Excellent. It used to be that you had to wait a generation or two to find out what actually transpired behind closed doors (example, Margaret McMillan's excellent book "Nixon in China"), but thanks to Wikileaks we can know merely years after the fact.
What you're more likely to find is a situation where the less evil governments of the world (Canada, Britain, the US) have to live in glass cages while the more evil governments of the world (China, Russia, North Korea) can continue in secrecy. This I can only see being bad for the citizens of Canada, Britain and the US. All cynicism aside, changing the balance of power in the world away from the US Government and towards the Chinese Government is unlikely to be a positive move for the citizens of the US.
> less evil governments of the world (Canada, Britain, the US) have to live in glass cages while the more evil governments of the world (China, Russia, North Korea) can continue in secrecy
A main reason those governments are less evil is because they already live in glass cages.
That's right; they live in glass cages to a precise extent defined by democratically-formed law. If I wanted the government of my country to stop keeping secrets, I could form a party and run for parliament on a platform of radical transparency (all government data to be made public, from sensitive diplomatic communiques and military research to your next door neighbour's tax returns) and if people actually wanted that they could have it.
Leaving aside the problem of single-issue parties, the point remains that if radical transparency were a vote-winner it would get implemented. But it's not a vote-winner because people don't want it; not only does no political party advocate it, but there's no grassroots movement calling for diplomatic communiques and tax returns to be made public. It's just not an idea which anyone takes seriously or wants.
So, you answer is to let all the governments be more evil? Following the same logic, sweatshops should be made legal, so US can compete with China's cheep labor.
Do you really think that less secrecy equals less power? It is not the power I would want my government to have.
After Tony Blair had the Freedom of Information Act passed in the UK (2000), more discussions took place off the record and ministers began to avoid writing down minutes for meetings.
No it would just mean that more decisions are taken in bathrooms.
The reason things like cabinet meeting minutes are secret is that it does allow people to discuss issues honestly without just considering how it will play on the 6 Oclock news.
Imagine negotiating a sale at work if everything about it was published? All that would happen is that all emails and documents would become sanitized public statements and the real talking would be done off the record
Part of how things play on the 6 o'clock news is that things are not transparent enough, and there's a lot of opportunity to re/misinterpret things that the populace doesn't have any documentation for.
Somehow, I don't think politicians are being more honest when it comes to what's good for their constituents when they have conversations behind closed doors. I'm sure closed door discussions do allow the capability to be "more honest" about backscratching and payola with the other people in the room.
which seems to have an awful lot of sensitive information for something that's supposedly still secret: "... the King would go to Chelmsford if the French landed in Essex, or to Dartford if they landed in Kent, along with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary."
Canada and the US have some of the most pliant media out there. It makes me want to throw up every time I see someone interview a power figure.
For example, last year our PM decided to prorogue parliament (ie, like ending a session of congress prematurely) because it was politically expedient. During his end-of-year, he got a soft-ball question and simply dismissed it as business-as-usual (even though it upset people and led to a fair bit of protesting). Meanwhile, people like Jeremy Paxman in Britain thrive on asking tough questions and calling politicians on their bullshit.
Time to stock up on popcorn. This is going to be good.
When I think of the Internet, I see it as a worldwide communication medium that equalizes (or tries to) the distribution of knowledge. These leaks will be the Internet living up to this goal.
I hope WikiLeaks doesn't release these docs on Friday, as the coverage will be drowned out (in the US) by all this shopping BS. I hope they wait till things quiet down, and do it later next week.
Most of the people in this thread who oppose the leaks appear to be American citizens. I feel that we Canadians have a right to know how US policy is affecting our country behind closed doors.
What happened to everything else that Wikileaks used to host? I remember when it first went live it was an actual Mediawiki site that had a lot of other whistleblower documents. Since this "War Logs" stuff went up I can't seem to find any of the old documents.
My understanding is that they now only host the latest documents purportedly to cut hosting costs. Some argue that it's a bit of manipulation in order to garner more donations. You can google for mirrors of the old content.
Sometimes a broken, corrupted system needs a bit of destruction to be set in a better direction. Whatever Assange is sitting on must be damning, considering the way this is unfolding. I am intrigued to see where this goes.
I think that people rushing to issue denunciations of Wikileaks and defences of the behaviour of diplomats would be better advised to wait and see what information these particular documents actually contain.
