ordinary mobile users.
If anything, we should be focused on the legality of private data collection–which is always used–for profit, instead of public data collection–which is rarely used–for national security purposes. The extent that the government allows this to happen so it has it’s own sources of intelligence (ex: the NSA getting phone records from private cell phone companies) should also be explored / debated.
In a time of budget disagreements leading to government shutdown, it would be prudent to call into question the costs (or opportunity costs) of data collection programs (not in terms of hypothetical invasions of privacy, but in terms of dollar costs). The benefits are fairly obvious, whether you agree with the program or not. Less obvious are the costs, and what government programs we cannot afford (opportunity cost) because we have such programs:
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden has leaked documents that map out a $52.6 billion budget for the NSA, CIA, and other security agencies in unprecedented detail. The Washington Post, which reviewed the documents, describes a detailed list of objectives, failures, technologies, recruiting, and other information; the apparently 178-page summary itself has not been published. An interactive chart of some of the data, however, accompanies the piece.
The Post reveals that CIA and NSA budgets have increased by over 50 percent each since 2004, with the CIA reaching $14.7 billion in 2013. Though budgets fell from 2012 levels, total funding is still almost twice what it was in 2001. The overall number is revealed each year, but these breakdowns are not included for security reasons. Among other things, the budget lays out “gaps” in counterterrorism efforts regarding Hezbollah, China’s fighter planes, and Pakistan’s nuclear program. Though it’s said to have made progress in 38 of the top 50 gaps, one chart apparently shows dismal results in addressing biological and chemical weapons gaps: intelligence agencies hoped to make progress on at least five “gaps” a year, but they managed to work on only two in 2011 and none in 2010.
$52 billion dollars is no small amount, however it constitutes only 1.47% of the Federal Governments $3.538 trillion of total expenditure for 2012. We should have a debate, not about whether these programs are needed–they are–but whether they are worth the price tag. The fact that this budget–like information on data collection itself–had to be “leaked” highlights the mistrust that is behind most of this public outrage. I think this is a modest amount considering how much we spend on defense per year (around $600 billion) close to 20% of all federal expenditure. However, this is America, we should be able to have open debates about these things, both how much these things cost and what other programs (schooling, infrastructure, healthcare, welfare etc) we cannot afford because of them. Secret budget documents seem like something the Egyptian Army would take part in, not a branch of the U.S. Federal government.
—
As a nation, we are focused on the wrong issues. Hypothetical invasions of privacy are a scapegoat and distract from real issues. The real issues are: a) why private companies are allowed to trade our information like a commodity, b) the lack of an ombudsman office in the U.S. government, and c) an open dialogue on C-B analysis, including the opportunity costs, of intelligence gathering programs.
The National Security Agency is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance, according to intelligence officials.
The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.
While it has long been known that the agency conducts extensive computer searches of data it vacuums up overseas, that it is systematically searching — without warrants — through the contents of Americans’ communications that cross the border reveals more about the scale of its secret operations.
It also adds another element to the unfolding debate, provoked by the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, about whether the agency has infringed on Americans’ privacy as it scoops up e-mails and phone data in its quest to ferret out foreign intelligence.
Government officials say the cross-border surveillance was authorized by a 2008 law, the FISA Amendments Act, in which Congress approved eavesdropping on domestic soil without warrants as long as the “target” was a noncitizen abroad. Voice communications are not included in that surveillance, the senior official said.
Hints of the surveillance appeared in a set of rules, leaked by Mr. Snowden, for how the N.S.A. may carry out the 2008 FISA law. One paragraph mentions that the agency “seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target.” The pages were posted online by the newspaper The Guardian on June 20, but the telltale paragraph, the only rule marked “Top Secret” amid 18 pages of restrictions, went largely overlooked amid other disclosures.
To conduct the surveillance, the N.S.A. is temporarily copying and then sifting through the contents of what is apparently most e-mails and other text-based communications that cross the border. The senior intelligence official, who, like other former and current government officials, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic, said the N.S.A. makes a “clone of selected communication links” to gather the communications, but declined to specify details, like the volume of the data that passes through them.
The official said that a computer searches the data for the identifying keywords or other “selectors” and stores those that match so that human analysts could later examine them. The remaining communications, the official said, are deleted; the entire process takes “a small number of seconds,” and the system has no ability to perform “retrospective searching.”
The official said the keyword and other terms were “very precise” to minimize the number of innocent American communications that were flagged by the program. At the same time, the official acknowledged that there had been times when changes by telecommunications providers or in the technology had led to inadvertent overcollection. The N.S.A. monitors for these problems, fixes them and reports such incidents to its overseers in the government, the official said.
