INTL613Wk3
Rawono1
America_ChoosingSecurityOverLibertySince1798ForeignPolicy.pdf
This article was published more than 10 years ago
ARGUMENT An expert's point of view on a current event.
America: Choosing Security Over Liberty Since 1798 Sorry, Edward Snowden -- the United States has a long, dubious history of putting national security before people's freedoms.
By Hayes Brown
My FP: Follow topics and authors to get straight to what you like. Exclusively for FP subscribers. Subscribe Now | Log In
JUNE 11, 2013, 10:56 PM
In the past week, Americans have learned of a dizzying array of heretofore unrevealed surveillance programs, part of a hidden security structure ostensibly designed to prevent
terrorist attacks from ever occurring on U.S. soil again. Reactions from commentators have ranged from furious outrage to reasoned concern to outright dismissal of the programs’
implications. Those in the latter camp have begun to rail against former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor Edward Snowden for his release of the National Security Agency documents
that have sparked a furious debate over the balance between privacy and security in the digital age; meanwhile, opponents have dismissed him as an unhinged narcissist or a
sociopathic nerd.
Whether his actions are moral or justifiable is up for debate, but Snowden himself made his motivations clear in his email correspondence with Washington Post reporter Barton
Gellman. In his view, America’s security state has simply become too large and intrusive in the face of the relatively minor threat of terrorism. "We managed to survive greater threats
in our history … than a few disorganized terrorist groups and rogue states without resorting to these sorts of programs," he told Gellman.
It’s a fascinating quote. But one must wonder whether his statement — so compelling on its surface — holds true after an examination of U.S. history. Precisely when, exactly, was the
period that he refers to, when a threat greater than those we face today was bravely met without any serious infringements on liberty? Was there ever such a period?
Moving backward through history, we can first quickly dispense with the last 12 years. Following 9/11, President George W. Bush’s administration enacted policies that will likely
become synonymous with executive overreach, the policies many of President Barack Obama’s supporters are now disappointed he didn’t do more to rein in. These included the
National Security Agency’s program of illegally wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, first revealed in 2005, which set the stage for today’s concerns about whether the
agency is in the habit of using its vast infrastructure to find and store every crumb of data about millions of people in the country. Muslim Americans also saw themselves the frequent
victims of assaults on their civil liberties, finding themselves on the receiving end of enhanced scrutiny and frequent harassment from law enforcement.
It’s equally doubtful that Snowden was thinking of the 1960s and 1970s when he spoke to Gellman. Befitting a period of social change and upheaval, many of the threats the
government sought to counter during this period were internal in nature. It was also a time when U.S. security agencies, both domestic and foreign, held more power than they ever
have at any point, as Congress routinely ignored its oversight responsibilities. The work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is best remembered for the harassment of
civilians taking part in the civil rights movement or other activities deemed subversive. Even as lauded a peace advocate as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. found himself the target of
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
FBI snooping, as agents gathered dirt to potentially discredit him and his movement. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Program — better known as COINTELPRO — reached into the
lives of people across the ideological spectrum, from the Black Panthers to the Ku Klux Klan, all in the name of protecting security.
It took Congress finally stepping in after Watergate to bring the FBI and other agencies to heel. In the course of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with
Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church Committee, a vast network of actions hidden from the public was exposed, ranging from the reading of Americans’
mail to crackdowns on Vietnam protesters to Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET.
Under SHAMROCK, all telegraphs to and from the United States were captured as signals intelligence, regardless of their origin or destination. At the program’s peak, 15,000 telegrams
a month were intercepted. MINARET, meanwhile, analyzed these electronic communications and passed along information on predetermined U.S. citizens to other intelligence and
law enforcement agencies for follow-up. MINARET operated from 1969 until 1973, while SHAMROCK was allowed to continue from 1945 all the way until 1975 when NSA Director Lew
Allen finally shuttered it. If you were to try to design a perfect historical analogue to today’s digital concerns, the activities revealed in the Church Committee’s investigations would
come close — with the added concern that the content of those documents were examined, rather than just logging the author and recipient before sending it on its way. (The concept
of "metadata" was still a few decades away.) The committee’s findings led to a series of reforms, including the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which instituted the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to provide much stricter oversight of the executive branch’s actions. Unfortunately, those reforms have been chipped away at by
successive administrations since then, and the FISC was responsible for authorizing the NSA’s metadata collection.