Many of you have a US perspective on this, but it could be even more interesting for the rest of the world. I supposedly live in the most democratic country in the world, but that doesn't seem to prevent officials from breaking the law under US influence.
Is the US just saying this so that when the actual leak comes out, it seems softer? Are they just making this up for some reason, or is the leak actually real? What kind of thing could possibly be leaked, and how badly will it damage international relations?
Well, back in July, Wired quoted Manning as saying
“Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” Manning wrote. “It’s open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It’s Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It’s beautiful, and horrifying.”
The article also says "a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”"
( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ )
I think it's real, and I think it's bad. Time will tell though.
You're absolutely right. Contrary to what parent claims, the US and our allies do a lot of good around the world that is made possible by having strong international diplomacy with other countries.
If there are 'criminal' political back-dealings, then don't the people perpetrating them, bear some responsibility? Otherwise we end up in the 'too big to fail' position where anything bad these people do will always be covered up, and they basically get a blank cheque to do what they please. (by 'people,' I mean the specific politicians/diplomats/etc involved).
After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that it's ethical to leak secret government documents (from a democratic country) if and only if the document provides evidence of someone in the government behaving illegally.
Random dumps of four hundred thousand random government documents, however obtained, don't cut it.
>What kind of thing could possibly be leaked, and how badly will it damage international relations?
Well it might be tricky politically for Germany to get behind the US if the leaks contain plans for a 'final solution' to the problem of muslims living in America.
Mostly it's just lots of governments that have opposed torture in public statements are going to be embarrassed when it's detailed how their security services stood there while the person was electrocuted then asked their questions.
The UK just made a big payout to lots of Gimto inmates to avoid this coming out in court.
As much as I am in favor of government transparency, diplomatic channels have a very important need for privacy, and from the looks of it, this is really a senseless, destructive act by Assange and WikiLeaks. Diplomacy is incredibly complex and delicate. In particular when communicating with dissidents of foreign countries, it's often necessary to have complex and multi-faceted positions in private communications, some of which may be conflicting and offensive to one side or the other.
Take communications with North Korean or other dissidents as an example. On the surface, Kim Jong needs to think we are negotiating with him without trying to support opposition and bring down his government - otherwise he may become unstable and violent. We also however need to provide moral and material support to dissidents.
Shall we just be the fools and pretend that diplomacy is not a complex game? In a perfect world, maybe there would be no need for secrecy, but to think that diplomacy does not need some level of underhandedness, deception, head-fakes, and other manipulation is terribly naive.
We don't yet know what is going to be released, and perhaps some of it very well should be public, however if any of it damages our efforts to work with dissidents in oppressed countries, or has other destructive effects on the work of the State Department, there will be serious questions about whether real-time transparency is really what we want when it comes to diplomacy.
The blame rests squarely with governments abusing the trust that citizens normally give them. There has been a tendency over the last bunch of years of increasing government secrecy.
Here in Canada we've had a de-facto Information Minister for quite some time. Any government official that wishes to speak about anything must submit a request to the PM's Communications Director, who'll edit it, vet it and put an appropriate political spin on it. Whereas it was expected that Ministers, MPs and other government officials would stop by and chat with reporters after the daily parliamentary session, this is not allowed anymore. Everything is a scripted, fake photo-op and journalists frequently are only allowed to ask pre-approved questions. So what's the end result? We can't trust anything these people say, we can't get answers, we just get infantile bullshit thrown at us. It is not just Canada, the Washington Post's "Top Secret America" shows you have similar problems down south as well.
Maybe you're fine with the way things are, but I and many others certainly are not. The way to bring about change isn't to politely sit around saying you'd like something to change - you go ahead and do what you think is right. And I do hope Assange's latest leak hurts governments - maybe after they've been burnt enough times, they'll learn to be more open, transparent and accountable so that when they do actually need privacy, the people will trust them.
Now excuse me while I go donate a few bucks to wikileaks.
What good is chatting to the media if they will go, edit the interview and show whatever they want that fits their own agenda? I don't know if this is a problem in Canada but it certainly is in my country and I know that it is an issue in the US.
Personally, I can understand why the public figures would not want to talk to the media. However, I don't understand why they aren't finding new ways to communicate more directly with the public.
I disagree that deception is necessary in almost any (if any) situation.
