Predictably the affected Governments are up in arms about the latest series of leaks coming from Wikileaks. The US Government has described it as “reckless and dangerous”.
“To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
President Barack Obama "supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal," he said.
"We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information," he added.[1]
Clearly the ruling elites around the world are embarrassed. The leaks reflect badly on such figures as Saudi Princes, The Duke of York, and Vladimir Putin. The question is whether the rest of us ought to be concerned. To my mind, the answer to this depends on whether or not it is in our interests for Governments to keep secrets from us and each other. What we must keep in mind, as a starting point, is that Governments are there to serve us. As a general rule, if a Government figure is embarrassed by a particular revelation, it is probably a good thing that it has been revealed. [2]
One of the main arguments put forward by Governments, is that these revelations might place lives at risk – of soldiers, agents etc. Whilst it may be possible that one of these documents might reveal a tactic or location to an ‘enemy’ army, it seems fairly unlikely. This argument is especially disingenuous when it is made by the US Government – Republicans in particular – when it comes to the safety of their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers in danger, while the anti-war movement begged and pleaded for them not to. Both wars have been unmitigated disasters, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of their soldiers. So in this context, it is the height of hypocrisy to become ecumenical about troop safety now.
The argument around endangering agents, spies, informers and so on seems more plausible. However these are people whose roles carry inherent dangers. And as yet no evidence has been produced of any suffering as a result of the leaks. I’m sure if it was available, it would have been produced.
There is a third argument implicit in all this - that Governments ought to be able to keep secrets from each other. Or more specifically, that it's in my interests for my Government to be able to keep secrets from another government. There are a whole range of reasons why this might be important - anything from trade reasons, diplomacy, and military and security reasons. Regarding international trade, this is a massive topic that I won't get into in any detail here, except to say that over the past few decades it has become increasingly clear that international trade is not conducted in the interests of the citizens within nation states, rather it has been liberalised in order to serve the interests of a wealthy and powerful few. Regarding security, I am yet to see any evidence that any of this could compromise Australia's national security, and find it hard to imagine that it could, although we probably cannot eliminate that possibility altogether.
The information that has been released by Wikileaks this year is enormous in both the quantity of the information revealed, and their broader significance for democracy and the internet. Integral to the power of Governments is the control of information. These leaks are being revealed, and subsequently read, by people who are very much outside the powerful ruling class. The powerful feel threatened by the idea that ordinary people can access large amounts of information that they intended to keep secret from them. This is what is driving the reaction.
These latest leaks from Wikileaks ought to be understood as profoundly democratic actions. The people are being given access to information that Governments do not want us to have. Are we to seriously believe that it’s counter to our interest to read it? That would require enormous faith in the Governments of the world, and it is hard to make the case that they deserve it. The very fact that they don’t want us to see it ought to make us suspicious of their motives. It is a fundamental tenet of liberal democracy, that any power that others have over us, ought to be able to be shown to be in our own interests. Interesting that the Americans quickly abandon their liberalism and libertarianism when traditional power structures are challenged.
It is worth noting the role that an unfiltered, uncontrollable internet has played in this. If not for the internet, this would not be possible. Attorney-General Robert McClelland has requested that media organisations self censor, and refrain from publishing any potentially dangerous content. This is obviously futile, as anyone with connection to the internet can access the information. If a ‘terrorist’ wanted it, they could get it. Now imagine that Senator Conroy’s dream of a Government controlled internet filter were a reality. They would censor this stuff in a flash, arguing that it’s in ‘the national interest’. The internet has just made a big step forward in realising its potential as a democratic force. Long may it continue.
I hereby nominate Julian Assange for Australian of the Year.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
State Election 2010
It is becoming clear that the Liberals will win Bentliegh, thus handing them the 45 seats they need to form a majority in the Legislative Assembly, and so to Government. It seems clear the Labor Party were resigned to this as early as 9pm last night. I suspect the reason they haven't yet conceded is just to create the impression that it was closer than it actually was, so it doesn't look like a massive failure.
Of course they will do plenty of naval gazing, and many theories will be put forward as to why they lost. The message already coming out is that after 11 years, it just becomes too difficult to keep the message fresh - the 'time for change' argument. I don't think this is accurate. I certainly don't believe the Liberals convinced the public that they were a better alternative. I think the public wanted to punish Labor for their mistakes, and there was an ever growing perception that they had become arrogant and incompetent. Whatever their failings, I think this was exaggerated. The Herald Sun ran an anti Labor campaign for a long time. Scarcely a day went by without articles about 'Public Service fat cats' and most of them were blown out of all proportion.
