I admit to being uneasy about the Wikileaks “no secrets” documents dump.
On the one hand, it provides a much-needed lesson that needs regular repeating: Everybody lies, all the time, to one degree or another. Perhaps “lies” isn’t the right word. Everyone spins, creates appearances, accentuates the positive (or the negative), postures, flatters, and so on, all in their own interest. International diplomacy is, in this way, similar to everyday interactions.
“Good morning, how are you?”
We don’t expect a real answer, and if one is offered it’s bound to make us uncomfortable.
We expect people to politely lie, to put it bluntly.
Lying is essential to civil interactions, is it not?
And Wikileaks reminds us that when the president or anyone else in authority speaks, it is guaranteed to be less than the whole truth. Thank goodness.
I don’t buy into Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric that puts Wikileaks, and the sources of the leaked documents, at the top of the international criminal list. And the “blood on their hands” argument doesn’t wash when it comes from a government prosecuting discretionary wars across the world.
But I don’t believe in total, 24/7 transparency either.
Here’s Bill Quigley, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, in a Huffington Post column:
Outraged politicians are claiming that the release of government information is the criminal equivalent of terrorism and puts innocent people’s lives at risk. Many of those same politicians authorized the modern equivalent of carpet bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, the sacrifice of thousands of lives of soldiers and civilians, and drone assaults on civilian areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Their anger at a document dump, no matter how extensive, is more than a little suspect.
Everyone, including WikiLeaks and the other media reporting the documents, hopes that no lives will be lost because of this. So far, that appears to be the case as McClatchy Newspapers reported November 28, 2010, that “U.S. officials conceded that they have no evidence to date that the [prior] release of documents led to anyone’s death.”
From journalist Norman Solomon, also in the Huffington Post:
Compared to the kind of secret cables that WikiLeaks has just shared with the world, everyday public statements from government officials are exercises in make-believe.
In a democracy, people have a right to know what their government is actually doing. In a pseudo-democracy, a bunch of fairy tales from high places will do the trick.
Diplomatic facades routinely masquerade as realities. But sometimes the mask slips — for all the world to see — and that’s what just happened with the humongous leak of State Department cables.
“Every government is run by liars,” independent journalist I.F. Stone observed, “and nothing they say should be believed.” The extent and gravity of the lying varies from one government to another — but no pronouncements from world capitals should be taken on faith.
And another by John Brown of Georgetown University:
For all the State Department’s understandable security concern about the recent disclosure of classified telegrams from its embassies by WikiLeaks, there are elements in this exposé that can actually improve how Americans and the rest of the world view US diplomacy and, most important, the United States itself.
Aggressive application of sunshine laws to political processes leads to essentially a real-time Wikileaks–if nothing is confidential, how does politics proceed? I haven’t been able to answer that question.
Hence my ambivalence over this document spill.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
most humans do not have the limbic capacity for total honest all the time. if we did, lying wouldn’t be so prevalent. and we wouldn’t conduct popular elections in the manner we do.
of course, the difference between intercourse between individuals and nations is that nations can start wars with one another, whereas individuals generally only come to fisticuffs. peace sometimes means living with two versions of the truth.
When Daniel Ellsberg spoke at the ACLU’s event at the Hilton a few weeks ago, he raised a concern that a secrets act may be passed in this legislative session.
Currently no law exists , as I understood him, that makes leaks illegal. (Breaking nondisclosure agreements would be a civil matter).
Mahalo to the ACLU for bringing 500+ people out to learn and listen to the man and his lovely, brilliant wife Patricia.
My take on the whole Wikileaks issue is that it may be crippling to our current processes. I’m sure it will hurt individuals, and it may hurt us in the short term. But our foreign policy needs to undergo major change to synch up with reality. We do not control the world, and we should not be trying. We have over 100 military bases around the world. We have overthrown or assisted in the overthrow of innumerable democratically elected governments in favor of dictatorships, Chile, Iran, and Iraq among them. Most Americans don’t know that. Were these crimes committed to ‘make us safe’, or for the benefit of corporate interests?