I don't think anyone's actually being fooled by it. I highly doubt Kim Jong is under the impression that the US supports him or is even remotely sympathetic to his motives. It's just a game being played by both sides.
Most of the time we create our own complexity, and then build even more complexity on top of it. Eventually it becomes impossible to explain our motives for anything without attaching an enormous amount of context to it. Context which few people have the attention span to fully understand, so you can eventually do whatever you want via abstraction and just blame it on complexity. "Here's a 50 page legal document which clearly shows why I lied to you ok? Anyone who calls me a bad guy just lacks the proper context."
If our diplomacy practices are so complex that they require underhandedness, deception, head-fakes, etc. then it's time to refactor. I'm sure there's a certain level of necessary complexity, but not to the point where being dishonest is justified.
Honesty and transparency are practically a religion to me and this may come across a little zealous / attacking, so I apologize for that.
I'm sensitive to this viewpoint. However let's say you are running a company. There are a huge number of situations where secrecy is necessary. Negotiations with an aquirer, pending layoffs, legal wrangling, customer pipeline, etc. If someone got a hold of this information and released it in an untimely way, they would be fired and possibly prosecuted. I'm completely in favor of honesty and transparency but it is unfortunately not always the best policy.
In a corporate setting you're totally right that secrets may be necessary (not always, depending on your business model), but even then we're talking about witholding information and not deception. In fact you can be totally up front about the fact that you have trade secrets, and while some people may criticize that, I won't be amoung them.
This argument would hold more weight if US foreign policy actually had something to do with bringing freedom to subjects of oppressive regimes, but as it stands, the US government's actions are largely cynical, self-serving, supportive of some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, and harmful to many millions of people around the world. They don't deserve sympathy.
This isn't just about US foreign policy. Let's take a different example that removes the interventionist "bad smell" of the NK example. Let's talk peace.
E.g. Imagine A and B want to negotiate a peace treaty. They represent large and diverse constituencies. Officially, they're not talking to each other -- there is ongoing violence, and hard-liners in both the A camp and the B camp will replace the A or B negotiators if they are deemed to be too soft.
So, there's a secret summit of A and B negotiators. Publicly, neither side can budge. However, because the talks are secret, the negotiators are free to make initial concessions to get the ball rolling.
How could making those talks public possibly be a good thing? It might actually scuttle peace and result in more violence.
It's easy for rogue elements to spoil a sensitive negotiation. There is a real need for secrecy in order to have productive negotiations on sensitive topics.
Your example relies on the idea that government negotiators will be more benevolent and peaceful - will work more towards the common good - in secret than in public.
Maybe that happens once in a while. The far, far, far more common case is that secret negotiations amount to a conspiracy by the powerful against the weak.
You comment assume that the hardliners are wrong, and that the negotiators should talk behind their backs. Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that?
Wow Hacker News... I did not expect this to be the most upvoted comment when I opened this thread. Underhandedness, deception, head-fakes a necessity, because that's just how things are?
Really?
Talk about throwing your ideology out of the window. Attitudes like this are never gonna change the world.
The foreign governments already know, more or less, which dissidents are being supported by whom. It doesn't take WikiLeaks to tell Kim Jong Il where his enemies are getting their M4s or whatever. Secrecy mostly gives governments the room to make deals with groups which the population finds objectionable: genocidaires, nazis, theocrats, thugs, etc. For example, Nixon secretly made deals with the Vietnamese communists to sabotage peace negotiations; Reagan was secretly dealing with the Iranian theocracy and with the Nicaraguan contras (who had a bad rep stateside due to rape, murder, and so on). It is in fact routine for the US government to make deals with violent extremists or autocratic governments, very often in direct opposition to democratic movements or governments.
Diplomacy is a very complex game, but you seem to be confused about which side the players are on. Politicians are on one side, you and I are on the other.
Without knowing what is being released, how can you possibly claim it is reckless? The U.S. warned Canada. Canada is hardly an oppressed nation that requires delicate communication.
At this point, all we can do is wait and see what is released.
Do you really think N. Korea doesn't know the long-term US position for NK is regime change? Don't be naive. Of course they do.
Yes - diplomacy is very delicate, and things like this can have bad short-term consequences. However, the long term could be arguably better in the same way pointing out security holes publicly makes companies fix it quickly.