The disclosure sheds additional light on statements intelligence officials have made recently, reassuring the public that they do not “target” Americans for surveillance without warrants.
Timothy Edgar, a former intelligence official in the Bush and Obama administrations, said that the rule concerning collection “about” a person targeted for surveillance rather than directed at that person had provoked significant internal discussion.
“There is an ambiguity in the law about what it means to ‘target’ someone,” Mr. Edgar, now a visiting professor at Brown, said. “You can never intentionally target someone inside the United States. Those are the words we were looking at. We were most concerned about making sure the procedures only target communications that have one party outside the United States.
The rule they ended up writing, which was secretly approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, says that the N.S.A. must ensure that one of the participants in any conversation that is acquired when it is searching for conversations about a targeted foreigner must be outside the United States, so that the surveillance is technically directed at the foreign end.
Americans’ communications singled out for further analysis are handled in accordance with “minimization” rules to protect privacy approved by the surveillance court. If private information is not relevant to understanding foreign intelligence, it is deleted; if it is relevant, the agency can retain it and disseminate it to other agencies, the rules show.
While the paragraph hinting at the surveillance has attracted little attention, the American Civil Liberties Union did take note of the “about the target” language in a June 21 post analyzing the larger set of rules, arguing that the language could be interpreted as allowing “bulk” collection of international communications, including of those of Americans.
The senior intelligence official argued, however, that it would be inaccurate to portray the N.S.A. as engaging in “bulk collection” of the contents of communications. “ ‘Bulk collection’ is when we collect and retain for some period of time that lets us do retrospective analysis,” the official said. “In this case, we do not do that, so we do not consider this ‘bulk collection.’ ”
The senior intelligence official said that the “about the target” surveillance had been valuable, but said it was difficult to point to any particular terrorist plot that would have been carried out if the surveillance had not taken place. He said it was one tool among many used to assemble a “mosaic” of information in such investigations. He also pointed out that the surveillance was used for other types of foreign-intelligence collection, not just terrorism, the official said.
—
I have to admit, I was shaking my head when I saw this headline. All the times I defended the U.S. governments intelligence gathering programs, only to find out that they are pursuing “bulk collection” and reading Americans emails and text messages. Then I actually read the article…
This sounds like another well designed program, aimed at collecting the maximum amount of intelligence while minimizing any invasion of privacy inherent in intelligence collection. These programs are, at their core, utilitarian–they are aimed at maximizing security for America and our allies–while taking a pragmatic stance on what Steven G. Bradbury (head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration) calls “at worst, a minimal burden upon legitimate privacy rights.”
The program is not a “bulk collection” program, at least according to traditional definitions of “collection”: “an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby” with synonyms such as “assemblage“, “library“, and related words such as “hoard“, “repertoire“, “repertory“, “reserve“, “stock“, “stockpile“, “store“, and “accumulation“, it is clear that collection connotes storing and analyzing data.
The NSA program, on the other hand, sifts through metadata coming in or out of the U.S. (not between two U.S. citizens or 2 parties on U.S. soil, there are other more direct means of gathering intelligence on those relationships), flags relevant intelligence, and deletes the vast majority of irrelevant data. The entire process takes “a small number of seconds,” and the system has no ability to perform “retrospective searching.” Americans’ communications singled out for further analysis are handled in accordance with “minimization” rules to protect privacy approved by the surveillance court. If private information is not relevant to understanding foreign intelligence, it is deleted; if it is relevant, the agency can retain it and disseminate it to other agencies, the rules show.
—
It seems that all possible safeguards and oversights are in place. On complex issues such as balancing rights and national security we should defer to the experts, that is what representative democracy is all about.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., says he recently voted to keep a controversial National Security Agency data collection program in part because he trusts lawmakers who know it best.
“I’m going to go with the people that actually know the program and looked at it,” he said.
His position had bipartisan support, he explained on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
“Every member in both parties who served on the Intelligence Committee voted in favor of this.”
Politifact rated this claim “mostly true”; 1 of the 21 House Intelligence Committee voted in favor of Amash Ammendment to end NSA intelligence gathering. Those who understand the complex cost-benefit analysis of intelligence gathering programs overwhelmingly support their continued existence.
—
If anything good came from the Snowden leaks, it is that we are now having open dialogue about intelligence gathering. Furthermore, intelligence officials have become more transparent, to the point of disclosing less-sensitive information about intelligence gathering as opposed to having it exposed.
