This is precisely what the likes of GCHQ and the NSA are for.
I would imagine that any G20 host and it allies would use the opportunity to gather intelligence. I would also assume that where ever it is hosted, many intelligence agencies would be active.
If not, then what are these agencies for? They were never designed for crime fighting or mass surveillance of populations. There were and still are for spying on nations. G20 summits are a prime and legit target.
So is it okay to do this? Even diplomacy has laws, you know.
These actions are in breach of Articles 27 and 30 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (of which the US and UK are signatories):
Article 27:
1.The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes.
Article 30:
1.The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.
2.His papers, correspondence and his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.
You'd have to be naive to think that every nation actually follows such laws. If they did, most jobs that intelligence agencies are supposed to conduct would be impossible.
With enemies really, who cares about the morality? They're out to get you, you're out to get them. With allies if you're both spying on each other you are thoroughly in the verify part of "Trust but verify." A decent intelligence network can give one a much higher level of security in one's allies good intentions.
Also, morality? Intelligence agencies? This is realpolitik man. If we assume high level politicians resemble executives they're 20% pstchopaths. The other 80% are also quite capable of reasoning amorally about goals and power.
I as a foreign citizen do take the morality of intelligence actions and foreign politics quite seriously.
As far as my view(which is rather ignorant, hence why I would like to know and discuss more) is concerned, I'd think that some form of international agreement on spying/intelligence gathering should be formed and enforced. For example the NSA hacking to Hong Kong machines should be a criminal offense, and the same should go the other way around. This stuff should really go through the legal system and people should be punished accordingly. Just because it is some form of governmental intelligence agency shouldn't ever put it above the law.
As we have seen with the case of NSA, it is used for domestic spying too and nobody really knows for what else.
Your proposed system requires a world government with real powers of enforcement. It is not in the interests of the USA, China, Russia, India, Pakistan or France to do this. Absent wholehearted cooperation by them this cannot happen. If you got all of them on board you might be able to get the rest of the world on board.
In the world we live in, and will continue living in until there is a world government there are bad people everywhere and some of them work for other governments, who can and will protect them. This doesn't even touch on the fact that your/my/any human values are not universal, and universal law is about universal enforcement. Whoever wins the last war gets to tell everyone what to do. That's what world government is.
Indeed this is an accurate statement of the values of many people everywhere. Given sufficiently alien values extermination is the goal. Compare the diversity of legitimate governmental systems in 1900 and now. Democracy is existentially hostile to everything else.
And burning the village to the ground is probably a stupid idea, which is a sufficient reason not to do it. But if it can be done and is the most efficient way of achieving the goal there are people doing it.
Service to the state, glory to the Race!
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!
The reality is that if every major country is spying on other major countries (and they are), there is no trust to violate because there is no trust to begin with.
One would imagine that every country attending a G20 summit would expect to be spied on like this, because they would be doing the same to others.
Does this somehow make the matter more acceptable on moral grounds though? I think it does not. If a government can't trust another one even when they have all sorts of contracts, policies, treaties, meetings and plans, how on earth should citizens be able to trust them?
I think the status quo should be less offensive and competitive and more trustworthy and collaborative. But then again, who would trust a liar, especially in situation where one too would lie?
This is precisely what the likes of GCHQ and the NSA are for.
I was under the impression they were there to protect a nation's security against foreign threats, not to spy on delegates at international conferences for economic and political advantage.
If our behaviour is essentially amoral and we are willing to break diplomatic treaties and international law in secret (as you are advocating), we should expect the same in return, and have no right to talk about international law, human rights, democracy, national sovereignty or expect anyone else to respect them when we need them. Why shouldn't Russia simply cut off the gas supply to the UK next winter when they don't get what they want, or start murdering government ministers rather than dissidents with Polonium? Realpolitik is a dangerous game to play, particularly when you are a declining power (as the UK is), and I think it better we at least try to stand up for the values we think are right, and hold ourselves to the same standards we would hold others to.
A lot of people think it would be okay for the UK to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy and haul Assange out by the hair of his head, too.
>If not, then what are these agencies for?
Mitigating actual threats to our national security, our allies' security, the security of our citizens abroad maybe. And not for helping Boeing outbid Airbus.
Whilst I agree with you, Id add that leaks such as this are good anyway, in that they raise awareness and make intelligence gathering capabilities clearer.
And the marines and the army are agencies precisely designed to kill foreign nationals. Would it be a "proper use" for them to target diplomats attending a conference?
You left out one important distinction -- that the thing they are designed to do constitues an act of aggression or at the very least undermines trust. These are supposedly allies.
I would imagine that any G20 host and it allies would use the opportunity to gather intelligence. I would also assume that where ever it is hosted, many intelligence agencies would be active.
If not, then what are these agencies for? They were never designed for crime fighting or mass surveillance of populations. There were and still are for spying on nations. G20 summits are a prime and legit target.
IMHO, this is a proper use of such agencies.