It is time for some dispassionate appraisal of what the WikiLeaks affair has taught us. Lessons fall into three categories: foreign policy substance, diplomatic process, and political reaction. Let's take them in reverse order.
The first feature of the reaction that jumps to mind is the impulse to label it the Assange affair. That of course conforms to the frenzied, celebrity-scandal syndrome that is our fatal attraction. That cultural illness attaches itself to anyone in the public eye where there is the slightest hint of something salacious. We are a society that cannot rid itself of its Puritan fascination with the prurient. We also grasp any excuse to avoid focusing on those distasteful bits of public business that trouble the serenity of the Republic.
More consequential is the rage that the latest leaks have aroused in some circles. This is not the case of the howling mob imposing the vox populi on otherwise level-headed public officials. It is the political class that has been dyspeptic. That includes our leaders from the White House on down who are blowing a gasket - or, at least, pretend to be steaming. Vice President Biden bandies about the term "electronic terrorist" with the vehemence of the guy at the bar attacking his pet hate as a 'bastard,' and with the same disregard for its literal meaning. (By the way, aren't prejudicial comments by an interested public official on a pending judicial proceeding supposed to be inappropriate and a possible basis for disqualifying the prosecution?) Attorney General Eric Holder sternly mobilizes the Justice Department in a well-publicized search for some charge or other that the ever obedient British will accept to extradite him to the United States - and which will not inculpate the New York Times. Holder is going so far as to subpoena the entire corpus of the Wikileaks Twitter account (and possibly its Facebook account) to gain information on all the 1.6 millions who have supported WikiLeaks in any way. A dragnet operation aimed at destroying the organization/movement? Assange himself, this supposed enemy of the state (and the world according to Hillary Clinton), will be flung into a dungeon similar to that which Pvt. Bradley Manning has endured. Let the crime fit the punishment has become a motto of American justice in the 9/11 decade; or, more exactly, let the alleged crime fit the impulse to punish.
Where is the New York Times in all this? Not a peep. If its editors were as interested in protecting the freedoms of information as they proclaim to be, they by now should have declared themselves ready to assist in the legal defense of WikiLeaks and should have denounced Obama's extralegal campaign of harassment. That would have raised the political stakes for the administration. It won't happen.
Yes, the illicit release of 400,000+ diplomatic cables is a serious matter that calls for legal review. The assault on Assange is not that, it is a madcap riding to the hounds. A lust for revenge of the kind that has had us rampaging around large sections of Islamic Asia for the past nine years. As for the treatment of Manning, it violates the deliberate judicial processes whose high standards are supposed to be America's pride and to exemplify how our mature democracy deals with alleged criminal actions. Most of the world sees us as having lost our bearings as a consequence.
Equally telling is the flight from responsibility of those senior officials who set up and maintained a recklessly operated non-system for distributing these 'secret' cables. What it reveals is the feckless process for organizing and conducting the serious business of managing national security pertinent information within the government. I've done a quick survey of some people who have served in positions, at various levels, where they have dealt with this sort of cable traffic. Adding my own assessment, a rough estimate as to the number of people who have any serious reason to access material of this kind, in a given policy area, is 250 - at most. That is to say, 1 in 10,000 of the 2.5 million who have had access to the entire trove of 400,000+ documents. The lesson: if you institutionalize stupidity bad things are going to happen. Yet that is too dull a subject for our titillated media to examine. It is too embarrassing a subject for our rulers to acknowledge.
We may also keep in mind the 845,000 persons with top secret clearances. I presume that their access is compartmentalized. But nothing is impossible in today's wide and wonderful Washington world where weekly we learn of things inconceivable at times within living memory.
I might add that 80 - 90% of the cables' contents can be acquired by any respectable researcher on the Washington think tank and coffee shop circuit who also has a few interviews in relevant agencies. That is, their substance on a particular subject of interest. I've done it.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about the WikiLeaks exposes - for obvious reasons. We should make a distinction between the revelations on Iraq and Afghanistan, on one hand, and the recent mass disclosure of all manner of diplomatic cables, on the other. On balance, I believe that the former were beneficial. The systematic deceit that has marked every aspect and every phase of those two misadventures is toxic for the body politic. It continues to this day, both in the disregard of a need for an accounting for the past and the Obama administration's current dishonesty about stakes, risks, and what actually is happening in AfPak to this day. When the implications are profound - the discrediting of every public institution at home as well as the enduring damage abroad - cutting through the layers of self-serving secrecy and lying becomes a requisite for the recovery of a political system that is in more parlous shape than we are ready to admit.
