Amid the sound and fury of the reaction to WikiLeaks, something is missing. Whether hostile or supportive, politicians and commentators on all sides have managed to miss the real point. The contents of the leaked cables should demand a deep reflection on our foreign policy. That this has not happened tells a sorry story about our very democracy.
On the right, and indeed center, the reaction has been hysteria. Politicians have lined up to decry the threat to US national security and even American lives, without offering a shred of evidence to confirm this claim.
Virtually no one, save the admirable Ron Paul, has stood up for free speech and the public's right to know what government is up to in its name, or defended Bradley Manning's right to the presumption of innocence, but whose involvement in the leaks is unquestioningly assumed by everyone.
On the left: blind support for Assange and WikiLeaks, despite the feckless irresponsibility of leaks that include detailed information on the defenses of nuclear sites, of minimal public interest but considerable interest to potential terrorist attackers. Meanwhile, many have confused the issue of free speech by supporting Assange's transparently self-interested claims that allegations of sexual misconduct are part of a CIA plot. In Sweden? Come off it.
The press has largely followed this lead, with a paparazzi focus on Assange, which he clearly revels in (the book deal has now been signed), or a tediously black-and-white debate -- press freedom or security? -- about the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks phenomenon itself.
Of the extraordinary cable sent by US ambassador April Glaspie of her last conversation with Saddam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait in 1990, there is nary a mention in any press anywhere, yet this is when -- more or less precisely -- Iraq tipped from being an ally of the US to an enemy, and thus the point of departure for America's bloody and expensive involvement in Iraq that lasts to this day, twenty years later. (This cable by the way undermines the accusation that Glaspie gave the nod to Saddam to invade.)
Likewise, where is the debate on reports that show Afghanistan's President Karzai, for whose "democratic" government young Americans are dying every day, brazenly refusing to reverse the release of cronies imprisoned for corruption?
Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker, amongst many others, has claimed that there's little that's new or concerning in the cables, suggesting that his magazine already knew that the US was discussing how the Yemeni President might lie to his parliament about American bomb strikes in his country, that the US is secretly conducting aerial surveillance of Hezbollah positions at Lebanese government request (a highly toxic revelation in that unstable country), or that the British government, to its discredit, assured the US that its interests would be protected in a supposedly-independent public inquiry into the Iraq war.
One reaction has been commonplace but striking, among supposedly liberal as well as conservative commentary, namely that "government and diplomacy need secrecy" in order to function. What is extraordinary about this claim is that it is invariably made in complete ignorance of what it is that government is keeping secret. Nanny knows best.
I worked in government, on Afghanistan, the Middle East, and in particular Iraq, over which I eventually resigned (I was Britain's Iraq "expert" at the UN Security Council for 4 ½ years). I resigned because my government lied about why it went to war and ignored available alternatives to war.
After the travesties of the last ten years, it is simply staggering that the information and responsibility to decide war is so lightly handed over. This choice -- of what we allow government to do in our name -- should always be contested, never taken for granted. Government needs far less secrecy than that which we grant it. And it is indeed our choice. And here is the real point.
The reaction that the WikiLeaks episode most deserves has been the least evident. The picture of the world revealed in the cables demands a sober and informed reflection on the realities of policy-making in regions like the Middle East, where any frank observer would conclude that Western foreign policy has not been a great success, to put it mildly.
This is a difficult discussion, because it entails a careful weighing of risks and probabilities -- summed up in the perpetual conundrum of whether to support unpleasant and repressive regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) for fear of something worse. I think this policy has been clearly shown as counterproductive, exacerbating the very threat -- jihadist terrorism -- it is supposed to suppress. But it is complicated to design alternatives, and it is this complexity and respect for realities that has been more or less totally absent in the WikiLeaks debate.
That the necessary reaction has been all but invisible tells a disquieting story about our very relationship with government and indeed our democracy. The revelation that government is doing something in private other to what it is claiming in public should be met not by indifference or complacency, but outrage. Enduring national security does not demand secrecy, except where strictly necessary; it demands above all reaffirmation of the most fundamental values that underpin democracy -- transparency, accountability and, perhaps most importantly in this case, participation.
The reactions to WikiLeaks share one abiding characteristic, so obvious that it can easily be overlooked, namely an unwillingness to address with any sophistication or seriousness the complex and everchanging world that the US -- and all of us -- must now deal with. The prevailing and lazy assumption is implied but all too clear: that the foreign policy élite, and government, should be left to get on with the job, with whatever secrecy that they demand.