Back in the 1950s, the United States faced a true existential threat in the form of the Soviet Union, and nuclear war seemed a very real possibility. In this climate, the federal
government used every tool at its disposal to root out potential subversives — often bending or just outright shattering constitutional principles in the process. In an example of
overreach in the legislative branch, that which is supposed to be most closely aligned with the interests of the people, the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate’s
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation used the sweeping powers Congress had granted itself to conduct countless numbers of hearings into the communist threat to the
homeland, including high-profile investigations of Hollywood’s writers and actors and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s infamous allegations of communists throughout the government. The
committees’ investigations led to massive infringement on the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Going back another leap takes us to World War II, before Snowden’s parents were even born. During the war years, the United States massively infringed on Americans’ right to privacy
in ways at least as great as we see today. In the days after Pearl Harbor, the Office of Censorship was set up under the First War Powers Act, granting its director "absolute discretion" in
censoring internal communications. Under this arrangement, postal censorship was put into place in the United States, with all mail that passed through the U.S. Postal Service
subject to opening, inspection, and follow-up investigation. The program worked closely with the Office of Strategic Services, later to become the CIA, and was deemed necessary to
prevent messages between espionage agents planted within the country from going unnoticed. The end of the war saw the creation of the NSA, the new iteration of the
wartime Armed Forces Security Agency, and the institution of Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET. And in perhaps one of the most repugnant instances of violating liberty for By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
!function(e,t,n,s,u,a){e.twq||(s=e.twq=function(){s.exe?s.exe.apply(s,arguments):s.queue.push(arguments); },s.version='1.1',s.queue=
[],u=t.createElement(n),u.async=!0,u.src='//static.ads-twitter.com/uwt.js', a=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0],a.parentNode.insertBefore(u,a))}
(window,document,'script'); // Insert Twitter Pixel ID and Standard Event data below twq('init','nzlz2'); twq('track','PageView');
security, thousands of Japanese-Americans were rounded up and placed into internment camps on the West Coast for the duration of the war. No charges were brought against the
families moved to these camps; their relatives’ country of origin was evidence enough.
And Snowden probably wouldn’t have been thrilled with the U.S. activities during World War I, which saw President Woodrow Wilson and Congress come together to pass
the Espionage Act of 1917 — making it a crime to interfere with military operations — and the Sedition Act of 1918, which expanded the former to criminalize any speech that cast the
government or the war in a negative light and which allowed the postmaster general to refuse to deliver any mail that he personally felt would inhibit the war. (If the government
prosecutes Snowden for his actions, it would likely be under the Espionage Act.) The Civil War was no triumph of liberty over security either. In fact, it saw the beginning of the
modern executive consolidation of power with regard to national security. Abraham Lincoln outright suspended the writ of habeas corpus, the constitutional provision allowing for a
speedy trial, to advance the war effort, something no president since then has attempted to do against U.S. citizens. Lincoln also tasked his postmaster general (then a cabinet
position), Montgomery Blair, with examining mail in order to root out Confederate sympathizers. As in world wars I and II, all post was considered a legitimate target for intelligence-
gathering activities.
Even the Founding Fathers, the supposed exemplars to which Americans set their gaze in times of trouble, failed on this issue. President John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act
of 1798 in the face of the "Quasi-War" against France. Under this provision, the U.S. government set aside the First Amendment it had so recently penned and restricted the ability of
its citizens to publish documents or give speeches seen as anti-government — all in the name of protecting the country from a threat that never materialized and that few Americans
now remember.
