Latest Wikileaks Saga Leaves Me Cold
Latest Wikileaks Saga Leaves Me Cold
For some time I’ve felt somewhat sympathetic towards Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Far too many decisions which should be discussed in the public arena are, instead, concluded behind closed doors. Here in Australia you only need to witness the government deals on the NBN and a resources tax (see Is Marius Kloppers Bigger Than The PM?). Telstra shareholders will get to vote on whether they like the $11bn price tag for their legacy assets. Australian voters get no say in the matter.
For Assange’s latest stunt, however, I have no sympathy whatsoever. He has defended publishing thousands of confidential cables between US diplomats and their foreign counterparts as the pursuit of ‘freedom of speech’. Really?
I thought freedom of speech was about the right to express your own opinion. There is a big difference between that and the right to steal someone else’s privately held opinion and make it public. If Assange really believes in freedom of speech as he defines it, how about releasing every email he has ever sent, letter he has ever written and phone call he has ever made?
And then there was this little exchange as part of an online debate on www.guardian.co.uk. The best question posed to Assange was this from a former British diplomat:
“Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function?”
And his answer:
“If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.”
Seemed a pretty straight forward question to me.
Custom Search 2
Comments
I would post my thoughts but I am somewhat fearful of a rape chrage being thrust upon me.
Perhaps he has gone too far with the US cable posting but I still feel it is good to have at least one person pushing in the direction of less secrecy rather than more.
I agree with bristlemouth. Asange is undermining worldwide diplomacy under the guise of freedom of speech. He only seems interested in making a name for himself. Or possibly has some sort of anarchist agenda.
You have a point Steve. However, my problem is that too many governments in the West are happy to claim the moral high ground when 'less civilised' states misbehave, but are quite happy to employ unsavoury methods under the cloak of secrecy. The above British diplomat is basically suggesting that Britain, and countries like it, should not be under the same scrutiny as other countries.
For too long there have been two parallel worlds, one which exists in shadows and is unknown to the populace, and another world which is in the open. Western governments demand that they be judged by their conduct in the 'open world’, and that what happens in the other world is of no consequence. In a democracy this is a particularly unpalatable hypocrisy.
Politicians calling for Julian’s assassination are only reinforcing the point. This is akin to the Grand Ayatollah issuing a fatwa. These politicians are people who openly support rule-of-law, and various Western ideals, but secretly long for a secret world where they ARE the law. These are people who are more concerned with narrow nationalistic, short term self interest, than with the greater good. They are now getting a bit of their own medicine, and they don’t like it.
I’m not sure whether Julian Assange’s motives are noble or not, but if it sends the message that governments will be judged by ALL their actions, then I’m betting it’s for the greater long term good. I’d even suggest this is a watershed moment in history.
The problem I have here is that all these diplomatic cables are from the US. If there was to be true 'freedom of speech' as Asange appears to define it, then seeing all countries diplomatic cables would only seem fair.
Looking at this from another point of view, if only China's diplomatic cables were being released, a country we are not allied with, I believe this would open the eyes of many in this country while fostering an atmosphere of fear, apprehension and a gradual move toward isolation. The media will eat it all up like a Sunday dinner, spewing mass paranioa, and gladly lining their pockets all the while.
The British diplomat is spot on with his question, this will hurt vastly more than it will help.
Whilst the above question makes a good case in point for maintaining a level of secrecy I still feel inclined to support Wikileaks stance. I feel that the amount of directly conflicting information coming from these cables when compared to the messages told to the public staggering and reinforces the notion that our governments in fact treat us like idiots.
What I would absolutely love, for example, is if there was a massive leak of information about the boat people debate out of Canberra just to get an idea one way or the other about how the politicians really feel about the issue and how much is pandering and bluster.
I really hope that the governments of the world learn from this and whilst some things must remain private we shouldn't be lied to.
Further our govts need to get past this, I cannot believe the level anger about the leak regarding some strategic targets, I mean really it is common knowledge amongst even basic IT people that there is (was) only one cable connecting Australia to the US, defence contracts are public knowledge as are locations of power stations etc
Lastly in response to the question raised by the british diplomat. If diplomats cannot adapt to a new, difficult, challenging and changing environments (personally i wouldve thought this would be bare minimum of anyone dealing in foreign policy) then we're all doomed anyway and a little public scrutiny is not going to change that!