As to the most recent episode, this indiscriminate dumping of that mass of files indeed jeopardizes the conduct of foreign policy in general for relatively little public benefit. Of course, for historians and policy analysts it is like being given the free run of a chocolatier. Beyond that selfish indulgence, I found most illuminating the mindset of American officials that they collectively reveal: the sense of entitlement, the simplistic Manichean categorizing of all others, the presumption of American intrinsic virtue and selflessness. That is something that I referred to before the holidays. Reflection leads to a few additional ideas about the workings of American policy-making and diplomacy.
--Running the American 'empire' demands a heck of a lot of work. Micro-managing every enterprise in which we're involved, keeping all our friends/partners/allies in line with current policies on just about everything happening in the world, pressing ahead with active engagements on six continents, and relentlessly straining to cultivate 'pro-Americans' and to forestall 'anti-American' persons and forces is a Herculean job. One inference: we should scale back commitments, expectations and the range of things we define as important national concerns wherever reasonably possible. Do we really have to track the doings of every Iranian national in Paraguay and every drug dealer in Turkmenistan? Should we really spend time and effort squeezing the New Zealand government to restrict publicity for Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11?
The system is incapable of digesting all this material (and let's remember that the yield of our immense intelligence apparatus is a quite separate source of 'data'; as is the Pentagon's own network; and the newly revealed global operation of the Drug Enforcement Agency). I've known people at mid-level positions in the State Department who say that they only occasionally bothered to look at the dense reports emanating from the European embassies and, surely, the U.S. representative to the EU although the last is first rate. They don't have the time. When it comes to the EU, there admittedly may be an element of mental self-protection against the mind numbing volume and nature of what is sent. Let's bear in mind that at State we're talking about relatively small number of people.
--It's the analysis and interpretation that counts - above all getting it to attentive and responsive policy-makers. On many important matters that simply does not occur, as witness Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those structural flaws are quite another story independent of how cable traffic is handled.
--The U.S. is bad at developing deep regional expertise among its diplomats. For the most part, it has dedicated people assigned abroad. Almost all are highly professional. Those in State Intelligence (INR) in particular have an excellent record of prescience. And some of the cables are composed by very perceptive, and brave people, e.g. Amb Ann Patterson from Islamabad. Yet, some indicate embarrassing ignorance, e.g. misunderstanding totally how the Turkish AKP views the Islamic Republic of Iran -- in fact, off by 180 degrees; not realizing that radical Hindu fundamentalist movements are a far greater threat to India's stability than its quiescent Muslim community (something I've known since I was in India many years ago and is common knowledge for anyone who's had the slightest acquaintance with Indian affairs); ascribing the Indian Foreign Minister's stated aversion to being bossed around by Washington solely to the ruling coalition's dependence on the Communist Party's tacit support in parliament. This level of performance is incompatible with our presumption to run the affairs of the planet. From any strategic perspective, the practice of routinely shifting persons from one region to another, from one policy sphere to another, is based on an institutional dogma that badly needs to be questioned. It's just not very smart.
Imagine the fate of the British enterprise to build and sustain the Raj in India had they rotated key officials every year or three from Canada, the Gold Coast, Australia and Ireland; and if the Raj's administration and security was largely outsourced to contract consultants out for a quick killing.
I apologise for saying this, but the rest of the world has known this for a long time. Outside of the United States, all across the world, the US is viewed by most people as the bully, the aggressor, the biggest gorilla on the dance floor. Yes, we dance, but we don't like it.
The US is viewed as the world's policeman as Rodney King viewed LA's policemen.It is seen as powerful and dangerous, and very erratic, with very little regard paid to the rule of law. Look at the number of public figures calling for the murder of Assange. Why haven't charges been laid already over incitement to the Arizona killings?
And "the right to bear arms" in a country where you can't take toothpaste on an aeroplane - it makes a mockery of logic and common sense. That said, I'm coming around to being pro-gun with the US Government sitting there. I'm thinking you NEED guns as your government has lots of them.
"Meanwhile, GSK's blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia made headlines again last year when it became clear that the drug not only had major risks, but that GSK kept the dangers of the drug under tight wraps—for a very long time.
As it turns out, GSK spent 11 years covering up trial data that showed that Avandia was a risky drug for the heart—again providing indisputable evidence that the drug paradigm is about money, not health. Avandia topped the list of drugs linked to fatal adverse events in 2009, according to an analysis of U.S. FDA records, with 1,354 deaths reported that year alone. As a result, the FDA recently decided to restrict access to the drug."
So, we have a drug whose harmful effects were covered up, and resulted in thousands of actual deaths, but except for a modest fine, no one was punished. On the other hand, Wikileaks releases critical information that the far right pundits say 'might' result in harm (none proven so far), and we have a world-wide effort to persecute and destroy Assange and Wikileaks. What hypocrisy; a modern day replay of the Crucifixion.
