Why America Spies on Its Friends

France, Germany, and many other countries may be U.S. allies, some closer than others. But their interests don’t necessarily match ours.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 29: A member of CodePink protests as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (C) takes his seat prior to a hearing before the House (Select) Intelligence Committee October 29, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on "Potential Changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)." 
Getty Images
Add to Briefcase
Michael Hirsh
Oct. 31, 2013, 5 p.m.

“All his­tory teaches us that today’s al­lies are to­mor­row’s rivals.”  John le Car­ré


With the French say­ing they are shocked — shocked! — to dis­cov­er that Amer­ica is spy­ing on them, and the long-mon­itored Ger­man chan­cel­lor, An­gela Merkel, re­portedly in a state of out­rage, this may be a good time to ex­plain why it is con­sidered so ne­ces­sary. Why mon­it­or­ing “for­eign-lead­er­ship in­ten­tions” is a “hardy per­en­ni­al” in U.S. es­pi­on­age prac­tice, as Na­tion­al In­tel­li­gence Dir­ect­or James Clap­per put it dur­ing con­gres­sion­al hear­ings this week.And why most of what is done today, one way or an­oth­er, is likely to go on.

Gran­ted, sen­ti­ment is rising in Con­gress to cur­tail the sur­veil­lance le­viath­an that the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency has be­come. Changes will al­most cer­tainly be made. A tough bill that would severely rein in the NSA’s bulk col­lec­tion of Amer­ic­ans’ elec­tron­ic com­mu­nic­a­tions, co­sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner, R-Wis., is gain­ing strange but power­ful bed­fel­lows in sup­port, in­clud­ing the Na­tion­al Rifle As­so­ci­ation and the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on. Among the 80 co­spon­sors of the USA Free­dom Act are some law­makers who were NSA sup­port­ers as re­cently as Au­gust. At least eight of them voted against a nar­rowly de­feated bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., that would have ef­fect­ively de­fun­ded Sec­tion 215 of the USA Pat­ri­ot Act, which per­mits these col­lec­tion prac­tices.

Even Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein, D-Cal­if., hitherto a fierce NSA de­fend­er, cri­ti­cized the mon­it­or­ing of Merkel’s cell phone, and Fein­stein’s milder rival bill, which would pre­serve most NSA data col­lec­tion, faces a tough­er fight against the Leahy-Sensen­bren­ner ver­sion than it did only a few months ago.

Non­ethe­less, the reas­on Amer­ica spies on gen­er­ally friendly for­eign lead­ers is simple and com­pel­ling. France, Ger­many, and many oth­er coun­tries may be U.S. al­lies, some closer than oth­ers, but they do not en­tirely share com­mon in­terests with the U.S. They make, to vary­ing de­grees, dif­fer­ent as­sess­ments of the stra­tegic threats from Ir­an, China, and even Is­lam­ist ter­ror­ists, whom since 9/11 the Amer­ic­ans have ten­ded to see as a war­time en­emy but Europeans tend to view more as a crime-en­force­ment prob­lem. That lat­ter dif­fer­ence of ap­proach alone — the Europeans are con­sidered less ag­gress­ive in track­ing ter­ror­ists — is reas­on to think these al­lies are not telling us everything they know. It is also reas­on to use every meth­od avail­able, in­clud­ing es­pi­on­age, to de­term­ine what they do know.

Be­neath the sur­face, Ger­many and the United States have also been in a state of con­stant ten­sion over the fu­ture of the world eco­nomy, with Pres­id­ent Obama reg­u­larly pres­sur­ing Merkel to ad­opt pro-stim­u­lus policies at re­cent G-20 meet­ings. In private, Ger­man of­fi­cials have ful­min­ated over Obama’s in­ter­fer­ence. The two na­tions of­ten con­tend more than they co­ordin­ate over these policies.

