See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333798671

Changing World Politics: The Snowden/WikiLeaks effects

Article · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 385

1 author:

Lujain Rabat
Russian Academy of Sciences - Institute of Socio-political Research
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on migration mobility. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lujain Rabat on 15 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Changing World Politics: The Snowden/WikiLeaks effects

Lujain Rabat

2019

People are constantly seeking new and better ways to protect their
privacy and information in a digital era where hacking and leaking
information has become easier and more common. However, while hacking
personal information is condemned conduct, many, including journalists and
civil libertarians celebrate leaks of governmental information “as a source of
accountability and transparency, a check on executive power, and a
corrective to over-classification”. (Pozen, 2013 p.541) Therefore, leaks of
governmental information can be seen as both damaging and advantageous
for “some leaks highlight unflattering or disturbing conduct, some prompt
congressional scrutiny or media investigations, some reveal vulnerabilities
or degrade strategic advantage”. (Pozen, 2013 p.542) Leaking governmental
information is not a new phenomenon as government officials and
employees have at times leaked information to the media, such as the case
with the Pentagon Papers that were released to the media by Daniel
Ellsberg, former United States military and RAND Corporation Analyst.
However, advances in technology have increased the reach of hackers and
leakers who can access governmental servers, emails and even confidential
and top-secret information, and spread them for the entire world to see.
Since 2006, two major leakers have received endless media attention, stirred
controversy, jeopardized relationships between countries and, unexpectedly,
led to an increase in surveillance.

In 2006, Julian Assange, an Australian hacker turned Internet

activist created a website that allows hackers, whistleblowers and censored
journalists all around the world to provide secret information, news leaks or
classified information that are then published on the WikiLeaks website.
According to their website, WikiLeaks “specializes in the analysis and
publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official
materials involving war, spying and corruption”, (WikiLeaks, 2015) and has
from 2006 until 2015, published more than 10 million documents and
associated analyses. Further, in 2010, WikiLeaks “engaged in its most
famous publications to date, revealing systematic abuse of official secrecy
within the US military and government”. (Assange, 2014, p.2015) These
leaks included diplomatic cables that revealed US cognizance of corruption
and human rights abuses in several countries were released in tandem with a
series of files pertaining to US military operations abroad, including the Iraq
War, which revealed that over 114,00 Iraqi civilians were killed by US
operations. In 2016, WikiLeaks published more than thirty thousand
correspondences and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s
private email server while she was Secretary of State, damaging her
presidential campaign.
A few years after WikiLeaks was created, Edward Snowden, a previously
unknown name to the public, captured headlines in 2013 after providing The
Guardian and The Washington Post with leaked material that he obtained
while employed by defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton as a systems
administrator at the National Security Administration (NSA). The
information leaked by Snowden revealed secret NSA programs that spied on
private citizens by collecting domestic telecommunications metadata, which
comprises “routing information, including (but not limited to) session
identifying information (for example, originating and terminating telephone
number, identity of the communications device, etc.)”, (Donohue, 2013, p.
760) as well as the time and duration of calls. In addition, Snowden revealed
a program named PRISM, which targeted international communications and
stored data of “non-US persons” outside the US, as well as spied on Chinese
computers, and US allies, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Snowden’s leak also revealed that British Government Communications and
Headquarters, alongside the NSA, eavesdropped on the communications of
political leaders ending the 2009 London G20 summit, and “that the British
were themselves conducting massive intercepts of domestic
communications”, (Landau, 2013, p.54)

