It is becoming a cautionary tale of two countries, their myths and instinctive reactions. One, a great superpower, reveres but also distrusts power itself. The over-arching state is a source of suspicion. Citizens naturally fear it; they balk at policies that seem to hand over influence to a distant, federal centre. They see themselves as vibrant individuals, sons of the pioneers. Popular culture lauds Jason Bourne, a lonely warrior against malignant, controlling spooks. The great heroes of journalism revealed presidential conspiracies.
Today's most manifest foes are giant government schemes in the style of "Obamacare", a supposed bewilderment of tick boxes, crocked computers and cash leaking from a denuded exchequer. Reforms of this type may be ritually denounced as "socialism", taking away the hallowed right of ordinary Joes to spend 15% of their income on pills and visits to a doctor who earns considerably more than Joe.
The other nation – once the centre of an empire that spanned the world – may boast of its closeness to this introverted superpower. It believes it has a special relationship, speaks the same language, shares aspirations and secrets. But the difference at the core is profound. Britain still trusts in the benevolent state. Safeguarding its National Health Service, a Labour creation that dwarfs Obama's reform, is the most totemic policy in its politics, a "national religion". Voters still hanker after a return to state-run water, gas, electricity and rail services when they talk to pollsters.
James Bond, a laughing, fornicating cavalier of a secret agent, is the spook of choice. Editors across Fleet Street denounce unpatriotic journalists who rock M's boat. The British assume governments are on their side.
They may not hold much personal brief for the politicians or the mandarins who serve them. But they still look to Whitehall and Westminster for help, for action, for everything. And it is this distinction, this canyon of incomprehension, which so shapes the world of the US National Security Agency and its faithful servant, GCHQ Cheltenham.
There is a simple, media-friendly narrative that seems to encompass six months of revelations from Edward Snowden. It finds American editors and politicians swiftly incensed by the stories in the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post and Der Spiegel. Complacent reassurances from security chiefs don't wash. Courts belabour "Orwellian" practices. President Obama sets up a high-level review group to tell him what needs to be done. These experienced DC trusties, reporting last week, recommend fundamental shifts and reforms in NSA behaviour: on encryption, on the storage of meta data, on surveillance of overseas leaders, and much, much more.
Meanwhile the Snowden trove, carefully decoded, its contents weighed, continues to surprise and shock. What's GCHQ doing bugging German government offices, listening to EU Commission conversations, tuning in to hear what the Israeli PM's got to say … or leering over Unicef's shoulder, for heaven's sake? Are our enemies in the supposed war on terror doctors saving lives in the African bush? This story, self-evidently, isn't over. Whistles will blow, and blow again. The spooks of high technology will have much more to answer for in the coming year
Read more::Surveillance: complacency, secrecy –Britain's great vices | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer
Today's most manifest foes are giant government schemes in the style of "Obamacare", a supposed bewilderment of tick boxes, crocked computers and cash leaking from a denuded exchequer. Reforms of this type may be ritually denounced as "socialism", taking away the hallowed right of ordinary Joes to spend 15% of their income on pills and visits to a doctor who earns considerably more than Joe.
The other nation – once the centre of an empire that spanned the world – may boast of its closeness to this introverted superpower. It believes it has a special relationship, speaks the same language, shares aspirations and secrets. But the difference at the core is profound. Britain still trusts in the benevolent state. Safeguarding its National Health Service, a Labour creation that dwarfs Obama's reform, is the most totemic policy in its politics, a "national religion". Voters still hanker after a return to state-run water, gas, electricity and rail services when they talk to pollsters.
James Bond, a laughing, fornicating cavalier of a secret agent, is the spook of choice. Editors across Fleet Street denounce unpatriotic journalists who rock M's boat. The British assume governments are on their side.
They may not hold much personal brief for the politicians or the mandarins who serve them. But they still look to Whitehall and Westminster for help, for action, for everything. And it is this distinction, this canyon of incomprehension, which so shapes the world of the US National Security Agency and its faithful servant, GCHQ Cheltenham.
There is a simple, media-friendly narrative that seems to encompass six months of revelations from Edward Snowden. It finds American editors and politicians swiftly incensed by the stories in the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post and Der Spiegel. Complacent reassurances from security chiefs don't wash. Courts belabour "Orwellian" practices. President Obama sets up a high-level review group to tell him what needs to be done. These experienced DC trusties, reporting last week, recommend fundamental shifts and reforms in NSA behaviour: on encryption, on the storage of meta data, on surveillance of overseas leaders, and much, much more.
Meanwhile the Snowden trove, carefully decoded, its contents weighed, continues to surprise and shock. What's GCHQ doing bugging German government offices, listening to EU Commission conversations, tuning in to hear what the Israeli PM's got to say … or leering over Unicef's shoulder, for heaven's sake? Are our enemies in the supposed war on terror doctors saving lives in the African bush? This story, self-evidently, isn't over. Whistles will blow, and blow again. The spooks of high technology will have much more to answer for in the coming year
Read more::Surveillance: complacency, secrecy –Britain's great vices | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer
No comments:
Post a Comment