President of Brazil Lashes Out At NSA Espionage Programs In Speech To UN 260
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Guardian reports that Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff launched a blistering attack on US espionage at the UN general assembly, accusing the NSA of violating international law by its indiscriminate collection of personal information of Brazilian citizens and economic espionage targeted on the country's strategic industries. 'Personal data of citizens was intercepted indiscriminately. Corporate information – often of high economic and even strategic value – was at the center of espionage activity,' said Rousseff. 'Brazilian diplomatic missions, among them the permanent mission to the UN and the office of the president of the republic itself, had their communications intercepted.' Rousseff's angry speech was a direct challenge to President Barack Obama, who was waiting in the wings to deliver his own address to the UN general assembly, and represented the most serious diplomatic fallout to date from the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Washington's efforts to smooth over Brazilian outrage over NSA espionage have so far been rebuffed by Rousseff, who has proposed that Brazil build its own internet infrastructure. 'Friendly governments and societies that seek to build a true strategic partnership, as in our case, cannot allow recurring illegal actions to take place as if they were normal. They are unacceptable.'"
Small problem with summary (Score:5, Informative)
represented the most serious diplomatic fallout to date from the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden
Really, "the most serious diplomatic fallout" was a (justifiably) angry speech?
How about when Vladimir "Polonium 209" Putin suddenly became the world's defender of human rights? Or how about when the US and EU countries grounded Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, so they could search his plane for Snowden (a rough equivalent here would be the Chinese stopping and searching Air Force One)?
Rousseff is almost definitely speaking for more than just Brazil: Her government is the strongest of a group of left-wing South American countries that have resisted the US for about a decade. Others in that group include Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and of course Cuba.
Re:Brazil has a lot of things going for it ... (Score:5, Informative)
Brazil's income gap is at the lowest point of the last 120 years. Kind of like the US, only in reverse.
Wisdom follows, pay attention! (Score:5, Informative)
Brazil is about to buy some 36 advanced fighter jets. The three short-listed candidates were Dassault Rafale from France, SAAB Gripen from Sweden and the Boeing-Northrop Super Hornet from the USA. The NSA-Roussef scandal essentially negated the F-18's chances to win the tender worth many billions. Now the race is only about good political relations (Rafale) versus lower price with higher economic offsets (Gripen). Boeing's workforce must be grateful for the NSA's efforts in protecting american jobs...
Re:Brazil has a lot of things going for it ... (Score:4, Informative)
Having lived in Brazil, that place felt like old timey Chicago. Yes, there's corruption on the government side, but there's crime on the other. The corruption and surveillance is nowhere near China, and the crimes are not sadistic as the Mexican cartels. Brazil prides itself in modeling after the French, but that is just an ideal. And about the economic gap, Lula made it better and it has been better (relatively speaking) than the time around Collor's disgraced presidency. Keep in mind, it's a big country with very dense major cities, so change takes time.
Brazil has a treaty with the neighboring nation to basically not attack or invade each other. Hence, the military is only there to support the regional police, acting more like a national guard but for violent crimes (as opposed to natural disasters in the US). It would be unfair to characterize it as a "police-state." The police "thuggishness" is comparable to the police brutality in NYC (cop pushing Critical Mass cyclist; Stop-and-Frisk program), Oakland (BART shooting), etc etc. Basically, this is the usual problems you'll find in any large city. I grew up during a time when the police would hit up local places for protection money or they'll find some discrepancy with your business and fine you (watch Tropa de Elite), but I believe that is on the decline.
Overall, Brazil is one of the "good" countries, by US standards, and it's offensive for the NSA to spy on them based on any terroristic grounds. The US was spying on Brazil purely for economical and trade advantage, especially now that Brazil is becoming oil independent and has a growing economy. And Obama can't come up with a good excuse why the NSA was spying on Brazil, short of saying that Brazil is a dangerous breeding ground for criminals. Brazil doesn't even export mafia gangster like Russia.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
The NSA doesn't do political assassinations - that's the CIA's job.
However, they probably know that killing Rousseff wouldn't actually change much: She's ridiculously popular in Brazil (above 75% approval), but her party is only slightly less popular (about 63% approval), so chances are if she were killed Vice President Temer would just take over and continue Rousseff's policies. That means they won't try that, but will instead try to destabilize the country, curry favor with the military, and try to organize a coup like they did in Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, and a bunch of other countries in the area.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Not every country is as bad as the USA and UK. Many don't have mass surveillance programs targeting all citizens, for example. The NSA is probably the worst example in any democracy.
Re:I hear ya (Score:4, Informative)
It would be more correct to say, because spying on foreigners is a treaty violation and not a Constitutional violation, American citizens lack the legal standing to challenge it in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that an international court would be the place to raise a complaint, and it would require a foreign government to file a case
It would also require the international criminal court to have jurisdiction. The USA has never agreed to be subject to its rulings and has refused to abide by the Hague's suggestions in the past.
On one instance, the USA refused to pay damages to a Latin American country after we attempted to overthrow their current dictator.
On another case, Texas sentenced a couple of Mexican citizens to death in response to a double rape & double homicide they had committed. Mexico demanded the execution be halted. The international courts ordered Texas to halt the execution. George Bush sued Texas claiming that he had the authority to prevent Texas from interfering with his ability to conduct foreign policy and that the Hague's ruling meant Texas must call off the execution. The case ended up before the US Supreme Court which ruled that the US Constitution gave Texas the authority to execute criminals and that the US Constitution trumps international laws, international courts & the President's foreign policy interest. Texas proceeded to execute the two murderers.
Re:I hear ya (Score:4, Informative)
Can you state the names of the treaties that the NSA is specifically violating?
There's the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, specifically Article 31, "Inviolability of the consular premises", and Article 35, "Freedom of communication". The USA ratified that in 1969.