Indeed, the truth is that we — and Snowden — do not live in an anomalous time. Rather, history is replete with instance after instance of the U.S. government suppressing or outright
violating the rights of its people in the name of furthering national security. In each case, and at each point in history, we see evidence that goes against the idea of a utopian past in
which freedoms and liberty went unimpeded while Americans’ remained safe and protected within its borders.
This isn’t at all to say that the NSA or the Obama administration should get a free pass on allowing these surveillance programs to grow and flourish under their watch. Nor is it meant
to make light of the fact that the government now has the ability to copy and store the billions upon billions of pieces of information it intercepts indefinitely in databases for future
use, something previous administrations could only dream of. Not nearly enough debate has gone on in the harsh light of day over just what freedoms we are willing to exchange in
the name of security. But in conducting that debate, we would do well not to delude ourselves into falsely remembering a time when the United States was innocent of breaking the
trust of its people in the name of protecting them. That time never existed.
My FP: Follow topics and authors to get straight to what you like. Exclusively for FP subscribers. Subscribe Now | Log In
Hayes Brown writes for ThinkProgress, a blog run by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
READ MORE ON ECONOMICS | NORTH AMERICA | SECURITY
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Foreign Policy","url":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com","logo":
{"@type":"ImageObject","height":60,"url":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/wp-
content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/logo.png","width":74}},"@type":"NewsArticle","mainEntityOfPage":
{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/2013\/06\/11\/america-choosing-security-over-liberty-since-1798\/"},"headline":"America: Choosing Security
Over Liberty Since 1798","description":"Sorry, Edward\nSnowden -- the United States has a long, dubious history of putting national\nsecurity before people's freedoms.
\u00a0","Articlebody":"<p> In the past week, Americans have learned of a\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/investigations\/us-intelligence-mining-
data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program\/2013\/06\/06\/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html\">dizzying array<\/a>\u00a0of
heretofore\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/world\/2013\/jun\/06\/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order\">unrevealed surveillance programs<\/a>, part
of a hidden security structure ostensibly designed to prevent terrorist attacks from ever occurring on U.S. soil again. Reactions from commentators have ranged
from\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/video.msnbc.msn.com\/msnbc\/52151328\">furious outrage<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/bloggingheads.tv\/videos\/18890?
in=06:35&out=10:36\">reasoned concern<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/_nothingtohide\">outright dismissal<\/a>\u00a0of the programs'
implications. Those in the latter camp have begun to rail against former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor\u00a0<a
href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/world\/2013\/jun\/09\/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance\">Edward Snowden<\/a>\u00a0for his release of the
National Security Agency documents that have sparked a furious debate over the balance between privacy and security in the digital age; meanwhile, opponents have
dismissed him as an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/online\/blogs\/comment\/2013\/06\/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html\">unhinged
narcissist<\/a> or a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2013\/06\/11\/opinion\/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html\">sociopathic nerd<\/a>. <\/p> <p> Whether his actions
are moral or justifiable is up for debate, but Snowden himself made his motivations clear in his\u00a0email correspondence with <i>Washington Post <\/i>reporter<i>
<\/i>Barton Gellman. In his view, America's security state has simply become too large and intrusive in the face of the relatively minor threat of terrorism. "We
managed to survive greater threats in our history \u2026 than a few disorganized terrorist groups and rogue states without resorting to these sorts of programs," he
told Gellman. <\/p> <p> It's a fascinating quote. But one must wonder whether his statement -- so compelling on its surface -- holds true after an examination of U.S.
