Never Put In Writing ...

We were always taught to never put in writing anything you would not wish to see printed in public. Of course in the modern age that has now been extended to the internet, your conversations, and pictures wherever they be. Email, snail mail, blackberries, iPhones, cellphones, and absolutely anything else, some of which I am sure I have not thought about ... oh, don't forget the hard drive!

Isn’t it amazing that no matter how “well-developed”, progressive, and technologically modern we become, the advice provided by our forebears always comes back as being somehow, sensible and appropriate. As any regular reader of this blog will know, one of my all time favourites remains the book written in 1885 by George Rae, The Country Banker, which set out with considerable accuracy the reasons that would cause the 2007/8 global financial crisis. Written, following a series of financial crises prior to 1885. So to those that seriously believe “..if you look backwards, you go backwards” – think again!

But back to the point of this blog. Wikileaks. Let me state up front that while I am all in favour of truth, openness and integrity, I am not a fan of Mr. Assange and his Wikileaks organisation. His most recent series of "leaks" leaves the media with enough to write about for months, the public with a view that equates to peering into their living room windows, and an unnecessarily unnerved world.

- If he had a simple intent to provide full, open and honest disclosure of certain and essential information to the world at large based on confidential information obtained from a disgruntled American … then perhaps he just didn’t realise the damage he could cause. But I don’t think he’s that simple.

- If for some reason he wanted to embarrass world leaders, and particularly the Americans by releasing documents that contained the personal opinions and views of individuals (a bit like someone ripping open letters addressed to you, reading them, and sending a copy to everyone), then he has certainly achieved that. 

But what if he is truly subversive – and I note he has been called a terrorist in some quarters? What if his intention is to create a level of mistrust around the world, for whatever reason? Doesn’t that play right into the hands of the seriously right wing elements of society? Doesn’t it mean that fundamentalist Islam can now declare open warfare on people they had “sort of” trusted – and now don’t trust at all?

Of course everyone is trying to play down the impact of these releases, but isn't it rather like a judge saying to a jury that has just heard something it shouldn’t, “ignore that last remark”. Do you think it slips straight out of their minds? Of course it doesn’t. Did President Ahmad Inadinnerjacket genuinely think he was well loved by all his Arab neighbours? Well if he did, he certainly knows some of the truth now but, for the sake of global peace, is that a good thing? And if the remarks attributed to King Abdulla in Saudi Arabia (who for my money is a remarkably progressive leader in a difficult environment) about cutting off a snake's head are as true as they appear to be – then the Iranian President is one snake whose head has NOT been cut off – and what does a snake do when it’s cornered? It strikes.

But then there are other aspects of this whole thing that worry me. Secretary of State Clinton, the last time I heard her on the subject before I got on my present plane journey, was referring to “these illegally obtained confidential documents”. I was always under the impression that something obtained illegally could be recovered legally. And in that case publication could be prevented. Why has that not happened? Is Mr. Assange so clever that he can prevent it from happening? Are we so technologically incompetent that even if we had grounds to do so and wanted to block or close down his website we cannot? 

Just what IS going on here?

I do believe in openness, transparency and good corporate governance. But even in the best-run organisations there are many twists and turns before you come to a conclusion. Areas for discussion that are better shared selectively while you are forming your views. Comments are often made and opinions sought on the characteristics of individuals – as you see them – particularly if you have to deal with them in the future. If HRH Prince Andrew is of the view that Americans know nothing about geography, and if the US Ambassador listening thinks Prince Andrew is rude, these are personal views. What benefit is derived from those views being aired - other than to create embarrassment? On the other hand if US operatives in the UN were being asked to obtain information about nationals of other countries with regard to credit card details and frequent flyer numbers I would say that was incorrect behaviour. 

This is going to run and run, I fear, and is not likely to have a happy ending. Someone is going to pull the trigger on Mr Assange, albeit only figuratively, although that won’t necessarily stop what he has started. Countries are going to become exceedingly cautious of their dealings with each other in future, which is likely to lead to less cooperation, at a time when the world needs agreement on some important issues like Korea, the world financial situation and important matters such as climate change.

On balance, I do not think Mr Assange has done the world many favours. He has highlighted the things we all suspect go on in diplomatic and political circles anyway, but has created an atmosphere that at best becomes unworkable – and at worst will lead to some major unpleasantness.

And all because some people forgot an old piece of wisdom.