We are the most heavily armed country in the history of the world, with some of the least informed people; most of them don’t bother to vote. Our nation was taken to war (again) on a false premise (i.e., a lie) and there is no outrage at this horrendous criminal abuse of our power.
Our military families have buried our sons and daughters for a lie. Why are we not filling the jails until it ends? Why are we not filling the streets?
In the context of recent events, sunshine is the best medicine. Hopefully the wikileaks events will help us to become the country we tell our kids we are.
Meanwhile, we should rigorously defend against new legislation that would make Ellsberg’s historic leaks a crime. That really would be the end of my America, and it would be a heartbreaking shame.
Yes, yes the peaseants do not follow you so they are ignorant. How trite.
Transparancy doesn’t kill as many people as secret wars, Ian. If it were clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, tens or hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths would have been — avoided.
Tens of thousands. Deaths. Caused by lies, and caused by secrets.
There is more news to come, apparently, as the Guardian releases more cables.
Certainly, some secrecy is needed for national defence. The US has not been engaged only in “defence” for some time. We wage war as a preferred solution. To the extent that the American people would not agree with this, we deserve complete information on what our government is doing so that we can attempt to influence its decisions.
Ignorance has little value given what it costs.
The question for me isn’t whether or not complete disclosure is a step toward a true democracy. The question I have is, does the average citizen care.?
I suppose it is a difficult question to pose to the readers of this blog. Why? I don’t consider YOU the average citizen. YOU are engaged.
Oops, typo, 1000 bases.
Steve Bell’s cartoon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2010/nov/30/steve-bell-us-embassy-cables
Great. Bell nails it. I believe that Wikileaks is a forced glasnost. Who knows what the consequences will be?
“I have a hard time getting worked up about it- a government that views none of my personal correspondence as confidential really can’t bitch when this sort of thing happens.” John Cole
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-reaction/
That about sums it up.
Too bad the government won’t take the hint and repeal or at least dial back the so-called Patriot Act. Unfortunately, they’ll probably double down on protecting themselves while subjecting us citizens to ever greater surveillance.
Lies. Damned lies. And emotional but weak examples.
Please elaborate.
Back in the stone age (1976) I published an academic article which identified 4 types of privacy and took the position that ideally there should be no right to three of them, including protecting the release of any and all information about oneself.
But I also ended with an expression of misgivings with my conclusion: “I feel somewhat pained and perplexed by my own conclusions.
Privacy is important to me, both in the conduct of my practical affairs and as a seemingly necessary condition for personal intimacy and spiritual integrity. The arguments in this paper lead me to the conclusion that my need for privacy is the result of my upbringing; that I would be better off in practice without privacy, and there is no metaphysical or moral basis for privacy. Yet I cannot help wondering whether my need for privacy is warranted by some deeper reality whose demands are more powerful than my abilities to intellectualize.”
The full essay is at
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/conklinpubsbeforehaw/PrivacyRightEdThry1976.pdf
100 is too few, and 1,000 is too many, Mahina. According to the late Chalmers Johnson, the official count is 737 military bases (“on every continent, in well over 130 countries”). Johnson, the author of “The Sorrows of Empire,” “Nemesis,” and other books) died on the 20th. The NYT ran an obituary on the 24th (“Chalmers Johnson Dies at 79; Criticized U.S. Role in World”).
Mahalo Warren. I’ll take Chalmers Johnson’s word any day, but I’m sure the number has escalated since he wrote that. I heard him speak at the East West Center and have found his books excellent.
I stand corrected, aloha.
We need to be aware of what our government is doing “..in our name”. It’s not pretty, and never has been. Manifest Destiny and all that. Read this about why Julian Assange is doing this. Not sure who’s crazier-us or him
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/
I find it hard to believe that the Army private is the real leaker – really? Someone right out of boot camp with that kind of access? Very doubtful.
I read an article that pondered the “regular” press blowing the whistle vs. wikileaks. The author suggested that “pulitzers all around” a la Woodward and Bernstein may have been the reaction instead. Can’t find the article now so can’t provide a link.
Looking toward the future of global relations we may see that this was a paradigm shifting event that was much needed to break out of the rut of current diplomacy styles. I also am highly suspicious of the sexual criminal charges against Assange.