It is widely believed that the revelations by Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, have dented US moral hegemony. America will no longer be able to criticise states that subordinate civil liberties to reasons of state. But the muted domestic political response to the revelations threatens to damage US standing further. Genuine American patriots are left wondering whether the nation still has the critical vigilance to restore passion to its ideals.
The revelations were morally problematic in four ways. First, they instituted an untenable hierarchy between the human rights of foreigners and Americans. Let us take at face value the claim that the protections of US citizens against surveillance were violated only incidentally. Let us also accept that states will privilege their own citizens over others. Implicit in the debate is a premise few seem to have questioned: that it is justified for the US to violate the privacy rights of citizens of other countries without just cause. It has rendered meaningless whatever domestic protections citizens of other nations may enjoy against their own democratic governments. Why should an Indian citizen fight unregulated surveillance at home when the US can carry it out anyway?
It could be argued that, in times of war or public security exigency, such rights are indeed suspended. But this claim rests on another presumption: that almost everyone is a potential threat to safety in the US. So the US need not give any justification for violating the rights of others. Then combine this presumption with another claim underlying US foreign policy: that morally problematic means such as torture, or in some cases drone attacks, are acceptable so long as they are used overseas. This reinstates the most morally problematic aspect of imperialism. Edmund Burke described this as geographical morality. Rules that apply to the “civilised” do not apply to outsiders. This leads us to the second moral problem: there is no surer way of losing moral hegemony than embracing this approach.