Fair argument. But then western governments should say from the start that they want to prosecute for such reasons and not some trumped up sex charges. The problem is that western governments are currently colluding and engaging in character assassination, when they should be straight forward about it. Such actions are only going to push citizens of western nations to distrust their governments even more and possibly even rebel by following in the footsteps of Assange.
While I'm ambivalent about Wikileaks in general, I think this deserves comment:
"I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation."
Yes all very true. But quite possibly that same diplomat helped invent evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, hounded David Kelly for his views on Iraq, sold weapons and military know-how to Apartheid South Africa, turned a blind eye to Chinese supression in Tibet, and arranged for the refueling of CIA 'rendition planes' on UK soil, amongst others.
And that is why Wikileaks exists. Nobody denies that our governments, multinationals, not-for-profit organisations and global multilateral organisations do a lot of good for humankind, but they also lie to us, manipulate us, mislead us and act in their own interests. And that is why Wikileaks exists.
I agree. To suggest that "we the good guys should not be subject to this sort of scrutiny because it is detrimental to all our banevolent acts" is disingenuous.
- Wikileaks isn't a hacker, they can't just access any governments internal communications. They only have the US cables because a soldier with computer access gave it to them. If soldiers, public servants from other nations did the same, then they would release them. But you can't accuse them of only publishing US cables, as that is all they have access to.
- While this may cause short term pain, in the long term, how could it be a bad thing for every negotiation be under constant thoughts of 'I better act honorably, in case there is a leak about it'. Wasn't it Buffett who said, act like every action you make will be on the front page of tomorrow's news paper.
- I don't actually think the question the former diplomat posted was clear. His question was, should wikileaks be held responsible for ruining the entire western diplomatic process. I'll refer to the US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates on this one:
"Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think – I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.
Many governments – some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
- Like John, I like that there is someone out there who doesn't feel like the public are idiots to be marketed to, and who think there are enough people out there to draw their own conclusions from a clear presentation of facts, without the commentary and advertiser bias. Which if people read the Wikileaks mission statement is what their aim is.
- I'm sure every poster here will have no problems in the new year when they release the all of the Wall Street memo's they have, which Assange has himself described as 'an ecosystem of corruption'. One could argue that big business has more control over our individual lives than governments do anyway (another discussion entirely) but no-one will cry BoA and the like when their corrupt dealings are ousted.
- I was once told the best way to win an argument is to control the narrative. Why is it that everyone is focused on wikileaks. Why aren't the papers who are printing the cables under the same scrutiny? Why aren't people worried about the precedent of companies like PayPal, VISA and Mastercard refusing service to Wikileaks based on what can only be pressure (or perceived pressure) from governments. Why doesn't anyone care that Assange is getting treated the same from the US right wing media as people like David Hicks got. Why isn't anyone asking about the over reaction to what is basically water cooler gossip at a diplomatic level? Are governments more worried about what hasn't been released, rather than what has been?
I don't think Assange is a hero and anything that makes one person the arbiter of the truth is dangerous, but surely more truth and transparency by governments has to be a good thing.
I agree totally with the comments hear also! There is way to much secrecy about many things that there is not reason to be secret about. Much of what was published is hardly enlightening, most is what you would expect. Then we wouldn't be lied to in plain public so much ie about how great our banks are and how solid they are and yet now we see that they recieved bailout fund from the fed reserve. I am sure many owners of these businesses (shareholders) would have liked to known this, though once again not that commonsense would have made you doubt the initial statement.
Does anyone know how he is obtaining the information. I would certainly be concerned if it is being provided by anyone in a position of trust.
Ron Turner
I'm behind Mars, John, SteveDarke and others here. If this diplomat's messages to head office can fall into the hands of Wikileaks, they can fall into the hands of his supposed enemies anyway, without Wikileaks. The problem is with the security of the channel, and perhaps Wikileaks has done them a favour here.
There have been so many government-intervention screw ups over the past decade. Investigative journalism from the mass media no longer plays an effective counterbalancing role. I'm thankful for someone trying to shine a light, although they're bound to make errors in the process. At least I know what Assange is trying to do with his meddling, I can't say the same for Stephen Conroy. In the long term, a little anarchy is good for the system. It actually holds the potential to make the system better.