history. Precisely when, exactly, was the period that he refers to, when a threat greater than those we face today was bravely met without any serious infringements on
liberty? Was there ever such a period? <\/p> <p> Moving backward through history, we can first quickly dispense with the last 12 years. Following 9\/11, President George
W. Bush's administration enacted policies that will likely become synonymous with executive overreach, the policies many of President Barack Obama's supporters are
now disappointed he didn't do more to rein in. These included the National Security Agency's program of\u00a0<a
href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2006\/01\/23\/politics\/23cnd-wiretap.html\">illegally wiretapping<\/a>\u00a0American citizens without a warrant, first revealed in
2005, which set the stage for today's concerns about whether the agency is in the habit of using its vast infrastructure to find and store every crumb of data about
millions of people in the country. Muslim Americans also saw themselves the frequent victims of assaults on their civil liberties, finding themselves on the receiving end
of enhanced scrutiny and <a href=\"http:\/\/thinkprogress.org\/justice\/2011\/12\/02\/380435\/aclu-alleges-�i-illegally-outreach\/\">frequent harassment<\/a> from law
enforcement. <\/p> <p> It's equally doubtful that Snowden was thinking of the 1960s and 1970s when he spoke to Gellman. Befitting a period of social change and
upheaval, many of the threats the government sought to counter during this period were internal in nature. It was also a time when U.S. security agencies, both domestic
and foreign, held more power than they ever have at any point, as Congress routinely ignored its oversight responsibilities. The work of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is best remembered for the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.aarclibrary.org\/publib\/contents\/church\/contents_church_reports_book2.htm\">harassment of
civilians<\/a>\u00a0taking part in the civil rights movement or other activities deemed subversive. Even as lauded a peace advocate as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
found himself the <a href=\"http:\/\/aarclibrary.org\/publib\/church\/reports\/book3\/html\/ChurchB3_0043a.htm\">target of FBI snooping<\/a>, as agents gathered dirtBy using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
to potentially discredit him and his movement. The FBI's Counterintelligence Program -- better known as\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/vault.�i.gov\/cointel-
pro\">COINTELPRO<\/a>\u00a0-- reached into the lives of people across the ideological spectrum, from the Black Panthers to the Ku Klux Klan, all in the name of
protecting security. <\/p> <p> It took Congress finally stepping in after Watergate to bring the FBI and other agencies to heel. In the course of the Senate Select Committee
to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the\u00a0<a
href=\"http:\/\/www.senate.gov\/artandhistory\/history\/minute\/Church_Committee_Created.htm\">Church Committee<\/a>, a vast network of actions hidden from the
public was exposed, ranging from the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.aarclibrary.org\/publib\/contents\/church\/contents_church_reports_vol4.htm\">reading of
Americans' mail<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.aarclibrary.org\/publib\/contents\/church\/contents_church_reports_vol2.htm\">crackdowns on Vietnam
protesters<\/a>\u00a0to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aarclibrary.org\/publib\/contents\/church\/contents_church_reports_vol5.htm\">Projects SHAMROCK and
MINARET<\/a>. <\/p> <p> Under SHAMROCK, all telegraphs to and from the United States were captured as signals intelligence, regardless of their origin or destination.
At the program's peak, 15,000 telegrams a month were intercepted. MINARET, meanwhile, analyzed these electronic communications and passed along information on
predetermined U.S. citizens to other intelligence and law enforcement agencies for follow-up. MINARET operated from 1969 until 1973, while SHAMROCK was allowed
to continue from 1945 all the way until 1975 when NSA Director Lew Allen\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cia.gov\/library\/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence\/csi-
publications\/csi-studies\/studies\/winter_spring01\/article12.pdf\">finally shuttered it<\/a>. If you were to try to design a perfect historical analogue to today's digital
concerns, the activities revealed in the Church Committee's investigations would come close -- with the added concern that the content of those documents were
examined, rather than just logging the author and recipient<b> <\/b>before sending it on its way.<b> <\/b>(The concept of "metadata" was still a few decades
away.) The committee's findings led to a series of reforms, including the passage of the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fas.org\/irp\/agency\/doj\/fisa\/\">Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act<\/a>, which instituted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to provide much stricter oversight of the executive branch's
actions. Unfortunately, those reforms have been chipped away at by successive administrations since then, and the FISC was responsible for authorizing the NSA's
metadata collection. <\/p> <p> Back in the 1950s, the United States faced a true existential threat in the form of the Soviet Union, and nuclear war seemed a very real
possibility. In this climate, the federal government used every tool at its disposal to root out potential subversives -- often bending or just outright shattering
constitutional principles in the process. In an example of overreach in the legislative branch, that which is supposed to be most closely aligned with the interests of the
people, the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/opb\/thesixties\/topics\/politics\/newsmakers_4.html\">House Un-American Activities Committee<\/a>\u00a0and
the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation used the sweeping powers Congress had granted itself to conduct countless numbers of hearings into the
