The newspapers and blogs are predictably awash today with
reaction to the latest release by Wikileaks, and the sum total of this sound
and fury covers the spectrum from the funny (Dr. Charli Carpenter as a Julian Assange supporter) to the predictable (US government claims Wikileaks is going to get someone killed) to the disturbing (US Congressman working to get Wikileaks labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization).
It’s worth considering a few of the common themes in these
discussions:
- Wikileaks is telling us nothing we didn’t know before. That seems to be the premise of Dr. Carpenter’s post at Duck of Minerva.Really? If this is the case, then why the furor?
- Diplomats need a forum where they can tell lies, order UN regulations to be broken, and make unnecessarily snarky remarks about foreign dignitaries without being subjected to scrutiny by the public that they represent. That’s the moral of the story where Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber interprets Saki's "Tobermory" as a commentary on the need to keep some things quiet for the benefit of polite society.
- Wikileaks workers (and any those of any other organization that helps spread such documents) are terrorists and as such should be subjected to the full range of US instruments of power. Galrahn at Information Dissemination doesn’t seem to think this is the right course of action, but thinks the broadness of the current US law may allow it, and says that something must be done to “stand up” to Assange and his ilk.
- Government and conservative talking heads are continuing the tired tropes that “loose lips sink ships” – but so far, no sailors are to be seen bobbing in the waters, causing Nancy Youseff to raise the very legitimate question of how long the Administration and its supporters can keep using this line before they have to make like Jerry McGuire and “show us the bodies!”
So, a few thoughts. First, I believe that it’s a little early for bloggers to be writing off this release (or others) considering the volume of the material and their own probable lack of primary source research – really, have any of them read through all, the majority, or even a significant fraction of the total releases of this or previous leaks?
Second, Henry Farrell takes the wrong moral from Tobermory. The story was
not meant to show why it was in fact a bad idea to teach cats to talk, but to
suggest that society might perhaps need to change so that even if cats could
repeat verbatim the private conversations of their owners, those people might
not be terribly concerned. Among the various cables are passages that refer to
various personages in unflattering terms, and are, frankly, completely unnecessary.
Comparing Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev to Batman and Robin? It would be
more accurate and diplomatic to simply say “Although technically subordinate to
President Medvedev, Putin continues to exert a disproportionately high degree
of influence on Kremlin policies” – and no one could fault the author for such
an analysis sans the accompanying baggage of insulting characterizations. If
people (especially diplomats) simply spoke and wrote as if there were a Rolling
Stone reporter in the room, there would be fewer out-of-work Generals and red faces in the State Department. As to the morally dubious instructions to
spy on Ban Ki Moon and similarly disquieting revelations, it is useful to
consider the words of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, in 1816, "It is
strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together,
are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." Thus to suppose that agents of the government
of such a collection of millions receives some special dispensation to behave
badly, and should not be held responsible by the public that elected them (or
the officials who appointed them) strains credulity.
Third, the attempt to paint Wikileaks with the broad brush of “terrorism”
is frankly so Orwellian that it taxes the imagination, and raises questions
about who couldn’t be labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The only
criteria are to be foreign-based, and to have the potential to threaten US
interests or nationals. Well, lots of organizations are based in other
countries, and every organization has the potential to threaten US interests.
All it takes is a week-long consultative process between the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General to bestow the
label, which essentially places restriction on movement and funding, and makes
giving support (i.e. a PayPal donation to Wikileaks) a crime for US citizens.
And there’s really no need to beat the dead horse of the lack of
tangible damage to US property or personnel (or that of any country, for that
matter) any further. Despite its repeated allegations, neither the US nor any
other government has brought to light any evidence that current operations have been
compromised or that anyone’s actually come to harm. In fact, several partner nations have spoken out to say that their relationship with the US will be undamaged by the revelations in these cables.
So, what should we be learning from the fuss over Cablegate? Probably this. Those who focus too narrowly on Wikileaks miss the bigger
picture. Should Assange be shut down, another similar organization will only
rise to take his place. The technology exists, as well as an undercurrent of
civil discontent with the excesses of governments, big businesses, and
religions. It is the same sort of confluence of discontent and technology that
was seen with the printing press in the 15th Century.
A more important question is to consider the future of politics,
diplomacy, warfare, and daily life in the coming “Age of Transparency” – where the
inability to guarantee secure communications and a greater intrusion into
previously “private” aspects of life such as political and religious beliefs,
sexual mores, shopping habits, income, debt and interpersonal communication
will be facilitated by the growing ubiquity of electronic technologies – both for
individuals, corporations, and governments.
This is a rich subject that bears exploration by the best
minds of the blogosphere, a task they might more readily attend to were they
not so focused on a single symptom rather than the underlying condition.