I also think there was another problem with their campaign, which hasn't yet been identified by the experts. Too much of the party's resources were devoted to the inner Melbourne seats where they were under threat from the Greens, and this cost them dearly in the outer suburbs. The main reason for this is that many of the ALP apparatchiks live and work in inner Melbourne. They mix in circles of like minded people, and have a blinkered view of the mood of the electorate. To them, the battle actually was between the ALP and the Greens. The debate that raged amongst them and their type was about whether the drift to the Greens is a resurgence of the left, or a dangerous splintering of the left. They seemed blissfully unaware that out in the suburbs, people couldn't give a stuff about these debates. Rightly or wrongly they were preparing to punish the Government.
The other factor at play here was the fact that the threatened incumbents in inner Melbourne were high profile, senior members of the Government. The members in the suburbs on the other hand were people like Kirstie Marshall.
But it's not just the profile of the candidates, and the fact that few Brunswick residents could point to Forest Hill on a map that prevented these people fighting on the front line. The other factor at play here is resentment. I have lost count of the amount of discussions I had with inner suburban Labor people, during this and the Federal Election campaign, about this very issue. Their focus on the Greens was often bitter and venomous, and also irrational. They seemed to have saved their anger and hatred for a party that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be similar ideologically to themselves. The Greens have surged in popularity as a direct result of people abandoning the left of the ALP. These are voters who are primarily concerned with social justice issues and the environment. Many come from within the Union movement - Labor's traditional heartland. I think they particularly annoy the rusted on party members, because they stand as a stark reminder of what the Labor party has abandoned. It is painful for them to be reminded that they belong to a party that has sold them out, and so they want to blame the messenger. I think many of them remain in the party just out of blind loyalty - their parents and grandparents were members, and they just can't bring themselves to quit. They come up with every excuse under the sun for Labor's increasingly right wing agenda, and hold on to this futile hope that if enough like minded people joined, they might be able to bring them back. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and it's not coming back.
So it seems they have succeeded this time. They all banded together and denied the Greens a lower house seat. Meanwhile, out in those suburbs beyond Burke Rd, the real enemy has won Government.
Nero fiddled, while Rome burned.
Of course they will do plenty of naval gazing, and many theories will be put forward as to why they lost. The message already coming out is that after 11 years, it just becomes too difficult to keep the message fresh - the 'time for change' argument. I don't think this is accurate. I certainly don't believe the Liberals convinced the public that they were a better alternative. I think the public wanted to punish Labor for their mistakes, and there was an ever growing perception that they had become arrogant and incompetent. Whatever their failings, I think this was exaggerated. The Herald Sun ran an anti Labor campaign for a long time. Scarcely a day went by without articles about 'Public Service fat cats' and most of them were blown out of all proportion.
I also think there was another problem with their campaign, which hasn't yet been identified by the experts. Too much of the party's resources were devoted to the inner Melbourne seats where they were under threat from the Greens, and this cost them dearly in the outer suburbs. The main reason for this is that many of the ALP apparatchiks live and work in inner Melbourne. They mix in circles of like minded people, and have a blinkered view of the mood of the electorate. To them, the battle actually was between the ALP and the Greens. The debate that raged amongst them and their type was about whether the drift to the Greens is a resurgence of the left, or a dangerous splintering of the left. They seemed blissfully unaware that out in the suburbs, people couldn't give a stuff about these debates. Rightly or wrongly they were preparing to punish the Government.
The other factor at play here was the fact that the threatened incumbents in inner Melbourne were high profile, senior members of the Government. The members in the suburbs on the other hand were people like Kirstie Marshall.
But it's not just the profile of the candidates, and the fact that few Brunswick residents could point to Forest Hill on a map that prevented these people fighting on the front line. The other factor at play here is resentment. I have lost count of the amount of discussions I had with inner suburban Labor people, during this and the Federal Election campaign, about this very issue. Their focus on the Greens was often bitter and venomous, and also irrational. They seemed to have saved their anger and hatred for a party that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be similar ideologically to themselves. The Greens have surged in popularity as a direct result of people abandoning the left of the ALP. These are voters who are primarily concerned with social justice issues and the environment. Many come from within the Union movement - Labor's traditional heartland. I think they particularly annoy the rusted on party members, because they stand as a stark reminder of what the Labor party has abandoned. It is painful for them to be reminded that they belong to a party that has sold them out, and so they want to blame the messenger. I think many of them remain in the party just out of blind loyalty - their parents and grandparents were members, and they just can't bring themselves to quit. They come up with every excuse under the sun for Labor's increasingly right wing agenda, and hold on to this futile hope that if enough like minded people joined, they might be able to bring them back. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and it's not coming back.
So it seems they have succeeded this time. They all banded together and denied the Greens a lower house seat. Meanwhile, out in those suburbs beyond Burke Rd, the real enemy has won Government.
Nero fiddled, while Rome burned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)