communist threat to the homeland, including\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=taancRcLQ8o\">high-profile investigations<\/a>\u00a0of
Hollywood's writers and actors and Sen. Joseph McCarthy's\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/historymatt\ners.gmu.edu\/d\/6456\/\">infamous allegations<\/a>\u00a0of
communists throughout the government. The committees' investigations led to massive infringement on the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
<\/p> <p> Going back another leap takes us to World War II, before Snowden's parents were even born. During the war years, the United States massively infringed on
Americans' right to privacy in ways at least as great as we see today. In the days after Pearl Harbor, the Office of Censorship was set up under the\u00a0<a
href=\"http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/granule\/USCODE-2011-title50\/USCODE-2011-title50-app-firstwarp\/content-detail.html\">First War Powers Act<\/a>, granting its
director "absolute discretion" in censoring internal communications. Under this arrangement,\u00a0<a
href=\"http:\/\/www.archives.gov\/research\/holocaust\/finding-aid\/civilian\/rg-216.html\">postal censorship<\/a>\u00a0was put into place in the United States, with
all mail that passed through<b> <\/b>the U.S. Postal Service subject to opening, inspection, and follow-up investigation. The program\u00a0<a
href=\"https:\/\/www.cia.gov\/library\/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence\/csi-publications\/csi-studies\/studies\/vol46no3\/article10.html\">worked
closely<\/a>\u00a0with the Office of Strategic Services, later to become the CIA, and was deemed necessary to prevent messages between espionage agents plantedBy using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
within the country from going unnoticed. The end of the war saw the creation of the NSA, the new iteration of the wartime\u00a0<a
href=\"http:\/\/www.nsa.gov\/public_info\/_files\/cryptologic_histories\/origins_of_nsa.pdf\">Armed Forces Security Agency<\/a>, and the institution of Projects
SHAMROCK and MINARET. And in perhaps one of the most repugnant instances of violating liberty for security, thousands of Japanese-Americans were rounded up
and placed into internment camps on the West Coast for the duration of the war. No charges were brought against the families moved to these camps; their relatives'
country of origin was evidence enough. <\/p> <p> And Snowden probably wouldn't have been thrilled with the U.S. activities during World War I, which saw President
Woodrow Wilson and Congress come together to pass the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/18\/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_37.html\">Espionage Act of
1917<\/a>\u00a0-- making it a crime to interfere with military operations -- and the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/jureeka\/index.php?
doc=USPubLaws&cong=65&no=150\">Sedition Act of 1918<\/a>, which expanded the former to criminalize any speech that cast the government or the war in a
negative light and which allowed the postmaster general to refuse to deliver any mail that he personally felt<b> <\/b>would inhibit the war. (If the government prosecutes
Snowden for his actions, it would likely be under the Espionage Act.) The Civil War was no triumph of liberty over security either. In fact, it saw the beginning of the
modern executive consolidation of power with regard to national security. Abraham Lincoln outright\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.history.com\/this-day-in-
history\/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war\">suspended the writ of habeas corpus<\/a>, the constitutional provision allowing
for a speedy trial, to advance the war effort, something no president since then has attempted to do against U.S. citizens. Lincoln also tasked his postmaster general
(then a cabinet position), Montgomery Blair, with examining mail in order to root out Confederate sympathizers. As in world wars I and II, all post was considered a
legitimate target for intelligence-gathering activities. <\/p> <p> Even the Founding Fathers, the supposed exemplars to which Americans set their gaze in times of
trouble, failed on this issue. President John Adams signed into law the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/constitution.org\/rf\/sedition_1798.htm\">Sedition Act of
1798<\/a>\u00a0in the face of the "Quasi-War" against France. Under this provision, the U.S. government set aside the First Amendment it had so recently
penned and restricted the ability of its citizens to publish documents or give speeches seen as anti-government -- all in the name of protecting the country from a threat
that never materialized and that few Americans now remember. <\/p> <p> Indeed, the truth is that we -- and Snowden -- do not live in an anomalous time. Rather, history
is replete with instance after instance of the U.S. government suppressing or outright violating the rights of its people in the name of furthering national security. In
each case, and at each point in history, we see evidence that goes against the idea of a utopian past in which freedoms and liberty went unimpeded while Americans'
remained safe and protected within its borders. <\/p> <p> This isn't at all to say that the NSA or the Obama administration should get a free pass on allowing these
surveillance programs to grow and flourish under their watch. Nor is it meant to make light of the fact that the government now has the ability to copy and store the
billions upon billions of pieces of information it intercepts indefinitely in databases for future use, something previous administrations could only dream of. Not nearly
enough debate has gone on in the harsh light of day over just what freedoms we are willing to exchange in the name of security. But in conducting that debate, we would
do well not to delude ourselves into falsely remembering a time when the United States was innocent of breaking the trust of its people in the name of protecting them.
