Whistle for it!

Published: Aug 09 , 2013
Author: Robin Copland, Partner

Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport has, for the past month, played host to a pawn in the international diplomacy game, one Edward Snowden.  Mr Snowden is a "whistle-blower" who, depending on your point of view, has courageously defended the rights of downtrodden untermensch the world over, or on the other hand has committed a treasonous offence so heinous as to be punishable by a lengthy spell behind bars - a spell so long that all kinds of keys may just as well be thrown down various drains. 

In short, whilst employed as an infrastructure analyst at National Security Agency contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, he leaked details of internet and phone surveillance by American and British Intelligence agencies.  Knowing that the fan was about to become clogged, he fled the USA, initially for Hong Kong; when things became uncomfortable there, he left Hong Kong and flew to Moscow, from where he sought asylum in a number of countries.  The countries willing to offer asylum were few and far between, but just as his options seemed to be running out, Vladimir Putin offered a temporary one-year asylum in Russia.  There, in an unknown location, Snowden lives and presumably plots his next move.

It is well-known that Snowden is perceived by the American political elite as public enemy number one.  He did the unthinkable as far as they are concerned.  They want nothing more than to have him back in the USA to stand trial.  It is also well-known that presidents Putin and Obama are not necessarily the best of friends, so when Snowden landed in transit on Russian soil, it must have seemed like manna from Putin's heaven.  To keep him in limbo for a month just stoked the fires; the two men talked about the situation about three weeks into the stay, but nothing came of the talks.  Having wrung all that he could out of the enforced airport stay, Putin then rubbed salt in American wounds.

So why did Putin make the offer?  Why did he do so after a month for Snowden in limbo?  I wonder if it has anything to do with creating an irritant that may help in future negotiations.  I wonder if the move is designed to draw attention away from some other issue on which Russia feels exposed.  Perhaps, all that he is trying to do is create a bargaining chip for use in later negotiations.

In general, irritants can be used to create bargaining capital.  It does not cost Russia too much to give Snowden asylum, but it is certainly worth a lot to the Americans to have him returned.  If it is worth a lot, then, so the reasoning goes, the Americans may be prepared to pay a lot - if not financially then perhaps in other concessions.

But beware!  If they become too irritated and overplay it, then they may, in turn, raise the stakes and be asked to whistle for concessions that have already been made.  The response may far outweigh the benefits and there is no doubt that too much irritation can damage relationships.

STOP PRESS

Since writing this blog, I read that president Obama has cancelled a planned summit meeting with president Putin after the G20 conference in St Petersburg, citing amongst other reasons, the Snowden situation and accusing Russia of a "cold war mentality".  The Russian response is best summed up by Nationalist Duma deputy Vladimir Zhirinovsky, perhaps the most rabid of the many critics of the United States in parliament, who said the decision shows "disrespect" towards Russia.

"If you postpone or completely cancel meetings between heads of state under the pretext of the refusal to hand over one person, then relations between countries will quickly reach zero," Zhirinovsky said. 

The irony, perhaps, in all of this is that Snowden was trying to promote the release and sharing of information; instead, he seems, if only temporarily, to have brought communications between the political elite of Russia and the USA to a shuddering halt!

Robin Copland


SHARE

blogAuthor

About the author:

Robin Copland, Partner
No bio is currently avaliable

Latest Blog:

Muck Shift

Just when is a deal not a deal…? I heard this story from a friend of mine the other week; there are some lessons to be learned! So, my pal is a developer and is building some houses on what is essentially a square site. Two sides of the square can be accessed from the road in a neighboring housing estate and the other two are beside a field owned by another developer. There is a huge pile of muck to shift before the actual building project; this phase is known in the trade – and not unreasonably - as a "muck-shift"! As there will be 80 -100 lorries coming in and out each day for 6 weeks, it was considered more convenient to access the site over the field, so an approach was made to the developer to discuss the terms under which he would allow access. This is a standard arrangement and the deal typically is that the field would be returned to the owner in its original condition. Developer makes a bit of money, where otherwise he wouldn’t; homeowners in the adjoining estate are less inconvenienced; builder does not need to spend money cleaning the streets and getting them back to a usable state at the end of the project. Win-win.

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png