Snowden should have come home to have his day in a civilian court, to be judged by a jury of his peers (who tend to be sympathetic of his actions). Instead he rebuffed American offers, is living in dictatorial Russia, and is now truly “an enemy of the state”.
I guess you perception of Snowden may boil down to whether you think the resulting transparency of / dialogue on intelligence-gather would have taken place had Snowden or another whistle-blower handed sensitive information over to official ombudsman channels (the lack of official ombudsman channels in the U.S. is also glaring problem that should receive more attention in this wider debate).
—
This brings me to a larger, more philosophical point about the “social contract” and accountability in an effective democracy such as the U.S.A. At what point did the trust between the government and the people erode so drastically?
Don’t get me wrong, I am strongly outspoken about the costs to society of partisan gridlock in Washington and the importance of good governance worldwide for global policy coherence, particularly in the context of a globalized world and the Great Recession. But there is a difference between being frustrated with partisan politics (which by the way is not new, although it is currently very bad), and being mistrusting of the governments actions and intentions.Sure NSA intelligence gathering could be used for nefarious purposes, since when is this the yard-stick by which we measure our governments policies? The U.S. could blow up the world 10x over with its nuclear arsenal, but this is not the purpose of our nuclear weapons, so we do not constantly question the existence of nuclear weapons (although denuclearization is a long term normative goal). Judge the program based on what it does (nuclear weapons deter nuclear warfare in less accountable nations), not based on how it could be used in the worst case scenario.
In a democracy, there is a strong element of personal accountability for how things in the country end up. If you do not trust our elected officials get your ass up and vote for people who have a record of transparency, accountability, and open-mindedness, get involved in local politics; there are people around the world who would (and currently are) risking their lives for the political rights we take for granted.
Just 6 days ago it seemed like their was a chance that the Edward Snowden debacle could be resolved internally:
The United States has made a formal promise to Russia not to execute or torture Edward Snowden if he is sent home to face charges of illegally disclosing government secrets, and the Kremlin said Russian and U.S. security agencies are in talks over his fate.
The 30-year-old former U.S. spy agency contractor has been stuck in the transit area of a Moscow airport for more than a month despite Washington’s calls to hand him over.
Russia has refused to extradite Snowden, who leaked details of a secret U.S. surveillance program including phone and Internet data, and is now considering his request for a temporary asylum.
In a letter dated Tuesday July 23 and released on Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that he sought to dispel claims about what would happen to Snowden if he is sent home.
“Mr. Snowden has filed papers seeking temporary asylum in Russia on the grounds that if he were returned to the United States, he would be tortured and would face the death penalty. These claims are entirely without merit. Torture is unlawful in the United States,” Holder wrote, without explicit reference to Manning. “If he returns to the United States, Mr. Snowden would promptly be brought before a civilian court.”
“Snowden was charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person.
The latter two offenses fall under the U.S. Espionage Act and carry penalties of fines and up to 10 years in prison.”
—
Russian President Vladimir Putin had expressed “strong determination”, he said, not to let relations suffer over the dispute “no matter how the situation develops”. Putin himself is not personally dealing with the problem, the spokesman said.
But he reiterated Moscow’s stance that Russia “did not hand over, does not hand over and will not hand over anybody”.
Putin, a former KGB spy, has said Snowden could only be granted sanctuary in Russia if he stopped actions that could harm the United States.
Russia granted National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden asylum on Thursday and allowed him to leave Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport for the first time in more than a month, raising the prospect that the U.S. fugitive will remain in Russia for the foreseeable future and become a constant strain on already-tense relations with the U.S.
“We are extremely disappointed that the Russian government would take this step despite our very clear and lawful request” to have him expelled, said Mr. Obama’s chief spokesman, Jay Carney. “Mr. Snowden is not a whistleblower—he is accused of leaking classified information.”
The decision undermines long-standing law-enforcement cooperation between Moscow and Washington, Mr. Carney said.
Russia’s decision also threatens to derail a planned September summit in Moscow between President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which U.S. officials had viewed as a potential breakthrough moment in a monthslong drive to find common ground with Russia on important foreign-policy aims, such as ending the war in Syria. “We are evaluating the utility of a summit in light of this,” Mr. Carney said, adding that no decision had been made.
—
Senator John McCain, a well respected Senator with unparalleled foreign relations experience (and subsequent influence on foreign relations discourse), was even more critical of the move:
U.S. Senator John McCain is furious about whistleblower Edward Snowden’s newly-acquired asylum, and is demanding that Washington re-examine its relations with Moscow and “strip away the illusions that many Americans have had about Russia.”