As a consequence of WikiLeaks, “the US government launched a

multi-agency criminal investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks staff,
supporters, and alleged associates”, (Assange, 2014, p.206) which led
Assange to formally seek asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London due
to his fear of prosecution by the US. In January 2018, Assange was granted
the Ecuadorian citizenship. However, in April 2019, Assange was arrested
by the Metropolitan police after the United Kingdom and Ecuador reach an
agreement in which the Ecuadorian government withdrew Assange’s
asylum. Today, Assange faces the prospect of extradition to the US where he
faces 17 charges accusing him of violating the espionage act. As for
Snowden, after extracting the files from the NSA, he went to Hong Kong
where he contacted two journalists from The Guardian and The Washington
Post and handed them several classified documents. However, after the
“Justice Department charged him with theft of government property,
unauthorized communication of national security information and giving
classified intelligence data to an unauthorized person”, (Moffitt, 2014, p.
245) he left Hong Kong where the US has an extradition treaty. Snowden
then flew to Russia with whom the US does not have an extradition treaty,
and remained in Moscow’s Shermetyevo Airport, an area that is not
technically under Russian jurisdiction, for a month before he was granted
asylum by the Russian authorities.

Even without being enmeshed with and affecting foreign affairs,

leaks are surrounded by controversy for the shocking and, at times,
damaging information they reveal. Considering that the cases of both
Snowden and the WikiLeaks have reached almost the entire world and
revealed politically sensitive information related to both the internal and
foreign affairs of several countries, it is not surprising that they have been
surrounded by debate. The world was split in its opinion regarding Assange
and Snowden, and while some hailed them as heroes, others condemned
them as traitors. This is why when Snowden ended up in Russia, his
detractors were infuriated and raised questions about whether he has
provided confidential information to rival governments of the US, such as
Russia. Furthermore, while some believe that WikiLeaks serves as a
whistleblowing mechanism to provide the truth to the public and fight over-
classification, the fact that the US has been the major target of the
WikiLeaks has led to skepticism around and criticism of the sources of the
information received by WikiLeaks, as well as the motives behind them.
However, those who support the work of WikiLeaks contend that being the
most powerful country in the world with diplomatic and political presence in
many countries, the US is simply a natural target due to its status in the
world.
Regardless of how one might view these leaks, it cannot be denied that
“mass releases of classified defense documents and diplomatic cables
through WikiLeaks, followed by a series of news stories about some of the
government's most closely held national programs, have unleashed a torrent
of legislative and media responses, recriminations and justifications”,
(Pozen, 2013, p.514) signalling to the world and to governments that secrecy
can no longer be guaranteed, thus possibly jeopardizing relationships with
allies and revealing classified or disconcerting information that can be used
by adversaries. To understand the effects of the leaks, this paper looks at the
consequences of the leaks on several aspects of world politics. In particular,
the paper will analyze the effect of the WikiLeaks documents leaked in
2010/2011 of US diplomatic cables on the Arab Spring and on relations
between countries, and the consequences of the Snowden leaks in terms of
how they affected the fight against terrorism, as well as the spread of
surveillance.
WIKILEAKS


Relationship between the U.S. and Ecuador

Situated between Colombia and Peru, two major cocaine-producing
countries, Ecuador is strategically important to the U.S. in battling drugs.
Furthermore, the U.S. is economically important for Ecuador, as it is “Ecuador’s
main trading partner with over 40% of Ecuador’s exports such as oil, bananas,
and shrimp going to the United States in 2012.” (Beittel, 2013, p.4) However,
the WikiLeaks’ release in 2011 of a diplomatic cable sent by Heather Hodges,
U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador, accusing the then Ecuadorian president Rafael
Correa of knowingly dismissing police corruption, had a negative impact on
relations between the two countries. Following this leak, Hodges was declared
persona non grata in Ecuador, and in response, the U.S. expelled the Ecuadorian
Ambassador from the US – signaling a new low in diplomatic relations between
two countries that once upheld a mutually beneficial relationship. However,
some may rightfully argue that while the two countries traditionally had close
relations, “under Correa’s leadership the relationship has often been tense due to
his populist governing style and his combative, self-described ‘anti-imperialist’
stance.” (Beittel, 2013, p.1) Therefore, the leak was not the only reason for the
shift in relations between the two countries as president Correa was highly
critical of US foreign policy and “advocated for renewal of trade
preferences,” (Beittel, 2013, p.1) nationalized US oil company Occidental
Petroleum Corp. and closed down a US military base in Ecuador. Despite the
fact that in 2012, full diplomatic relations were restored with the appointment of
a new US Ambassador to Ecuador, tensions between the two countries continue.
Thus, while the WikiLeaks further strained US-Ecuadorian relations and
provided the latter with grounds for temporarily severing diplomatic ties with
the US, it was not the cause of the already strained relationship – it merely
accentuated existing tensions.
Aiding the Arab Spring:

