Opinion: WikiLeaks: A great idea, but where’s the responsibility?

By Paul Li [politics bureau chief]

WikiLeaks has done it again. On Nov. 28, the whistleblowing website released around 250,000 documents from the U.S. State Department, ranging from mundane documents to 15,000 labelled “secret” and 9,000 labelled “NOFRON”, or “not for foreigners.”

The release has greatly embarrassed the U.S. government, as the contents include candid descriptions by U.S. diplomats of foreign officials and reports of events and conversations, including one calling French president Nicholas Sarkozy an “emperor with no clothes.”

There is a legitimate case for the release of documents that show those in positions of power actively trying to mislead the public into believing concoctions for their own self benefit. There is little doubt that government cover-ups, banks trying to hide their true financial health or companies trying to bribe public officials should have their actions revealed to the public. In these cases, it is clear that the public’s “right to know” the truth has a clear social benefit.

However, this last release by WikiLeaks is different. The documents leaked are called “diplomatic cables,” a throwback to the old days when embassies round the world were literally linked to their home offices by wires, and they communicated with their home governments using telegrams.

For the most part, these messages contain mundane information: what the diplomats are doing, what events they’ve been to, what their impression of so-and-so is. The more details the diplomats can provide, the more data analysts at home have to decide on how to conduct policy- by finding out information such as who’s going to vote how in coming UN meetings, which politicians are on the rise and which are on their way out, which businessmen are more likely to invest where.

By the very nature of such work, a lot of the information contained transmitted by diplomats is sensitive. We all know that the way we express ourselves changes depending on who we’re talking to.

We don’t use the same words to talk to our friends as we would to our parents, or to professors.

It’s the same with countries- what the U.S. says to Israel might not be exactly the same thing it says to Saudi Arabia or Egypt. But now, suddenly, it has all been revealed to the public, and your teacher knows he was the topic of discussion between your friends, and furthermore knows exactly what you were talking about.

Furthermore, diplomats play key roles in getting information out of secretive locations. In countries where the media are muzzled by the government, people will sometimes talk to diplomats hoping to bring international attention to their plights- that’s how the world first heard of the human abuses perpetrated in Timor L’Este in 1999.

Yet, under threat of having their names and words published on the internet, who’s going to brave coming forward?

Some diplomatic exchanges concern international strategy. The US and South Korea have been plotting strategy for months on what to do should the North Korean regime collapse. Surprise, those exchanges are now public- and you can bet that China and North Korea are making sure their strategists are looking them over.

Understandably, some of the cables are of public interest. The US offered vast sums of money to the island nation of Kiribati to accept Guantanamo prisons. East European heads of state were offered meetings with President Obama if they accepted a few- otherwise they could forget about ever shaking hands with “the man.”

That these nations are essentially being bribed or coerced to take on prisoners is of concern. That Canadian businessmen are having to work in a climate “choked with corruption” to secure mining rights in Kyrgyzstan- which required the president’s son getting “his share” is of concern, especially if the businessmen are being assisted by the government.

By disclosing these actions, the public’s heightened awareness can lead to corrective measures.

In cases such as these, WikiLeaks must show its editorial responsibility, and publish those documents that are of actual value to the public. There is little to be gained by the public in reading what Jane told Peter about Susan and Will talking about a party the latter went to, even if the US Ambassador really was invited to a party that featured a Rolls Royce, AK47’s and “stupendously fat guests.” And did the world really need to know about Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi’s  “voluptuous blonde” nurse? Is the world a better place for knowing it?

An oft quoted analogy is that the world is just a large high school and the U.S. is the teenager whose diary has just been photocopied and plastered all over the walls. Embarrassing? Very. Was it really necessary to show it in its entirety? No. If there was something important that should’ve been brought to light, then by all means let that specific section be revealed. The rest is just gossip- and the world might just be worse off for it.

The Idea behind WikiLeaks
The concept of WikiLeaks is simple and laudable. People that work within organizations (public or private) may at some point find themselves with access to information that they consider the wider public should know about, yet are prohibited by the normal rules- e.g. its private company information, or its been classified by the government. Given that a single person might feel threatened if they speak out alone, WikiLeaks provides them with an avenue to provide the information on a worldwide stage- all they have to do is submit the documents online.

Since its inception in 2006, the organization has done a remarkable job of bringing to public light documents that have been hidden from the public light by “the powers that be”be it governments or private organizations.