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.
No comments:
Post a Comment