The very fact that you can express an opinion about this issue lies at the very heart of my objection to censorship. Who is to be the arbiter?
We can all be sure that if Assange has gotten these "confidential" cables then those who could profit from the information already have it. I would suggest it is naive to suggest otherwise.
And where is our free press? Caught in contrivance once again.
About half your blog is directed towards Julian Assange's style. He may be a strange fellow but that is playing the person not the principles that Wikileaks raises.
In constitutional law or theory (U.S., Aust. or elsewhere) there has never been any limitation on freedom of speech that restricts or limits it, as you claim, to the expression of "your own opinions". Voltaire has a better grasp of the issue: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it".
We've been through this before. When the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. government took the Times to the Supreme Court claiming "national security" was at risk. The Government lost. When President Richard Nixon was directed to handover his tapes of discussions with his aids, Nixon argued executive privilege and national security. Nixon lost. Government's invoke national security to pursue their own political ends.
Can someone point out to me exactly where national security has been jeopardised by Wikileaks?
And we just find out that Mark Arbib is a US spy from WikiLeaks. This is the man who was pretty much responsible for overthrowing Kevin Rudd as our PM.
I absolutely agree with Steve.
Too much of the commentary about Wikileaks has that frisson of shock/horror about it that all children experience when they first find out that adults say to each other things the children have been told not to say. The first time they hear adults laughing about Auntie's alcoholic confusions when they've been told it's polite not to notice.
Secrecy for some diplomacy is essential and for most diplomacy is necessary - especially between friends. China and Australia have a relationship of convenience and nothing Rudd said would have surprised them - nor will it affect the relationship because it's based on furthering national interests.
The relationship with the US - a friend - is different; more important and more easily undermined. China will always want to buy our iron ore and coal. Conversely, the US relationship has little in it for the US but friendship and sentiment and the occasional easily replaceable base. Not too many friendships can stand too much direct honesty.
The level of childish rejection of responsibility in much of the Wikileaks discussion is epitomised in the last paragraph of John's post:
"...If diplomats cannot adapt to a new, difficult, challenging and changing environments (personally i wouldve thought this would be bare minimum of anyone dealing in foreign policy) then we're all doomed anyway and a little public scrutiny is not going to change that!"
He made that comment in response to a diplomat who asked about solving problems like the Balkans conflict in which hundreds of thousands of people died. Grow up, John! As an adult, I have secrets and I know other adults have secrets. I don't spend my life feeling lied to and resenting my exclusion. I just accept that's how life is and draw my own conclusions about where the truth lies. I accept that the truth is so important that very few human activities can stand much of it becoming public.
...and if truth is so important to you, what's your real name, "John"?
Graeme Cant
Graeme, I agree, to demand that world governments operate with complete transparency is to demand something that we would never contemplate for ourselves. I agree, these are the sort of demands often made by the 'luny-tree-hugging-left'. Demands made by those who never have to implement policy, never have to actually make anything work. The demands of the impotent.
I agree that this fiasco is doing damage. I agree that many well intentioned objectives and noble causes are possibly being harmed.
The point however is that I believe the short term damage being done, in all likely hood, will be outweighed by the long term benefits. To demand a higher level of transparency, higher standards of conduct and reduced hypocrisy, is a world away from demanding that there be no secrets in the world.
As other have posted, there is a problem with worldwide governance, especially in areas which can claim the protection of government classification.
Specifically, you can get in major trouble for underclassifying stuff, but overclassification will at most get you a rap over the knuckles. Hence, things end up with a serious culture of secrecy, to the point where governments are keeping secrets even from the people they're meant to be serving. The politicians in democratic countries are at least subject to the discipline of the ballot box every few years, but the same cannot be said for the vast domestic, diplomatic and military bureaucracies that actually shape and execute government policy.
So, there is a trade-off to be made between a couple of principles here:
- governments not being honest with each other makes international diplomacy more difficult
- governments not being honest with their constituents threatens the very foundation of any democratic state
The players behind Wikileaks (of which Assange is but one) deem the second principle to be significantly more important than the first, and many reasonable people are going to agree with them. Let's face it, the risk of exposure has always been there in international dealings. The response from the US diplomat has it exactly right: there will be some fallout over specific incidents that are described in the leaked cables and documents, but the process of realpolitik will sail on regardless, as it is driven by necessity and immediate concerns.