The relationship between the WikiLeaks and the Arab Spring is not
dissimilar to the one that led to the expulsion of Hodges from Ecuador in the
sense that the leaks did not create new circumstances, but simply highlighted
existing ones. The Arab Spring has undeniably had a significant effect not only
in changing the political landscape of the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region, but also on the entire world. Civil wars and unstable regimes
in the region have been associated with a rise in terrorism, waves of refugees
flocking to Europe and international political tensions. The catalyst for the Arab
Spring was the December 2010 incident of Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-
immolation. Bouazizi was a 26-year-old Tunisian street vendor who was
“frustrated at a lack of economic opportunities and continued harassment at the
hands of government officials”. (Mabon, 2013, p.1844) His actions prompted a
domino effect of dissent that spread throughout the country and then the region
as a series of peaceful and violent protests in countries such as Egypt, Libya,
Syria, Algeria and Bahrain, to name a few. The main reasons behind Bouazizi’s
actions were the poor social and economic conditions of poverty, corruption and
the 23-year oppressive regime of Zein El Abidine Ben Ali. However, in Tunisia
(as in most MENA countries), poor economic conditions and oppressive
regimes have been the norm rather than the exception. Because of that, many
have sought to understand the interplaying factors that led to the eruption of the
Arab Spring at the time it did.
Some believe that the series of documents released by WikiLeaks in
2010/2011 played a major role in bringing about the Arab Spring. Two weeks
before Bouazizi self-immolated, WikiLeaks released a series of documents
pertaining to the greed, opulent wealth and corruption of Tunisian president
Zein El Abidine Ben Ali and his extended family. On 28 November 2010, the
very day The New York Times began posting leaked cables it received from
WikiLeaks, Nawaat, a Tunisian publication “quietly struck a deal with
WikiLeaks that allowed it first access to diplomatic cables relating to Tunisian
affairs, which they published on a separate— and occasionally unassociated—
site called TuniLeaks.” (York, 2016, p.50) The leaks were translated into French
and contextualized with the aim of reaching a wider Tunisian audience. Among
the leaked documents were U.S. Embassy cables that detailed US awareness of
the state of corruption and restrictions on political space in Tunisia. In one of
the cables, Robert F. Godec, US Ambassador to Tunisia, wrote in detail about
the state of corruption in Tunisia, maintaining in a correspondence sent to
Condoleezza Rice, then US Secretary of State: “President Ben Ali's extended
family is often cited as the nexus of Tunisian corruption. Often referred to as a
quasi-mafia….” (WikiLeaks, 2008) While the “information within these cables
[was] neither new nor surprising, the importance of official external
acknowledgement of abuses contained within the cables,” (Mabon, 2013, p.
1851) delegitimized the regime and thus legitimized the protesters.
Furthermore, the WikiLeaks had an additional impact of increasing external
attention to the protesters’ cause. Additionally, “the success of TuniLeaks
inspired another offshoot, this time in neighboring Morocco. Emulating its
source of inspiration, MoroLeaks sought to contextualize and translate cables
related to Moroccan corruption and human rights abuses”, (York, 2016, p.50)
which led to demonstrations that sprang up throughout the country in February
2011. However, Moreover, the demonstrations instigated by the MoroLeaks did
not lead to any real changes. This can be attributed to differences between the
two countries. While Morocco has a more traditional, patriotic and less-
educated society, Tunisia has a strongly organised public sector and unions. 