That time never existed. <\/p> ","datePublished":"2013-06-11T22:56:38+00:00","dateModified":"2013-06-
11T22:56:38+00:00","url":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/2013\/06\/11\/america-choosing-security-over-liberty-since-1798\/","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Hayes
Brown","url":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/author\/hayes-brown\/"},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/wp-
content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/statue21.jpg?w=625","height":400,"width":625},"isAccessibleForFree":"False","hasPart":
{"@type":"WebPageElement","isAccessibleForFree":"False","cssSelector":".content-gated"}}
var myFpData = {"postType":"post"};
var fpUtilsLoc = {"isDev":"","redirectUri":"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/share_redirect\/"};
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
var pianoData = {"cache_group_nonce":"2e32a60546","use_piano_environment":"production","userLevels":
{"isReg":false,"isSub":false,"isInsider":false,"isPremium":false,"isIspyPlus":false,"isIPAccess":false}};
var postDataPiano = ["Economics","North America","Security","article"];
var newslettersLocal = {"hostURL":"foreignpolicy.com","wpNonce":"0a7f851878"};
var takeoverSettings = [{"subscription_level":["IPACCESS"],"id":1109007,"qualifiers":["subscription_level"],"takeover_html":"\n<div id=\"takeover-1109007\"
class=\"takeover takeover-type-slider slider-right device-all\" data-takeover-type=\"slider\">\n\t\n<div id=\"takeover-content-1109007\" class=\"takeover-content
takeover-animation-right bg-black\">\n <div role=\"button\" id=\"takeover-close_button-1109007\" class=\"takeover-close-1109007 takeover-close takeover-close--
button\" aria-label=\"close\">\u00d7<\/div>\n \n <div>\n <div class=\"takeover-image-container\" style=\"background-image: url('https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/wp-
content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Email-Banner-3-FP-podcasts-\u2013-700x236-1.png');\"><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <div class=\"takeover-content-wrapper\">\n <h1>Stay in the
know<\/h1>\n\n <div class=\"takeover-body-content\">\n Download the FP app to read Foreign Policy on-the-go. Enjoy mobile app-exclusives like My FP and saved
articles. Plus, see FP events and podcasts all in one place. <\/div>\n\n <div class=\"takeover-body-content\">\n <a
href=\"https:\/\/help.foreignpolicy.com\/organizational-subscriptions\" class=\"takeover-cta\" id=\"takeover-cta-1109007\" target=\"_blank\">INSTRUCTIONS FOR IP
USERS<\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n <div class=\"takeover-body-content\">\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <div id=\"takeover-close_text-1109007\" class=\"takeover-close-1109007
takeover-close\">Close<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n","integration":
{"integration_type":"none","sailthru_list_id":"","salesforce_lead_source":"","salesforce_return_url":""},"newsletter_id":"","template":"slider","device_targeting":"all","cookie
var onboardingLocal = {"wpNonce":"af531e4f4d","hostURL":"foreignpolicy.com","hostProtocol":"https","postDataPiano":["Economics","North