Whistleblower protection laws exist for a reason - almost every whistleblower is going to be betraying a confidentiality agreement of some kind. Governments just have the special privilege of being able to call it treason.
As others have said, the *reaction* to the leaks (with many companies bowing to actual or anticipated US government pressure to avoid dealing with Wikileaks) is far more concerning than the leaks themselves. The US certainly has lost any standing it ever had in condemning other countries for censorship, given their all-out assault on Wikileaks.
Lets see the leaked Swedish police file on Julian in the interests of openness. We could all then pass judgment and save the legal wrangles.
To believe in free speech is to endorse abandonment of privacy? Whoa! Or that stealing is a synonym for publishing? How did someone with such a dearth of logical acumen wind up advising anybody on anything, much less posing as an intelligent investor? They sucked you right up into the super spin cycle, Steve. Happily I am only on a free trial. $59 a month for this drivel?
I bet your a hit at parties!
Well, beats me, but 83% of voters in a radio poll rate Assange as a hero (the remainder as a villain). I think, more than anything else, this reflects the low standing in which Governments are held - consequently, any exposing of their activities is seen as 'good' (or at least, "OK").
Personally, I fail to understand what good is served by this indescriminate dump of communications. You can't really call it "whistleblowing", because no particular wrong is being 'outed'.
And how on earth can anyone assert (or know) that no harm has or will be done by this release? There are 250,000 cables to be published. Are we all OK that Wikileaks and media outlets will ensure no harm arises?
Is the suggestion from Wikileaks that no intra- or inter-government communication should be confidential? Is there any other area of human endeavour where that approach works?
Geoff, your points have already been raised and pretty much debunked in the earlier posts. We would all get more out of these debates if we read the previous posts before posting our own contributions.
I tell you what, wouldn't intelligent investing be easier to do well if we got accurate information? What do you think about the 'mark to myth' accounting sanctioned, legalised and encouraged by the US gov for their banks which is little better than a Madoff accounting fraud. I say there are bigger things than privacy. If you are ashamed of something, don't do it in the first place. Don't say it is private. Just as shareholders who own the company have a right to know what's happening with their possession so too do citizens of a country have a right to access the truth about their country and their public SERVANTS. A few hurt feelings is a small price to pay to allow the informed consent vital to ensure that a free democratic society has the best chance to make decisions for the good of the majority and not just the information privileged few or else we will be fighting any population the powers to be chooses to say threatens our loved ones' lives with for example chemical weapons of mass destruction that are just a figment of a bureaucratic spin doctor's evil imagination.
Agree with Steve and others that this is not about freedom of speech. It's about democracy and international relations and whether or not it is better served by full transparency or (alternatively) discretion. Assange's massive leak of information under the guise of "free speech" is merely an irresponsible, experiment with political motives.
I suspect the likely outcomes of this (not) indiscriminate leaking of US communications will be the opposite of the intention. Diplomats unable to "speak freely" under constant scrutiny of laymen will simply resort to more security of information, or alternatively not be able to "speak freely" Ie. They'll resort further into the usual lies and euphemisms required to subdue a shallow, fickle electorate lacking knowledge of the situation on the ground.
I fear for the ability of nations to "get along" if the truth is spoken publicly. Let's see how our relations with China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia etc work out when we're completely upfront about their human rights records etc. Will the same people still be protesting about supposed "free speech" when their jobs linked to trade with these countries are gone? And i ponder how the tune of the same people might be different if this was focused on sensitive Australian embassy cables. I suspect then we'd be dealing with double standards.
It's fair enough to ask the question of whether or not democracy and international relations are best served by full transparency. Maybe in the end it is? But to single out and deliberately leak information of a particular nation Ie the US, is provocative, and political, and nothing to do with "free speech". Who could blame the US for reacting to such an attack?
This mentions nothing of the lives of the brave people in Afghanistan who've taken the risk of standing up to the Taliban put in jeopardy by Assange. No accountability.
