Every news source in America has been reporting recently on the emergence of government documents on WikiLeaks, a whistle-blowing site compiling classified documents from the Afgan and Iraqi wars. This weeks post on WikiLeaks represents the largest single “leak” of foreign affairs documents in the history of the modern world.
The documents cover topics ranging from simple correspondence between foreign affairs officials to personal insults on the capability and habits of world leaders. Most news sources have deemed the release an “embarrassment” to the foreign executives of the United States government.
Government officials claim that it is a disgrace to media and completely unhelpful. Other leaders, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claim the leak is a purposeful propaganda release by the United States government itself.
One thing is for sure: most people aren’t happy. But does our happiness (or lack thereof) about an event tell us anything about the helpfulness of said event?
It is clear that the leaks have caused headaches for world leaders and newspeople alike. Just looking at the amount of time and energy our own government officials have put into trying to minimize the damage will tell anyone that the leak has caused unproductive activity in those offices.
And those offices are lashing back. They are upholding the perspective that the leak of such documents puts American soldiers, international civilians and even diplomatic staff in danger.
But maybe in our despair over embarrassment and leak of sensitive information, a lesson can be learned. We remember old adages like; “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” And the fact that at any given time, somewhere, someone is listening.
It might do us all well to remember that no matter our position in life, community, or government, our words are powerful. They affect our relationships and experiences in major ways. In fact, some of the embarrassed diplomatic officials work everyday in the realm of international communication where they are aware that what they say and how they act could have powerful repercussions. Maybe it is time that we are reminded of that; maybe it is time that we become more conscious of our messages, no matter who we think may or may not be listening.
For me, (and I hope for many others) this WikiLeak will serve as a wake-up call; not as a call to crack down on cyber-legislation, nor as a call to strengthen our cyber-security. Rather, let this event be a call for all of us to keep track of what we are saying about those around us. As we sift through the muck and pick-up the pieces of this detonated international relations bomb that is WikiLeaks, let’s make sure that what we are saying is helpful.
You missed the point completely.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that in foreign policy, even more than other aspects of government, secrecy is both necessary and dangerous. It’s necessary because concealing things from your adversaries often requires concealing them from your own people. There’s no way to tell the American people everything Washington is doing to battle al Qaeda without telling al Qaeda as well. But secrecy is dangerous because without public knowledge and oversight, battling adversaries can become a blank check for all manner of self-defeating and immoral behavior. Journalists shouldn’t simply trust government officials to draw the line, since government officials have a professional self-interest in secrecy. But journalists need to draw that line themselves, recognizing that their professional self-interest may tempt them to violate secrecy more than is necessary to keep the government honest. That’s exactly what WikiLeaks does not do—for Julian Assange, virtually everything is fair game. And since Assange doesn’t care one whit about foreign policy secrecy, it no longer really matters if the Times does. People will see the documents no matter what.
For better or worse, this is the world we now live in. But living in it is one thing; celebrating it is another. When journalists gather information that genuinely changes the way we see some aspect of American foreign policy, or exposes government folly or abuse, they should move heaven and earth to make sure it sees the light of day. But that’s a far cry from publishing documents that sabotage American foreign policy without adding much, if anything, to the public debate. The latest WikiLeaks dump is to American foreign policy what the Starr Report was to presidential politics—fun, in a voyeuristic sort of way, revealing, but not about important things, and ultimately, more trouble than it is worth.
Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteYou said that if "journalists gather information that genuinely changes the way we see some aspect of American foreign policy... they should move heaven and earth to make sure it sees the light of day."
Do you not agree that this leaked information radically changes the way we as Americans see foreign policy? It tells us that there is unnecessary (impolite remarks about other world leaders hardly pass as the business of foreign affairs) communication being passed through the ranks of our foreign officials. At the very least, it should change the content of the communication itself.
These published documents do add something to the public debate. If they didn't, would our governments be so worried about them? They allow us to hold a mirror up to our own habits in a way that was never before available. They WILL change the actions of officials just because those officials now are being held to a more public account of those actions.
As Salman Rushdie said "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." This WikiLeaks is an exercise in the freedom to offend. Certainly, those foreign officials have the freedom to offend and insult each other, as do all. But we must know that our offenses must be fair game for all to see.
If we were all leading more revealed lives, I contend that they would be more honest lives. You say Julian Assange does not draw a line; that for him, everything is fair game. I say the truth should always be fair game. I think we would find that truth, instated universally, would give us a safer world.
The Wikileakers dumped a vast pile of secrets to prove that the United States was selfish, stupid and wicked–but their revelations proved just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteSECRETS being the key word.
Don’t think for a New York minute that Julian Assange, the Wikileaker, unloaded this trove to save humankind. Why did he toss in those cables about Italy’s leader being a rake and Germany’s chancellor being a cautious fuddy-duddy, and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan being “paranoid”? To save the world? Not a chance. He did it to get attention, and he got attention from a drooling press, which then went on to call the very material they were highlighting trivial. Did Assange leak critical conversations with Chinese or Arab leaders to help solve the problems in Korea and Iran? Not by the hair on your chinny chin chin. He did it to show that he could do it–and for the attention. Anyone who is not a hopeless left-wing ideologue knows that such leaks will crush future serious conversations with those leaders for some time to come. Just think: if you told someone a serious and critical confidence about someone else, and your confidant went out and told others, would you soon repeat that mistake? Assange did not leak these cables to help solve world problems. These leaks were absolutely gratuitous and served only the purpose of making him a media marvel.
“In explaining his deed publicly, Assange suggests that what he’s doing is uncovering American misdeeds and lies. His aim, he says, is to inform citizens of democracies and peoples around the world about what their leaders are really doing. Assange also insists he did this for transparency’s sake. Yet when he got to look inside, he didn't see what was plain: that our diplomats were doing a good job. Indeed, when you turn off his nonsense and stop listening to the strange commentary on cable news and even on the front pages of great newspapers, when you actually read the cables, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.”
But when you turn off his nonsense and stop listening to the strange commentary on cable news and even on the front pages of great newspapers, when you actually read the cables, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.
the Wikileaks dump is not about providing essential information to Americans or to others–information they need for serious policy discussion. This massive trashing by Wikileaks of a legitimate effort by the U.S. government to preserve confidentiality is the very least a shame and at the most, a crime.