Moreover, after protests broke out in Egypt, WikiLeaks added fuel to the fire by
publishing cables about corruption in Egypt. Therefore, while it cannot be
accurately said that the Arab Spring would have never happened if it weren’t for
the leaks, the leaks did play a significant role in aiding the Arab Spring and
providing legitimacy to the protesters.


Snowden


Relationship between Germany and the US:

Since 2013, “revelations about the NSA’s alleged activities in Germany
had been appearing in the German press at a steady clip,” (Edgar, 2017, p.173)
and while US president Barack Obama apologized to Chancellor Merkel after
her criticism of the spying, the apology “helped mollify Merkel, [but] the
German parliament was not satisfied.” (Edgar, 2017, p.173) In March 2014, the
German parliament launched an investigation into American spying and any
German involvement or cooperation with the Americans. However, when the
US requested that its allies arrest Snowden if he left Russia, the Merkel
government obliged despite protests from parliament. Furthermore, rather than
being destabilized, the relationship between Germany and the US remained
strong and “actual cooperation with the US remained relatively
stable,” (Dimmroth et al, 2017, p.7) despite German knowledge that it was
being spied on by an ally. This shows that while the German public and
parliament were highly critical of the way Germany was treated by its ally, the
government did little to alter its relationship with the US.

Gift to Terrorists and Adversaries:

Many including Andrew Parker, Director General of the British MI-5
believe that “Snowden's revelations are a gift to terrorists,” (Hayden, 2014, p.
14) for they revealed tactics used in monitoring surveillance around the world.
Furthermore, CIA director Michael Morell says that “it was ‘clear’ that
Snowden’s leaks also ‘played a role in the rise’ of the Islamic State
(IS),” (Simcox, 2015, p.56) thus directly implicating Snowden in the expansion
of IS. According to an analyst for Henry Jackson Society, a neo-conservatist and
interventionist Anglo-American think-tank, on the effect of Snowden’s leaks on
security, especially in battling terrorism, “at least three al-Qaeda affiliates are
known to have altered their communication methods.” (Simcox, 2015, p.13)
The same report states that new encryption tools were released by online
jihadist platforms and a video circulated outlining what was learnt from the
Snowden leaks and providing advice on how to evade detection. Therefore,
terrorists adapted to these new revelations and altered their communication
strategies. However, translating these findings into a correlation between
Snowden’s leaks and the rise in terrorism and terrorist acts is not simple. Figure
I shows that in the period between 2011 and 2016, the majority of terrorist
attacks took place in the MENA and Central Asia, two unstable regions with
several ongoing civil wars that provide suitable grounds for the growth of
terrorist organizations. According to the Center of Economics and Peace’s 2017
Global Terrorism Index, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria account
for three quarters of all deaths from terrorism and “these same countries have
been the most affected by terrorism every year since 2013.” (GTI, 2017, p.16)
Additionally, while terrorist attacks on Organization of Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) countries has increased in the 2014–2016 period,
OECD countries have actually suffered higher levels of terrorism in the past.
Since 1970, “there have been nearly 10,000 deaths from terrorism among
OECD countries and 58 per cent of these deaths occurred prior to 2000”. (GTI,
2017, p.52)
Figure 1
 Moreover, “some have suggested that the Islamic State was already
aware that its communications were being targeted having been the subject of
major NSA and military surveillance and hacking campaign during the 2007-08
period of the Iraq war”. (Simcox, 2015, p.13) Furthermore, the public was
aware that intelligence services partook in controversial surveillance programs
even before Snowden’s revelations. For example, “it is clear that public
knowledge of transnational intelligence services surveillance systems had
already changed before 9/11”, (Wood and Wright, 2015, p.135) for news stories
about the NSA were appearing more regularly in newspapers. However, despite
transnational surveillance programs, intelligence agencies were not able to
predict and stop the events of September 11. Accordingly, while the post-
Snowden revelations period coincides with increased terrorist attacks, a direct
link between the two is difficult to establish. It is not an unreasonable deduction
that Snowden’s disclosures led to changes in the way suspects communicate.
Several US intelligence officials, including Matt Olsen, former Director of the
national Counterterrorism Center have noted, “the shift in communication
methods was the ‘most significant change’ that had taken place”. (Simcox,
2015, p.57) However, that these changes have proved successful in aiding
terrorists evade intelligence agencies, and consequently execute more terrorist
acts is evidently wrong and cannot be supported by the available data.