America","Security","article"]};
var fpLiveLocal = {"wpNonce":"20d6d651b2","postId":null,"eventStatus":null,"shouldCheckForLive":"","shouldCheckForVideo":"","shouldCheckForPast":""};
var chartbeatData = {"category_name":"Argument","author_list":"Hayes Brown"};
var myFpAlertsLoc = {"isVIPEnv":"1"};
var fpNativeAdData = [];
var zMoatADVERTISER = {"moatPassback":"editorial"};
var jetpackLazyImagesL10n = {"loading_warning":"Images are still loading. Please cancel your print and try again."};
_stq = window._stq || []; _stq.push([ "view", {v:'ext',blog:'162972146',post:'23259',tz:'-4',srv:'foreignpolicy.com',hp:'vip',j:'1:12.6.2'} ]); _stq.push([ "clickTrackerInit",
"162972146", "23259" ]);
window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.info={"beacon":"bam.nr-
data.net","licenseKey":"f5b9626936","applicationID":"224917688","transactionName":"Z1cDYUFXXhVYWkINXF4dIFZHX18IFkpfClRcVw==","queueTime":0,"applicationT
data.net","agent":""}
!function(b,e,f,g,a,c,d){b.�q||(a=b.�q=function(){a.callMethod?a.callMethod.apply(a,arguments):a.queue.push(arguments)},b._�q||
(b._�q=a),a.push=a,a.loaded=!0,a.version="2.0",a.queue=[],c=e.createElement(f),c.async=!0,c.src=g,d=e.getElementsByTagName(f)[0],d.parentNode.insertBefore(c,d))}
(window,document,"script","https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/�events.js");�q("init","203988873637408");�q("set","agent","tmgoogletagmanager","203988873637408"
var fs=window.RequestFileSystem||window.webkitRequestFileSystem;fs&&fs(window.TEMPORARY,100,function(a){dataLayer.push({event:"browsermode
normal"})},function(a){dataLayer.push({event:"browsermode incognito"})}); By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
(function(a,e,b,f,g,c,d){a[b]=a[b]||function(){(a[b].q=a[b].q||[]).push(arguments)};c=e.createElement(f);c.async=1;c.src="https://www.clarity.ms/tag/"+g+"?
ref\x3dgtm2";d=e.getElementsByTagName(f)[0];d.parentNode.insertBefore(c,d)})(window,document,"clarity","script","�dmmngnjg");
!function(){function e(d){var b=!(1<arguments.length&&void 0!==arguments[1])||arguments[1],a=document.createElement("script");a.src=d;b?a.type="module":
(a.async=!0,a.type="text/javascript",a.setAttribute("nomodule",""));b=document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];b.parentNode.insertBefore(a,b)}!function(d,b){var
a=d;var c=b;var f=2<arguments.length&&void 0!==arguments[2]?arguments[2]:{},g,h,k;f.accountId=c;null!==(g=a.marfeel)&&void 0!==g||(a.marfeel={});null!==(h=
(k=a.marfeel).cmd)&&void 0!==h|| (k.cmd=[]);a.marfeel.config=f;a="https://sdk.mrf.io/statics";e("".concat(a,"/marfeel-sdk.js?id\x3d").concat(c),!0);e("".concat(a,"/marfeel-
sdk.es5.js?id\x3d").concat(c),!1);c=void 0;!c}(window,3439,{})}();
Sailthru.init({customerId:"2865c3fe7ed521383f3e189a035e04c2",isCustom:!0,autoTrackPageview:!1});
Sailthru.track("pageview",{url:"https://foreignpolicy.com/?p\x3d23259",onSuccess:function(){console.log("trackPageView success")},onError:function()
{console.log("trackPageView failure")}});
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. This use includes personalization of content and ads, and traffic analytics. Review our Privacy Policy for more information.
