Many of the charges behind the “hang Julian Assange” meme doing the rounds since WikiLeaks’s third “megaleak” on Sunday hinge on claims that the leaks could endanger diplomats and their informants. Such claims have been pretty roundly discredited by media watchers jumping to WikiLeaks’s defense, and even by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who described the charges as “significantly overwrought.”
But there is another criticism rising in place of that strained analysis which bears some pushback: and that’s the fence-sitting view that while the publication of secret, enlightening, and potentially embarrassing leaks is healthy for democracy, and reporting on them is the expectation of a free press, WikiLeaks is too undisciplined and dangerous an organization with which to partner to do it.
I would ask: what’s the alternative?
In writing about both of WikiLeaks’ previous megaleaks, I, along with some of my colleagues, have taken the position that there is value in these leaks despite the supposed dangers of their release and claims they reveal little that is new or unknown. That value is partly about opening up government, and partly about drawing our attention to the biggest stories of our time, again and again. It is also about providing context and texture to those stories, and, in this latest case, about providing us a look into how diplomatic work is done beneath the veil of secrecy that typically blocks our view.
But some in the media who see similar value in much of the reporting on WikiLeaks are coming out against the method in which the organization is facilitating it. The argument goes that, yes, extreme secrecy is a problem, but WikiLeaks, and their mass leaks, are not the answer. This seems to be the view professed by Carne Ross, a British diplomat who resigned before the Iraq war and now heads non-profit diplomatic advisory group Independent Diplomat. In a round-table discussion on Democracy Now, Ross said, among other astute observations we’re inclined to agree with, that:
The trouble with all of this is we tend to place government in this sort of superior, elite position; that they know things we do not know; that governments are entitled to know things that the public do not know. I think the balance is way too far in the government’s favor. Far more information should be released and made transparent. I’m not sure, however, that the way WikiLeaks has done this is the right way. This is a very random, blunt instrument to attack the problem of a lack of transparency of government.
And, less hesitantly, the Times’s Ross Douthat takes on The Economist’s Will Wilkinson in a blog post published Wednesday, making a related argument. Douthat agrees that the problem of institutionalized secrecy, or the “permanent state”, is worrisome, but argues that “occasional mass data dumps like the one WikiLeaks just provided, however temporarily satisfying to decentralizers and libertarians, don’t promise anything remotely like reform.”
Quite the reverse, in fact: The specter of being WikiLeaked will likely exacerbate all of the tendencies that Wilkinson dislikes about the modern leviathan. Systems will turn inward; information-sharing will decrease; further centralization, rather than any kind of devolution or transparency, will be the order of the day. And all the while, the useful work that’s done by “America’s intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices” — the prevention of wars, the anticipation of crises, the discreet management of difficult situations — will become that much more difficult to accomplish.”
Where Wilkinson writes that organizations like WikiLeaks “may be the best we can hope for in the way of promoting the climate of transparency and accountability necessary for authentically liberal democracy,” Douthat retorts, “If it’s the best we can hope for, then we’re in even more trouble than I thought.”
I think the article misses the main point. Listen to Julian Assange's audio interview over Skype with Time Magazine's editor. If I heard and understood him correctly, in it he says that his aim isn't transparency, instead his aim is a more just society. Secrets he says, are simply meant to keep people in power, and by disrupting the way they ordinarily communicate throughout the organization, by disclosing their secrets, they can go one of two ways. Either they become more open and just - in which there's no problem any longer and he'd welcome the outcome, or they become increasingly paranoid and fail to function adequately because they can't communicate effectively with one another. This according to Assange is also welcome, because here he's succeeded in disrupting the workings of an immoral entity. In this sense, his observations are astute and far reaching, and more sensible than simply seeking greater transparency.
#1 Posted by Calme Meadows, CJR on Thu 2 Dec 2010 at 03:44 PM
Joel and CJR, thanks for the root-striking post. Ross Douthat touts "the useful work" of U.S. govt. agencies: "the prevention of wars, the anticipation of crises, the discreet management of difficult situations ..." Fine goals, all. But states, by their nature, wage economic, political and military wars against individuals and states. Beneath the legalese, demagoguery and glittering generalities, there is actual imperial statecraft: aggression, compulsion, deception, destruction, fear, theft, killing. And the USA's global state, purportedly, is history's largest and most powerful monopoly of violence. If only D.C. had prevented even five percent of the war it has waged. When U.S. govt. agencies "anticipate ... crises" is when politicians, central bankers, bureaucrats and lawyers find a judicial opportunity for easy political or economic gain — a chance to wage war against demons which often are exaggerated or self-made or better handled privately or more locally. And doesn't being "discreet" really mean state secrecy, or that a govt. transgression hasn't been reported yet? (Murder-by-drone-strike and torture can be called discreet.) In this supposedly free republic, the govt. is the most free from legal and moral restraint while the individual must submit to the law-making govt. or else. Free and brave news media should have much to say here on the role of government in a free society; thanks to Wikileaks and other "watchers," they do.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 2 Dec 2010 at 07:25 PM
To examine the value of wikileaks you should analyze its stated motives verses its actions. The two don't match.
Wikileaks claims it is a 'whistle-blower' site. Yet the 'War-Diary' had negligible fallout; no major cover-ups of criminal misdeeds, just hundreds of thousands of mundane documents posted where they don't belong. They single out the US, almost exclusively. Cablegate is shaping up to be the same.
If wikileaks wanted to be whistle-blowers, as they claim, they'd post documents that reveal cover-ups. But they don't, certainly not in any measure relative to the hundreds of thousands of pages released in the 'War-Diary'.
The operators of Wikileaks are just another in a long line of smug, sanctimonious anti-American bigots. Their stated mission as a 'whistle-blower' isn't born out by their actions. America is an easy, popular target, and America-bashing is the world's favorite pastime.
Sarah Palin's hacked personal emails? No significant cover-ups were revealed there, which begs the question - why did Wikileaks post them?
The answer is as sad as it is obvious. Based on their actions, Wikileaks motives are a combination of; seeking fame and fortune, engaging in anti-American bigotry, and thumping their chests-in self-righteousness while sashaying their criminal asses across the world stage.
#3 Posted by tu8ca, CJR on Fri 3 Dec 2010 at 04:08 AM