It's the same analogy that supports legalization of insider trading - for which there is a solid argument for increased transparency even though there are short term negative consequences (insiders getting money w/ inside knowledge).
The case is that by having more transparency, even with short-term profiteering, the total good in the long term is maximized.
We can't move towards a more perfect world without facing some painful truths, and the current state of affairs is pretty far from perfect. Secrecy and manipulation as mechanisms of power are good for the powerful and bad for everyone else and if it's possible for humanity to grow out of this way of being then we should take that chance, because the alternative is terrible.
Yes but isn't the possibility that your communications will be disclosed to the public by an anonymous insider already a part of this game? I don't see the naivety or idealism here - It just looks like standard journalism to me. WL has done a lot to make the "game" more interesting by making the possibility of insider leaks more credible than before. There are many reasons why an insider with the story to tell would rather talk to WL than a newsmedia reporter.
+1. The ripple effects of releasing such documents are unknown. This is a completely reckless act by Assange/Wikileaks that puts their name above the safety of the citizens of the world.
* Take communications with North Korean or other dissidents as an example. On the surface, Kim Jong needs to think we are negotiating with him without trying to support opposition and bring down his government - otherwise he may become unstable and violent.*
Or rather, since I'm sure he already thinks that, he needs to not be able to prove that, or else he has an excuse to become unstable and violent.
Mind you, I'm less worried about the consequences with North Korea and more worried about the consequences with, say, China.
Even then. Relations between North Korea and the US are already as bad as they could possibly be. Relations between the US and China can get a lot worse, with far worse consequences.
This. Furthermore, anyone's private conversations can make anyone seem like a jerk. I know there's that nice little saying... 'if you have nothing nice to say, then don't say it'. But frankly that's bullshit. At the very best, there's stuff in here that will make perfect rational sense, but still cause outrage amongst other countries. For example, as a Canadian I can easily see some angry faces over any report that shown that our decision to not participate in Iraq was dismissed as 'irrelevant'.
It's like how Alice and Bob are discussing Joe's crappy documentation in private in the context of having to work around it, and then suddenly Eve broadcasts that conversation through the world. Now Joe is probably pissed off at Alice and Bob, and the rest of the world is laughing at Joe. Even though Alice and Bob really did have to have that conversation.
I don't think your metaphor fits. If I learned people really thought my documentation sucked, I'd fix it. As for countries, it's obviously not to be expected that North Korea's Great Leader or the Israelis and Palestinians will just "shut up and fix it", but I really don't think offering them monetary and weaponry bribes just to keep them at an "appropriate level of madness" is the kind of diplomacy I want our government to participate in, and any secrets that involve that ought to be revealed. Diplomacy is a complex issue and secrets leaking out can be damaging, but this is true about most government affairs.
Ok, the specific of my analogy isn't a perfect match, but you got the gist of it. And I agree, there possibility exists of material in this leak that reveals genuine problems. In fact, I'm nearly certain that it exists. And exposing that type of stuff is important.
But the problem is that when you release information like this, the media/public is bound to wind up getting upset over the wrong things. Not only does it divert attention from the real problems that may be revealed, but also harms the ability of the United States (and perhaps other nations) from using its full range of diplomatic options (among other things).
My friend is a paramedic and tells me all sorts of stories about how they pass time/deal with some of the crap they see. That involves some very very twisted humour. If you released transcripts of every paramedic conversation indiscriminately, then you'd be bound to reveal some evidence of real wrong doing (some patient being transferred improperly causing injury and then covering it up), but I feel (based on how our news is really just a spectacle show) that the majority of the public's anger/outrage would be aimed at the 'indecent and inconsiderate' comments uttered by the paramedics.
Once again, not a perfect analogy, but I think it captures the spirit of the problem.
I agree that diplomacy is highly complex, yet I'm wondering how much real damage will be done by Wikileaks revelations and how much good ...
For me it's more about the mismatch between the public
image and what's happening in secrecy. Ultimately, in a democracy, every action of the government should be open to public inquiry. maybe there is some information, in special circumstances, that cannot be released straight away. Yet, I personally believe, it is very little.
In follow-up, now that these documents are released, it was done in a much more responsible manner than I had expected. The complete documents were not released, and news agencies were allowed to "censor" portions that would seriously threaten people or security. I can say I generally support this as it was done.
