I really like the posts from Vikash and from Chris and at the risk of a bit of overkill on the topic (and upsetting Bill’s stomach further), I’ll add one more angle. This is from my monthly column at Current Intelligence:
…aside from a small cadre of foreign policy scholars, a few foreign national intelligence services, and Jon Stewart, I’m not sure who benefits from this release. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s stated intent for the disclosure was to reveal “the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.”
…First, to the dismay of many of us who teach American foreign policy, we have plenty of data demonstrating that overwhelming majorities of the American public are not interested in foreign policy in general – let alone what happens “behind the scenes.”
… and… second, even if the country was interested in knowing what’s going on behind the scenes, it turns out that we already have a pretty good system of disclosure and transparency. We don’t need WikiLeaks to know what’s going on.
For elaboration on these points and why I think Wikileaks may end up harming the cause of transparency, you can read the rest of the column here. All right, I’ve said enough. I’ll take a break from the topic for a while.
First comment, long time listener!![]()
Reposted due to poor spelling!
Big problem with your first point is that this is dangerously close to suggesting that people should not be allowed to know anything about foreign policy because they don't want to know it. Surely if we bemoain the lack of public engagement in FP issues (I teach it too) our goal should be to widen that engagement. Your argument feels a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Perhaps they don't take an interest in foreign policy because they get told it's something a bit beyond them? Our job should be to illustrate why certain interpretations of the information is wrong (such as those of Julian Assange) not to tell people it's not something for them to think about.
Also the content of the cables, as far as I can tell, they seem to confirm the extent to which material forces – particularly economic interest – drives policy. This being the case, why would the leaks be such a problem? Are we really prepared to argue that policy will be changed by these leaks? Because if we do need to have a bit of a re-think about the 'levels of analysis' problem. Maybe I could rephrase that bit. So far, which policy or issue has been undermined or altered by the leaks?
Also, a final (though rather quixotic) response to Chris Brown's final point. If Wikileaks undermines US policy, why would this be automatically a bad thing? Or, as Chris suggested, at times it is a good thing to reduce American influence, other times not so much. This though begs the question of who should make this judgement. This, in my opinion, should not be Julian Assange, but I'm not too convinced it should be American policymakers either.
I suppose I do wonder why so many words (like my own!) are bother discussing the ethics of the leaks rather than the ethics of policy that's revealed in them.
Jon, I always welcome your commentary. My stomach only gets testy when Assange himself speaks/acts ;)