The Snowden effect in the Indo-Pacific region: political and social reactions to mass surveillance

Abstract

In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former US National Security Agency (NSA), reveals a list of documents about secret mass surveillance programs created by the White House and shared with the rest of the governments that belong to the Five Eyes Alliance (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), to virtually spy on populations, political leaders and corporations in the name of the global war on terror. This event revives the social and academic debate on the surveillance society of the XXI century, focused in finding the right balance between freedom and security. This article is inserted into the debate of critical studies on security and on the theories of surveillance, proposing the following research questions: what is the "Snowden effect" in the Indo-Pacific region? And what is the response of government and civil society to the discovery of surveillance by the Five Eyes Alliance countries? The analysis focuses on the reaction of thirteen governments and societies in the Indo-Pacific region to Snowden's 2013 mass surveillance revelations. For the analysis, eleven countries included in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey on mass surveillance and espionage (India, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Vietnam and China) are selected, followed by Australia and New Zealand as members of the Five Eyes. Data on the social reaction to the Snowden effect in these two countries are compiled from a survey conducted by Amnesty International in 2015. North Korea is not included in the analysis due to lack of available information.

The article adopts a qualitative methodology based on the collection of information available from primary and secondary open sources. The methodology used for the construction of the different indicators covers a wide variety of sources and resources, such as newspapers, videos, and other periodicals; monographs, demoscopic surveys, polls and annual reports; official press releases and government releases; national and international literature focused on critical security studies and, more specifically, on mass surveillance.The result of the combination of an analytical and a descriptive approach is a database on thirteen countries in the region, constructed from six indicators relating to the year 2013: the first is the color assigned to the country in the Heat Map generated by the tool used by the NSA, the Boundless Informant. The second indicator provides a dual classification of regime typology, based on reports prepared by The Economist Intelligence Unit and Freedom House. The next indicators describe the relationship between the countries of the region and the US (Indicator 3) and the relationship with the Five Eyes Alliance (4). The fifth indicator analyses the official response of governments, while the last one measures the social response in terms of protests and acceptance of surveillance in polls. The methodology employed includes a wide range of sources and resources, including newspapers, videos and other mass media; monographs, demographic surveys, and annual reports; official releases and government press releases; national and international literature focusing on critical security studies and, more particularly, on surveillance and mass espionage.

The results show that the Snowden effect in the Indo-Pacific region is limited because only five governments and five societies have a reaction. Regarding the limited government response, there is a clear regional dynamic to consider: countries that do not take an official stance have good relations with the US or the Five Eyes. The external factor is also essential to explain four of the five government responses: Australia and New Zealand justify their Alliance action; China openly criticizes the Five Eyes and the US, while Indonesia harshly criticizes Australia’s actions within a logic of competition for regional power. The only country in the region whose position is not explained by the external factor is India, which calls for accountability and responsibility from its Anglo-Saxon Partners. In terms of societal reaction, data on the protests show a limited Snowden effect in the Indo-Pacific, with small protests recorded in the capitals of Australia, India and the Philippines. The Hong Kong region is the scene of widespread protests, while the only country with nationwide protests is Indonesia. In line with the government's response, Australia is the target of social protests in Jakarta, where protesters burn national flags and photos of Prime Minister Abbott in front of the Australian Consulate. On the other hand, eight societies do not react to the Snowden effect. There are three possible reasons that explain this fact: first, the normalization of surveillance by 21st century societies could be a common element in the countries of the region. Second, the hub-and-spokes network of alliances between the US and its allies seems to have majority social support among the Indo-Pacific countries. Third, absent or partial democratization helps to keep the level of protests low: in this sense, the internal factor (non-democratic state, little social interest in certain issues, little habit and social inclination to demonstrate in public spaces) could explain the lack of protests in two countries classified as hybrid and partially free (Pakistan and Bangladesh) and two others classified as authoritarian and unfree (Vietnam and mainland China). On the other hand, surveillance is accepted at regional level when it is justified in the name of the fight against terrorism and, to a lesser extent, when it concerns only US citizens. In conclusion, the Snowden effect in the Indo-Pacific is limited in terms of government response due to the network of alliances built by the US, following the hub-and-spokes model. This factor is important for also understanding the lack of large-scale social reactions in the region, except for Indonesia. The lack of social protests is also due to causes such as the low level of internal democratization in some regimes such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Vietnam, and the normalization of surveillance in postmodern societies. The structure of the work is as follows. The first section provides the theoretical and conceptual framework on surveillance, presents the debate generated in critical security studies, and describes the methodology used. The second part explains the results in a database of the countries analyzed. Finally, the conclusions answer the research question, placing it in the current debates of critical security studies about mass surveillance.