Following the news of Snowden’s one-year asylum status in Russia, McCain released an angry statement in which he condemns the “disgraceful” actions of President Vladimir Putin.
“Russia’s action today is a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States,” the senator said. “It is a slap in the face of all Americans. Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Putin’s Russia. We need to deal with the Russia that is, not the Russia we might wish for.”
“Today’s action by Putin’s Russia should finally strip away the illusions that many Americans have had about Russia the past few years,” he said. “We have long needed to take a more realistic approach to our relations with Russia, and I hope today we finally start.”
—
Russia’s response to American outrage has been weak and arguably oblivious to the reality of the matter:
One of Mr. Putin’s aides, Yuri V. Ushakov, said on Thursday that Mr. Snowden’s fate was of “insignificant character” and thus would not affect relations, according to the state news agency, RIA Novosti. He added that the Kremlin was aware that Mr. Obama might cancel his trip to Moscow but had received no official notification from officials in Washington.
—
It is unfortunate that Russia decided to grant Snowden asylum, as more than anything it adds to what the article refers to as the “constant strain on already-tense relations with the U.S”. Russia and the U.S. have a very interesting historical relationship. Despite obvious fundamental differences, since the end of the Cold War both Russia and the U.S. have been able to coexist, and at times cooperate, in global affairs despite mistrust and misunderstanding by both sides. Because of this longstanding yet complex / secretive relationship, every official action between the two countries adds on top of an already long list of diplomatic baggage. The Snowden issue is just the most recent manifestation of the somewhat cooperative yet mostly competitive and ideologically divided relationship that defines modern US-Russian relations.
Balking at the G-20 talks would be counter productive; I have gone on record recently (here and here) about the importance of the upcoming G-20 talks. It appears the global community is ready to seriously start addressing issues that require global policy coherence, such as corporate tax evasion, environmental and security issues. Furthermore, it appears the U.S. federal government will simultaneously push legislation to operationalize international agreements, hopefully beginning a trend of coherent global-good-governance. There are a multitude of issues, both bilateral and multilateral, which the U.S. must take a leading role on at the G20 summit. How U.S.-Russia relations evolve from this incident is yet to be determined. A good way to press forward constructively is for Obama to attend G-20 talks. By all means boycott the 2018 Winter Olympics, but the G-20 summit should not be used as a diplomatic bargaining chip, there is too much at stake.
—
In a way, this is a fitting temporary conclusion to the Snowden saga–a life of constant limbo and uncertainty of his own human rights. These are in essence the opposite of core elements of American society–security, freedom, self-determination and expression.
For Mr. Snowden, Russia’s hospitality could prove a mixed blessing. The Kremlin has demanded he cease his “political activities” in order to stay in the country, curtailing his potential options for work.
If Snowden thought the U.S. Federal government was bad, he is about the meet the Kremlin (sounds ominous no?). The Russian government violates human rights with relative impunity, and uses national sovereignty as a shield from accountability for domestic and extra-territorial human rights violations (most prominently the continued provision of advanced arms to Assad in Syria). Snowden thought he would be a hero, instead he is for all intents and purposes under house-arrest in Russia.
If recent events have taught us anything it is that governments with adequate resources, aided with advances in information and communications technology (ICTs), have virtually global surveillance capabilities;. Snowden’s every move will be watched during his time in Russia by both the Obama administration and the Kremlin. In his attempt to expose human rights violations by the U.S. government, Snowden has in effect sacrificed his own rights. He has spent the last few months in Hong Kong and Moscow, not exactly hotbeds for human rights or freedom of expression. His only permanent asylum options at the moment are in Latin American countries, where governments tend to be ill-equip at even providing basic personal security.
The U.S. is not perfect–there is no perfect country. Snowden will come to realize in time that in his pursuit of perfection (or fame or more nefarious goals), he flew too close to the sun. The U.S. Government has numerous domestic and international obligations; at times those obligations appear to be incompatible and difficult decisions have to be made. The U.S. government perhaps should have been more transparent about aspects of PRISM, but our leaders believe that by its nature disclosure would inhibit the effectiveness of PRISM, and chose to keep it secret (until Snowden came along).
I never got why the collection of metadata by the U.S. Federal is such a big deal to people. After all, private sector corporations such as Verizon already have this data; are we worried that our elected officials have information that private companies already own and probably sell to advertisers? There have been exactly 0 confirmed instances of the U.S. government using PRISM data to infringe of the rights of U.S. citizens. As a country we should focus our efforts on the real issues in-front of us–there are many of them–instead of on hypothetical rights violations by the global champion of democracy and human rights.
Normative Narratives 