Recent WikiLeaks reports containing American diplomatic cable messages have added to the continuing discourse of transparency in global governance.
WikiLeaks is branded as a not-for-profit media organization that disseminates information to the public from a host of anonymous sources. It was originally founded in December 2006 by ambiguous “dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”. Since then, WikiLeaks has released a series of critical reports containing evidence and claiming to provide the real diplomatic picture of the world. Recent releases concern corruption of former Kenyan leaders, toxic dumping in Africa, an Afghan war diary, Iraq war logs, and more recently, cables of American government officials primarily on the Middle East.
Consequently, WikiLeaks has met with a fury of political pressure, especially from the Obama administration. Recent threats to WikiLeaks include their websites being consistently shut down, losing their donation service from PayPal, and the issuance of arrest warrants for founders of the organization. The man said to be at the center of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has also discussed how he does not feel welcome in his native Australia.
From my perspective, it looks like we’re taxing the wrong business. WikiLeaks has proved itself to be a facilitating organization in the process of making information available to public. This is its function, which is no different from the function of other media-syndication platforms, be it Radio for Peace-Building Africa, or Al-Jazeera.
The root of the problem seems to be not with WikiLeaks, but WikiLeaks sources. When information is leaked, it probably means that the “truth” has value. So who submits information to the organization? More importantly, why is sensitive information being leaked? A recent BBC report mentioned that “most of the diplomatic messages released by Wikileaks have been traced to a US defence department network, known as Siprnet, used for the exchange of classified information”.
One scenario I have imagined is that those who submit sensitive information to WikiLeaks may not be able to access the “legal” channels in their own spaces to make this information public. And so they resort to anonymous channels catered by organizations like WikiLeaks. If this is the case in reality, then it seems there is a problem with how transparent governments truly are towards their constituents.
The other scenario I am seeing developing through recent news is that the WikiLeaks’ sources are direct sources that have been hacked into by WikiLeaks. This concerns the data protection of intellectual property, and is subject to the law in respective territories. This scenario is exemplified through recent efforts of international leaders to frame WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization.
Whatever truth lies in the WikiLeaks releases, we know for sure there are those who support it being public, and there are those who strictly do not. The discourse between all positions between this opposition stands to provide important lessons in the “good governance” conversation.
Do all processes within governments need to be transparent? If they do, why are they not already transparent? If they do not need to be transparent, how will we define the role of media organizations, which seek to do exactly this: Increase transparency?
Cross-posted on mink on December 4, 2010.
WikiLeaks stands to threaten all sensitive government processes that are involved with the peace process. Who said all conversations need to be public? There are definately things you speak to your friends about which would damage your reputation if all your acquantances came to know about them.
I know Wikileaks is wrong and all that…………..but I wish we had seen the cables onTanzania.
I wonder what they would have said about Kikwete’s character 😉
Well, it could be a point you are trying to make. But if we are to travel back and get to think, when the mechanical presses were invented the idea that information could be disseminated to a wider public was a security concern. And even now, when information can cover the global village by a click of a button just a flick of the eye away, the same concern persists. In my point of view, the Wikileaks have infringed copyright laws by publishing the materials on site. It was as well be offensive to be in possession of documents, that require a certain permission or rights, without one. Remember the principle of least priviledge?. Though the ‘public’ needs to know whats going on the background, so that sheep and wolves can be made distinct, it all remains the same fear and challenge. Are we safe enough in the cyber space to pursue e-commerce, e-health and other security-must applications when the wiz with only a computer and time can just get about everything we thought was protected and secured? If we all knew just about everything, perhaps we would not do anything, out of fear and limitations. But as we discuss internet regulation, Wikileaks brings those misusing power and resources into the spotlight so that they can spotted!!