This dif­fer­ence in gauging threat levels is true as well of an­oth­er close U.S. ally, Is­rael. Re­call that an Amer­ic­an, Jonath­an Pol­lard, has been serving a life sen­tence since 1987 for spy­ing on Amer­ica for the Is­rael­is. Is­rael, with good reas­on, is wor­ried that the United States does not see the threat from the Palestini­ans or oth­er re­gion­al forces in the same way the Is­raeli gov­ern­ment does, and it wants to keep tabs.

No coun­try is in fact im­mune from Amer­ic­an spy­ing, ex­cept­ing only Aus­tralia, Canada, New Zea­l­and, and the United King­dom, four Eng­lish-speak­ing coun­tries with which Wash­ing­ton es­tab­lished the “Five Eyes” pact to share in­tel and not spy on each oth­er, a rather quaint “gen­tle­man’s agree­ment” dat­ing to 1946 (which may or may not be al­ways ob­served).

The his­tory of U.S.-French re­la­tions is il­lus­trat­ive of why spy­ing between long­time al­lies per­sists. In con­trast to a dec­ade ago, when France was seen as the re­cal­cit­rant out­lier lead­ing up to the Ir­aq in­va­sion, re­la­tions between the two coun­tries are very close, in­clud­ing a com­mon front on Ir­an, Libya, and Syr­ia. But des­pite fit­ful ef­forts to bring France in­to the Five Eyes pact, neither Par­is nor Wash­ing­ton seems eager to give up its right to spy on the oth­er. The French have long been known to con­duct in­dus­tri­al es­pi­on­age.

“Any world lead­er who ex­presses shock at be­ing spied on should im­me­di­ately fall un­der sus­pi­cion by his or her own people for be­ing dan­ger­ously na­ive,” says John Ar­quilla, an in­tel­li­gence ex­pert at the Nav­al Post­gradu­ate School.

Non­ethe­less, it’s one thing to con­duct such es­pi­on­age cov­ertly. It’s quite an­oth­er to em­bar­rass one’s al­lies by hav­ing it ex­posed, open­ing lead­ers such as Merkel to do­mest­ic polit­ic­al cri­ti­cism and for­cing the French gov­ern­ment to use terms like “un­ac­cept­able” and “shock­ing” to dis­tance it­self from the dam­age done by leak­er Ed­ward Snowden, who has ex­posed these formerly secret prac­tices as more in­trus­ive than even in­tel­li­gence ex­perts knew. “It’s a ques­tion of scope, and it’s a ques­tion of trust,” says a European dip­lo­mat in one of the coun­tries af­fected, al­though he in­dic­ated that cru­cial transat­lantic co­oper­a­tion on is­sues such as Syr­ia, Ir­an, and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion is un­likely to be af­fected.

The key, con­gres­sion­al lead­ers now say, is to find what House Speak­er John Boehner called the “right bal­ance” between keep­ing the pres­id­ent and seni­or of­fi­cials in the know and spy­ing in such a blanket fash­ion that it riles al­lied lead­ers, be­cause “clearly we’re im­bal­anced,” the speak­er said. What up­sets the Europeans is sim­il­ar to what dis­tresses Sensen­bren­ner and oth­er former con­gres­sion­al de­fend­ers of the NSA: The sur­veil­lance ap­pears to be all-en­com­passing rather than tailored to spe­cif­ic na­tion­al se­cur­ity is­sues or in­vest­ig­a­tions.

Fein­stein said neither she nor Obama was aware the NSA was col­lect­ing the com­mu­nic­a­tions of Merkel and oth­er al­lied lead­ers, in an­oth­er blow to the agency’s carte blanche powers. In­deed, in­tel­li­gence pro­fes­sion­als now ad­mit that one of their biggest mis­takes was not doc­u­ment­ing how ag­gress­ive the sur­veil­lance state had be­come — which might have lessened the shock of the Snowden rev­el­a­tions.

So the NSA may be reined in. But one way or an­oth­er, the spy­ing will go on.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.