 

Comments

[David Eldon]

No arguments there. As to your comment "Finally, the true fault lies in the Americans' inability to keep their secrets secret." - hence my Blog title - "Never Put in Writing ... "

[Peter]

I accept your point that Arab leaders were not the only ones to have been shown to be hypocritical and duplicitous. However, as they practice in matters of war and peace, and life and death, as opposed to just some meaningless tittle tattle,I think they win the gold medal by a wide margin.

As for privacy, I think it deserves the utmost respect when it is private. Generally speaking, I think governments are far too secretive when conducting the public's business, including in most of these recently released cables. In public affairs, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Finally, the true fault lies in the Americans' inability to keep their secrets secret. In this regard, they got what they deserved, methinks.

[David Eldon]

In relation to the comment attributed to Ricky Gervais, it is a neat soundbite but I would say it is not entirely practical. First let us not confuse "facts" and "opinions". The opinion of an individual, or indeed the slant they can put on that opinion is not necessarily fact. (A bit like the name chosen by the commentator - Mr Assange; really?). Secondly, I think in all our lives we come across situations where the truth is best kept amongst those who need to know - not the many who would exploit that truth to their own benefit and NOT make the world a better place as a result. What you are effectively saying is that ALL communication should be open and available for everyone to see. You therefore appear to take the view that privacy is not a right. Of course you are entitled to that view, but I cannot agree with it.
On the comment about Mr Assange (I presume the real one - not the previous author on the Blog) performing a public service, I do agree the Americans can absorb the embarrassment (although I think it is a lot, not a little), but the notion that it exposes "rank hypocrisy and duplicity" in the Arab world is not broad enough. Surely, if the opinions that have been relayed in private correspondence are accepted as at least "near truths", then it exposes universal hypocrisy and duplicity of so-called leaders everywhere, not only the ones you have singled out in the Arab world.

[Peter]

On balance, Mr. Assange has performed a public service. The Americans can absorb a little embarrassment and it is a small price to pay for exposing the rank hypocrisy and duplicity of the so-called leaders of the Arab world.

[Mr Assange]

As Ricky Gervais of The Office fame put it: "The truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity."

[jeremy]

Shut down Assange(those vicious Swedes!) and another one will pop up. It doesn't cost much to run such an operation and there will always be those attracted to the fame/notoriety. Well, a more measured and tactical editorial intelligence can go a long way in making the WikiLeak concept more acceptable.

And wait till someone figures out a workable revenue model a few years down the road! That'll make it even more interesting.

We still have not seen half of what a universally free (in all senses of the word) flow of information can do. There will be many more fantastic benefits, and more ills to come out of it - and we'll have to learn to deal with both.

Sometimes, it can take many years before history decides whether a particular development was for the better or for worse.

[Robert]

Certainly the wisest analysis in the International media that I have read. How refreshing to hear a perspective view. Assange's personal behaviour strongly suggests a mischief maker. Being wanted by Interpol rather suggests a wolf portraying itself as a lamb!

[David Eldon]

Thank you for your comment. I don't actually disagree with the concept you put forward as Governments of course do need to hear the unvarnished truth (although they themselves seem to find it difficult to pass on the same courtesy to their public on occasions). But I would contend that the language of diplomacy could have enabled the author to convey the appropriate message without it being so likely to cause offence or be used inappropriately.

[Lyall Boswell]

Surely you miss the point. Governments need to hear unvarnished opinions from their people in the field. They need this information to make informed decisions. Your maxim simply does not and can not apply here. If it did then modern diplomacy would cease to exist. As someone who reached such senior heights in your chosen field it is odd that you do not see this.

[Andrew]

"Are we so technologically incompetent that even if we had grounds to do so and wanted to block or close down his website we cannot?"

Pretty much. Wikileaks has a very sophisticated set up for exactly that reason. It makes it very hard to take down.

For what it's worth, the Wikileaks site is currently under a Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS) to try and disable it. The size of that attack is approx. 10GB per second of requests hitting their servers (like downloading a DVD every second - and you know how long that normally takes!).

They've protected themselves by switching over to Amazon's cloud computing network - which can absorb the impact. Wacky!

Ok, I've finished nerding out now.

[hans.olijv]

maybe the leaks show what everyone knows about everyone anyway..however putting it out in the public does put a strain on someone meeting another person knowing that the other person now knows what he really thinks about that person ..awkward glances will be made..but for sure trust if there was any...will be on a low tide now..whenever people want to discuss something in private..for your ears only...but not for everybody's eyes to read and know...

hans