Just that thought alone is terrifying ... and not just for the rest of the planet.
It ain’t over ‘til its over? Revelations concerning the avoidance of tax payments now seem imminent. Each day the information dam exhibits another seepage. How many fingers, can be diverted from pies to plug holes?
“leaders from the White House on down who are blowing a gasket - or, at least, pretend to be steaming”.
Else standing back. Letting someone else do the job that are supposed to be doing?
“enemy of the state”
us quo.
“according to Hillary Clinton”
When Sarah says something preposterous, it invokes pity. Since it is patently obvious that her brain and ears are in a state of disconnect. Whereas Hills seems able to flit between a pair of parallel universes. To whichever one her current comment doesn’t conflict with.
“let the alleged crime fit the impulse to punish”.
and damn any requirement for proof.
“the presumption of American intrinsic virtue and selflessness”.
The fatal flaw in either side of an argument. I’m right. Therefore, there is absolutely no requirement to provide proof of it. A little straight talking, quickly reduces both boldly borne banners to tatters.
“Should we really spend time and effort squeezing the New Zealand government to restrict publicity for Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11?”
When we erect a rendition of reality and salute it as the real thing. We enslave ourselves thereafter to its maintenance.
“It's the analysis and interpretation that counts”
It is the common purpose pursed by all humanity that counts.
Poetry!
you are wrong sir, and you are promulgating a falsehood as well as propaganda. this is not an indiscriminate "dumping". less than 2% of the total cables have been released to the public. and what has been released has been thoroughly researched before being published.
It should be noted that this is infrastructure that belongs to other countries. I think it is in the public interest to know what the US covets from thy neighbor.
The media has failed to even exercising effort to expose the corruption of our government. All they seem capable of are distractions while the same dirty deeds go unreported.
Now, Assange has stood up and said enough is enough and he has a following, a very large one at that.
Being a thorn in the government's side, the feds are using their standard intelligence ploys - assess, discredit, publicly smear. Only two left, incarcerate and silence. Luckily, Assange has many allies that will actually dump files world-wide if either of the last two are applied.
It is time our citizens, and the world's, are dealt a dose of honesty, transparency.
Corruption dislikes exposure.
Unethical diplomatic conduct dislikes exposure.
Crooked financial dealers buying the government dislike exposure.
Our government is terrified of being exposed, but the time has come for it to be publicly scrutinized.
Many commentors, journalists and politicians make a mis-guided argument that goes something like, "If our secrets are exposed we will be disadvantaged in our efforts to shift less-open non-democratic nations towards the open democratic model of the world we endorse".
Specifically, China , Burma , N. Korea among others will be able to resist openness more successsfully if they see this dirty linen being aired in public.
I think it can be argued that the opposite is actually the case.
Our actions, resulting from Wikileaks exposing this information, provides proof for dissidents like Aung San Su Chi in Burma and Liu Xiaobo in China that open democracies audit their leaders, sometimes against significant resistance, but with relentless determination, and with possible stern consequences.
It shows that while democracies are not always perfect at least they are accountable to the people!
This gives dissidents and everyone they speak with a stronger argument as to how they will benefit by having their own democracy.
The reforms that will be driven within open-democracies as a result of this new information will make our model of openness even more attractive.
We will have raised the bar and Aung San Su Chi and Liu Xiaobo can use it to push secretive backwards nations even harder.
See this article from China for proof that this argument has merit. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/01/17/everybody-is-assange-even-in-china/
But, when communications of those "in government service" are disclosed, we're told this is a grave danger to our society and must be stopped immediately.
This, Mr. Brenner, is a huge double standard. You are either for freedom, and the dirty laundry that comes with it, or you fancy yourself one of the elite who gets to tell the rest of us how to behave, while you and your fellow power minions are exempted.
Your liberal brandishing of five-dollar words does nothing to hide the un-American hysteria and naked hypocrisy of our government's position on Wikileaks.
Any way some quotations:
"By the way, aren't prejudicial comments by an interested public official on a pending judicial proceeding supposed to be inappropriate and a possible basis for disqualifying the prosecution?
the Obama administration's current dishonesty about stakes, risks, and what actually is happening in AfPak
relentlessly straining to cultivate 'pro-Americans' and to forestall 'anti-American' persons and forces is a Herculean job
Should we really spend time and effort squeezing the New Zealand government to restrict publicity for Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11?"
-end of quote-
I doubt Wikileaks has revealed a single thing to "America's enemies". The only people leaning anything new are America's citizens, as well as citizens of other nations. I say, bring it on.