Increased Surveillance
Snowden’s disclosures and the scandal that followed promised “an
upcoming rollback of the techno-legal apparatus developed by the NSA, the
GCHQ and their counterparts to intercept and analyze large portions of the
world’s Internet traffic”. (Tréguer, 2017, p.25) as well as the relocation of
surveillance programs within the limits of the law. However in reality, what
happened was quite the opposite as the post-Snowden revelations period
witnessed an increase rather than a decrease in surveillance measures in several
countries. For “in spite of the widespread indignation by political actors and
civil society, the Snowden revelations have not led to extensive and tangible
policy changes”. (Audenhove and Pohle, 2017, p.2) Rather, some governments
found out that their own intelligence agencies have benefited from data
collection by the NSA and even that their own agencies have been using rather
dubious methods to gather excessive information. As a consequence, many
countries, including the US, implemented surveillance reforms in response to
the leaks. Yet most of the reforms “rather served to adapt the legal foundations
to the already existing practices or even to expand the agencies’ authority for
surveillance”. (Audenhove and Pohle, 2017, p.2) Therefore, instead of
reforming the system, the system became consolidated.
For instance, in 2016 the British Parliament passed the Investigatory
Powers Bills that, instead of limiting surveillance, legalized a range of tools for
prying and hacking by security services that had previously been illegal. A
similar situation can be seen in Germany where “amendments to the so-called
‘G-10 law’ were adopted to validate the large-scale surveillance powers of the
country’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND— also embroiled in the NSA
scandal”. (Tréguer, 2017, p.25) Furthermore, Snowden’s leaks served as a
justification for US’s adversaries to increase surveillance. For example, in 2014,
five Chinese military officers were indicted by the US on charges of hacking
into commercial networks. In response, the Chinese Ministry of National
Defense issued a statement accusing the US of being hypocritical, and stating
that “double standards of the United States regarding Internet security issues
have been abundantly obvious from WikiLeaks to the Snowden affair.” (The
New York Times, 2014) Therefore, Snowden’s leaks “served deeper Chinese
strategic interests in weakening U.S. ideas, interests, influence, and credibility
in cyberspace and cyber security matters in international politics.” (Fidler, 2015,
p.164) For, while the US has been vocal against China’s censorship and
surveillance of its citizens, after Snowden’s revelations, China felt comfortable
increasing surveillance as it now operates over 170 million CCTV cameras
across the country equipped with facial recognition software. According to a
BBC report, an estimated 400 million new cameras are to be installed in the
next three years (BBC, 2017)

While leaks by Snowden and WikiLeaks exposed a disconnect between

public discourse and government action, their impact on the relationship
between states was not entirely damaging. Long term allies remained so, as is
the case with Germany and the US, while countries among whom the
relationship was already strained, such as the relationship between Ecuador and
the USA, changed and reached all time lows due to the leaks. Regarding the
Arab Spring, what the leaked cables did was offer a further source of legitimacy
to the protesters by revealing the history of restrictions on political space and
human rights abuses. Indeed, what was most significant about the cables was
that they documented “corruption and abuses that were widely accepted
internally, but had the impact of being observed by an external actor”. (Mabon,
2013, p.1851) As for Snowden, even though several security officials blamed
his leaks for the increase in acts of terrorism and changes in terrorists’
communication habits, the fact is, there is no sufficient data available to build a
link between the two events with absolute conviction. The most surprising
consequence of the leaks, however, was the increase in surveillance. While the
purpose of the leaks was, at least in part, to fight governments’ over-reach into
citizens’ private lives, the reality of increased surveillance that followed the
leaks was quite different.
Bibliography:

-Assange, J. (2014) When Google Met WikiLeaks. London: OR books

- Bachrach, J. (2011) ‘Wikihistory: Did the Leaks Inspire the Arab Spring?’,
World Affairs Journal, 174(2), pp. 35-44.
- BBC (2017) In Your Face: China’s all-seeing state. Available at: http://
www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-
seeing-state (Accessed: 17 January 2018)

- Beittel, S. (2013) ‘Ecuador: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S.
Relations’, United States Congressional Research Service. Available at: http://
www.refworld.org/docid/51ecfc364.html [accessed 29 December 2017]

- Donohue, K. (2013) ‘Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional
Considerations’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 37(3), p.760

- Edgar, T. (2017) Beyond Snowden: Privacy, Mass Surveillance, and the
Struggle to Reform the NSA. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, pp.
172-185

- Fidler, D. and Gunguley, S. (2015) The Snowden Reader. Indiana: Indiana
University Press

- Hayden, M. (2014) ‘An NSA Reality Check’, Sage Publications, 176(5), pp.
13-23

- Institute for Economics and Peace. Global Terrorism Index: measuring and
understanding the impact of terrorism.
2017

- Landau, S. (2013) ‘Making Sense From Snowden: What’s Significant in the NSA
Surveillance Revelations’, IEEE Security and Privacy, 11(4), pp.54-63. doi:10.1109/
MSP.2013.90

- Mabon, S. (2013) ‘Aiding Revolution? WikiLeaks, Communication and the ‘Arab
Spring’ in Egypt’, Third World Quarterly, 34(10), pp. 1843-1857. doi:
10.1080/01436597.2013.851901

- Moffitt, A. (2014) ‘A place for Snowden: U.S.-Russian Extradition Relations &
Benefits of a Future Partnership’, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems,
 24(243), pp.243-268

- Pohle, J. and Audernhove, L. (2017) ‘Post-Snowden Internet Policy: Between
Public Outrage, Resistance and Policy Change’, Media and Communication, 5(1), pp.
1-6. doi:10.17645/mac.v5i1.932

- Pozen, D. (2013) ‘The Leaky Leviathan: Why the Government Condemns and
Condones Unlawful Disclosures of Information’, Harvard Law Review, 127(2), pp.
512-635

- Simcox, R. (2015) Surveillance After Snowden: Effective Espionage in an Age of
Transparency. London: The Henry Jackson Society.

- Steiger, S. and Schünemann, W. and Dimmroth, K. (2017) ‘Outrage without
Consequences? Post-Snowden Discourses and Governmental Practice in Germany’,
Media and Communication, 5(1), pp. 7-16. doi:10.17645/mac.v5i1.814

- The New York Times (2014) Chinese Defense Statement on the U.S. Cyberspying
Indictment. Available at: https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/chinese-
defense-statement-on-the-u-s-cyberspying-indictment/ (Accessed: 25 January 2018)

- Tréguer, F. (2017) ‘Intelligence Reform and the Snowden Paradox: The Case of
France’, Media and Communication, 5(1), pp. 17-28. doi:10.17645/mac.v5i1.821

- WikiLeaks (2011) ‘Corruption in Tunisia: What’s yours is mine’. Available at:
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TUNIS679_a.html

- Wood, D. and Wright, S. (2015) ‘Before and After Snowden’, Surveillance &
Society, 13(2), pp.132-138. Available at: https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/
surveillance-and-society/article/view/snowden_editorial [accessed 5 January 2018]

- York, J. (2016) ‘From TuniLeaks to Bassem Yousef: Revolutionary Media in the
Arab World’ in Barney, D., Coleman, G. Ross, C., Sterne, J., and Tembeck, T. (eds.)
The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age. London: University of Minnesota
Press, pp. 44-59.

View publication stats