Good on you wikileaks for countering the spin and tripe served up to us for too long. Imagine if there was wikileaks in action in Nazi Germany. Hitler may not have had nearly as much wind in his sails and therefore be given the red carpet to do what he and his cronies did. I want to know the real reasons why my Government chooses to send our citizens to war, and its conduct when engaged in battle. Bravo.
Matt, Firstly Australian and other countries have had their share of embassy leaks in recent days so no US centric agenda there, and I can't believe your following comment:
"Let's see how our relations with China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia etc work out when we're completely upfront about their human rights records etc"
That's like not suggesting to a rapist that their behaviour is not appropriate, in the interests of keeping up good relations with said person!
Hi Nick, you are right that human rights abuse should not be excused. And unfortunately, the analogy that you make about the rapist is actually what occurs in the world in the interest of pragmatism. I guess the point I was trying to make is that those championing the cause of Assange might not themselves be happy with the consequences of completely honest dialogue with trading partners. Personally i wish that our government had more power to force change in countries that commit human rights abuses. Unfortunately we don't.
As for how US centric the leaks are, my understanding is that the leaks are "250,000 US Embassy diplomatic cables" stolen by Bradley Manning. The previous WikiLeaks are also US centric and have centred on the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. There may very well be a few cables leaked outside of the US ones, but Assange's primary focus is on US foreign policy.
Well if you ask me, the "protector of the free world" could do with a bit of brushing up when it comes to foreign policy. There is oodles and oodles of room for improvement before it comes within cooee of discovering the "consequences of completely honest dialogue".
As to your comment: "Personally i wish that our government had more power to force change in countries that commit human rights abuses. Unfortunately we don't."
This highlights the problem with your mindset, you are compeletely blinded by the notion that "our governments" are inherently noble. This is perhaps a delusion created by years of being force fed a diet of mainstream media (and yes I include the ABC & SBS here). This gob smacking naivity alone is reason enough to champion Wikileaks. How else are we to provide some balance to the sh*te comming out of Today Tonight - or wherever you get your daily fix from.
I personally don't wish our goverments more power to meddle. They have not earned the right to be trusted on this front, least of all the "leader of the free world". A few more years of Wikileaks, and perhaps governments will have the incentive to mend their ways. Perhaps THEN, at a stretch, we can trust them moral crusades in distant lands.
So you disagree with Nick that the releases are not US focused?
To clarify, I don't think our governments are inherently noble. Nor do I think the consensus of the masses to be either. But there are certainly degrees of nobility.
I believe simply that there should be some balance to this, and that Assange's true motives should be published (or leaked).
Assuming in your view that governments are not noble then we must look at them relatively. You might find that the honesty, transparency and policies of Russia, China, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia or Iran to be inferior to the US (just to name a few). Or do you have double standards?
And you destroy your own argument when asking that the US "improve" their foreign policy. Did you not imply that they are self interested and not noble? A bit "naive" of you yourself to hope for anything better is it not?
Clearly neither of us enjoys Today Tonight.
Matt, what I'm saying is that the West, as the most affluent and most advanced nations in the world, with self proclaimed moral rectitude, deserves to have a light shone on it. The US, as the most powerful nation on earth, and self proclaimed 'leader of the free world', deserves a spot light. I hope you are not suggesting that Russia and Saudi Arabia should be the benchmark. To use a cliché, with power comes responsibility. So it’s not completely unreasonable for the leaks to be US focused.
We in the West get enough news about the evils in less advanced nations, but we do, to a significant degree, get brainwashed about our own virtues.
I absolutely agree, there are degrees of nobility. The reason the West is ‘more noble’, is that it has advanced to a point where it’s institutions are RELATIVELY strong. Powerful individuals are not above the law, governments are accountable etc. However, I think we would all agree that there is a lot of room for improvement. I am very optimistic that tomorrow our institutions will be even stronger, and nations will be even more ‘noble’ than they are today.
And that is the point, any claims to nobility are purely grounded in the transparency of these institutions. Secrecy and tact are essential in diplomacy and general government function, I agree. However, all too often it is used to circumvent all those institutions and ideals that make Western nations ‘noble’. The track record is that when transparency is absent, the motives are all too often questionable and indeed so are the outcomes. This is the track record, and it has seriously crippled claims to a moral high ground. To put governmnents on notice, may be just the antidote.
Post new comment