If the last few years tell us anything, it should be that foreign policy and war are too important to be left to government alone. The world and its dramas are complicated and difficult, traits that do not suggest secretiveness and élitism as their solution, but instead the opposite. But it is us, those who currently absolve ourselves of responsibility, who need to decide to take it upon ourselves.
So far WikiLeaks has produced a reaction all too symptomatic of our troubled democracy. Instead of informed debate, hysteria and told-you-so complacency. This reaction is perhaps the most important -- and devastating -- consequence of WikiLeaks, and the one that should give us the most pause.
Follow Carne Ross on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@carneross
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/0DFD0DDB2BA34EF59F2570CE7EEE03C8.pdf
~American people want the good old days when you raise a family with one person earning money and one nurturing the kids...and each generation was betteroff than the last
~It would be nice to watch the news today and not get propaganda
~The American military wants the good old days when it won wars
~American business wants the good old days when it could rig the market, steal in bankruptcy, and use taxpayer dollars for their own use
~American politicians want the good old days when they're not shot in the street by lunatics
~Everyone (almost) wants the good old days before the economy collapsed, flat-lined, and the pulse was maintained by debt respirator.
~But alas, the way back from economic coma lies in the "Tech Bubble" consciously burst by the Fed destroying Toffler's Third Wave, consciously burst by the rich having their toady politicians export America's manufacturing base/jobs overseas destroying Toffler's Second Wave, burst by Wall Street collapsing the "Real Estate Bubble," the last vestige of personal wealth in America. We are left with twin deficits, budget and trade, little Tech (Silicon Valley is a shadow of itself), little manufacturing base, excess housing financed at greater than market value, and a population retiring or laid off.
Can't blame folks for wanting the good-old-days. And Assange holds the mirror from which we see ourselves as we are and draw the variance ourselves from the good old days.
The year before saw 9/11 and America was wondering why this had happened.
# ISBN-10: 0971394253
# ISBN-13: 978-0971394254
NB. I have no connection to either the authors or the publisher. I just like getting as much information as I can before forming an opinion.
Our elites have all begun to resemble one another; white, wealthy, Harvard or Yale educated, out-of-touch, and of the same mindset. This inbreeding has led to those at the top making decisions based on the beliefs and understanding of the few they have daily contact with, those most like themselves, rather than the citizenry and world at large.
When someone on the outside reveals the humanity and foibles of these ridiculously ordinary human beings (wikileaks), it becomes clearer that they are no more and no less than any other fallible human being - and nothing special at all. This demands something of us and makes us uncomfortable. We would prefer to believe that these people are smarter, relieving us of any obligation to deal with these difficult decisions.
Wikileaks has truly opened our eyes.
It is said that less than 1% of the material has been released. It is further said that Wikileaks is also involved in a vetting process with the US government, where the government is being given advanced notice to prepare for the upcoming release.
If true, this sounds like the very opposite of feckless irresponsibility to me.
You certainly don't.
When wasn't the world "complex and ever changing"?
The facts and stories reveal the true face of the American government a face they take great care to keep from the eyes of their own people. But this is changing.
In the absence of a critical Congress for so long and the grip the US government and its allied political and military elites have over the Media it has come as a shock to have to justify their policies, its not something they do well so they go for the second best option and that is to discredit the opposition.
The big difference this time is that its not just the tame US media the US administration and military-industrial complex has to deal with it is a critical world.
I for one through their actions in this case am getting to know the warped iniquity the government the USA now possesses .
The rule of the untouchables has commenced, a combination of kleptocracy, plutocracy and descent into chaos.
Keep the leaks coming, the brave men and women who do this have earned our gratitude.
This is not first leak of confidential documentation that exposes governmental lies – and won't be last. Secret information has long been used by elites to build and maintain power over huge populations of citizens, workers, armed forces and others. But when secrets of the elite are revealed, power they represent can be confronted and reversed.
Nor is this first time that state (and forces of power have acted to prevent dissemination of information on internet – and it won't be the last.
Sites have been removed by their hosting companies, servers seized by police or other governmental authorities, take-down requests issued under rule of law: none of these prevented information spreading.
