Brazil, the NSA, and the U.S. Cooperation Problem

Relations between the United States and Brazil have become strained in the last month following leaked reports from NSA contractor Edward Snowden. It was revealed that the NSA has been monitoring the phone calls and emails of Brazil’s president Dilma Rouseff, as well as collecting information coming from Brazil’s oil company Petrobras. The scandal has resulted in the cancelation of a visit to Washington by Rouseff in October and has sparked public debate within Brazil about the security of information within the country (The Economist). Brazil has announced that it will lay down a fiber-optic line that will allow the country’s electronic information to bypass the United States. They also plan to set up secure email systems that don’t rely on U.S. companies such as Gmail and Yahoo. This is significant because tensions between the two countries could have potentially far- reaching consequences for two of the biggest trading partners in the Americas.

One of the biggest issues from this conflict involves cooperation in the international system. On the world stage, cooperation is difficult since the international system is in anarchy, meaning there is no overarching force holding states accountable to their actions. Power and capabilities become essential for states to attain security from the uncertainty of actions of other states. Through this lens, realists would argue that the United States was simply using its superior capabilities to secure itself by accessing the maximum amount of information about other countries actions and interests (including Brazil). However these actions lead to a type of prisoner’s dilemma. In this situation, the United States wants to get information from Brazil to confirm that the country will continue to act in a way that is favorable to the U.S., which includes trade and security policies. Brazil, however wants to have sovereignty from outside influence. This means that the best situation for the US would be to have access to information on Brazilian actions unbeknownst to the country, while the best situation for Brazil would be to act freely without being spied on. Overall cooperation would be the best compromise for both countries. To attain it the U.S. would have to be ensured that activity hurtful to the country was not occurring within Brazilian borders, and as a result the United States would have to respect the privacy of Brazil’s secure information. In reality, such conflicts result in the worst situation for both nations where Brazil pursues protectionist policies that limit trade/cooperation with the US (such as investing in a bypassing fiber-optic cable), and the U.S. feels vulnerable to threats from geographically close countries.

At the moment, the U.S. appears to be at an advantage in the situation because their superior online technological infrastructure makes it likely that they can continue to collect information in the region regardless of the measures that Brazil takes. Experts have warned that a rerouted fiber-optic cable would only have a limited effect on securing data because information will still likely go through U.S. systems. They point out that even with tighter cyber security agreements, the U.S. can still do what it wants in the international system because “there is no oversight, there's no comeback if they do not live up to them” (BBC). Furthermore, trading relations are likely to be unaffected for the most part in the future between the countries because the two economies are so interdependent. This also makes more escalated forms of conflict such as war unlikely. So how or will the situation be resolved? Could future interactions be a way to encourage cooperation in the future with Internet surveillance? Only time will tell.

Sources:

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/09/brazil-and-united-states

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24145662

Foreign Policy: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/17/brazilian_president_snubs_white_house