But issues run deeper than this. As former US president Thomas Jefferson once stated, "information is the currency of democracy". Democracy – the rule of the people – as currently understood and practiced is, and has long been, severely restricted.
Power is abused in our name by governments and transnational corporations around the world: they fight illegal wars; abuse and kill people; pillage property and planet. The powerful accumulate wealth and force the majority – the rest of us – to pay for it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-fight-for-democracy-open-letter”
Quite.
And then some.
It is however more important for all countries to re-evanluate their relation to the US. It is clear for all how little freedom there is. It is your choice to act, react or sit iddle by when facism stares you in the face (call it corporatism). What happened to the country of the free?
It's a Banana Republic.
When Carter tried to have a nuanced discussion of the future, we elected an actor in spite. Same w Gulf War 1 + 2 discussions. Same w GWB elections boiled down to "who we'd have a drink with." Instead of talking about Palin's lack of qualifications and Cheney's ethics issues, we focused on her pregnant daughter and his lesbian one as if that was relevant. When Jon Stewart had a rally about this very thing happening in journalism, we said he "jumped the shark" and should have had a better message.
Americans have truly excelled at removing nuance, forethought, balance, reason, and logic from any hard discussion, and in effect, have removed hard discussions. If we cant say it in a slogan or a rhyme, its for those "elite liberal intellectuals in their ivory towers" and should be derided.
Uncomfortable? Yes. Surprising? Not really.
Most of us are neither capable nor willing of sophistication or seriousness; we also prefer simple to complex, and therefore like to simplify. The true issues of the world are also boring while dangerous and this is how they escape our focus. The first batch of revelations contained (I think) much more sensitive material, but it is this one that caused the furor. Little was reported by way of the consequences; an error in reporting or nothing to report? The issue is that of exercising the right judgment, and Mr Ross seems to believe that general public is better equipped for that than government employees...eh
"FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC
--SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE. IRAQ IS SICK OF WAR, BUT KUWAIT
HAS IGNORED DIPLOMACY. USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE
WILL ENCOURAGE THE UAE AND KUWAIT TO IGNORE
CONVENTIONAL DIPLOMACY. IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY
HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO "RESPOND," HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF
DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE."
In other words, GHW Bush was warned in very clear terms that war was the probable outcome to US diplomatic inaction regarding Kuwait, therefore the lack of such action was the USG goading Saddam to take Kuwait, not allowing him to do so. That's a huge difference!
I'd like to consider your analysis. My recollection is that Iraq is spatial buffer between Persians and Arab emirs, especially after Islamic revolutions and civil war-- ie take over of Grand Mosque in SA in 1979.
SH fought a proxy war on behalf of Arab royalty (and our triangulation with the Soviets), which bankrupted Iraq. SH was desperate and wanted repayment from Arab oil, which he wasn't getting, which is predominantly what this cable is about, and why he was so precarious.
So what was GHWB reason to goad him to invade?
The war did jack up the price of oil and made the Arab royalty more dependant on the west.
But what else do you think? Incompetence?
Or is there another motivation?
In the cable, at Paragraph 23, U.S. sanctions, imposed by Congress, are noted, and noted opposed by GHW Bush: "everything is prohibited except for wheat" it says Saddam said, not raising the issue, which was contributing to Iraq's impoverishment and suffering.
In paragraph 24 the ambassador noted Iraq's Republican Guard moved to the border.
In Paragraph 26 a "Jeddah agreement" is referenced, Kuwait's subsequent repudiation and the UAE's Zayid saying "bad things" about it.
In Paragraph 30 a 1961 Iraq-Kuwait border agreement is noted, also a Kuwaiti assertion that Iraq's 1990 patrol position was 20km over, and the Ambassador saying the U.S. didn't get involved in such disputes...
In Paragraph 31 the Ambassador assigns Saddam to be "worried", then references the U.S. "suddenly [undertaking] maneuvers with Abu Dhabi", Saddam suspecting from this the U.S. taking sides, and Saddam's explaining having tried diplomatic channels before "unadulterated intimidation" as "frankness". She summarized a position indicating not worry, but intent to act.
Saddam clearly called the meeting to declare intent. A competent analysis should have recognized that then.
If we want to understand that WikiLeaks' revelations have done us no lasting harm, we simply have to realize that it's several news cycles later and almost everything has gone on as though nothing happened.
Can anyone please explain the furor this time around?