In the ongoing WikiLeaks debate, much has been said about various “rights” of parties. Rights to information, rights to publish, rights to release secret information, rights of WikiLeaks, rights of Julian Assange.
This is a one-sided debate, infused with heavy doses of emotion and self-righteousness. It is, however, a debate which totally ignores the realities that with rights come responsibilities and – most importantly – that every action taken in life bears consequences.
At the heart of the matter is a simple premise. A theft occurred. The stolen property was passed on by the thief to a broker (more correctly, as a person peddling stolen property, a “fence”). The fence then began to peddle stolen goods worldwide.
In the Wikileaks saga, the peddling is of stolen goods that are strategic in nature, the peddling of which has the potential to further destabilise already unstable regions or countries. It has also, without doubt, already directly caused loss of life (and will continue to do so), and provides no constructive purpose or benefit to anyone in the world – except extremist or terrorist organisations.
One view is that people have the right to view the Wikileaks’ published information due to a “universal right to information”. Does this mean, for example, that if an employee steals trade secret information from Apple on its upcoming product range, it is the right of the fence to publish it, (thereby passing on Apple’s trade secrets to its competitors)? Does it mean that if a person steals the confidential list of members of a gay club in, say, Zimbabwe (where being gay is a criminal offence), it is the right of the fence to publish it (thereby passing it on to the Zimbabwe police)? If so, would it mean that the people who recently secretly filmed a student having gay sex at an American university and then posted it online (causing the student who was filmed to commit suicide) were right to do so? Such assertions are at best nonsense, and at worst represent complicity in criminal conduct.
As to the very noticeable anti-American rhetoric accompanying these staunch (if logically void) defences of the indefensible: what short memories people have. Leaving aside the small issue of the Cold War – when many of the countries now railing against the US would be speaking Russian today if it were not for the US – let us look at more recent times.
How soon everyone seems to have forgotten that it was the US which, in the 1990s, came to the aid of the Bosnians (Muslims) after Europe had let them be massacred for years in the first concentration camps and genocide since World War Two. The US also did the same for the Kosovo Albanians (Muslims).
We won’t even go into the fact that it is the US which funds the majority of the UN’s bills, assists emerging market countries worldwide more than any other country, and is the largest single force for positive action in this world.
What if the primary superpower was a country like North Korea? Would they – as the Americans do – restrain their overwhelming financial, commercial or military power to enforce their will globally, or spend a hugely considerable part of their wealth on actions and organisations which promote stability, progress, development and constructive actions worldwide – without any direct benefit accruing to them as a result? Unlikely.
The direct comments in many of the leaked diplomatic cables merely reflect the duty of all diplomats of all countries – which is the practice of realpolitik. All countries practice realpolitik. It is at the core of all diplomacy. The primary consideration for any government or diplomat is the good of their own country and their own country’s population or economy, according to their own country’s perspective.
It has always been so, and it will always be so – because core human nature (upon which realpolitik is based) has altered very little over thousands of years.
Realpolitik can be ruthless and amoral – for reasons which are in the best interests of a country and its people. All countries practise this to varying degrees and always will. The primary differentiator between countries in the practice of realpolitik is that the higher the level of progressive outlook of a country, the higher the level that needs to be reached before amoral and ruthless actions are initiated. Conversely, the more dictatorial or regressive a country, the lower the threshold before ruthless or amoral action is taken.
As to the hero of the day – Julian Assange – I still don’t know in what capacity this adulation is bestowed. He did not act out of conscience (misguided or not – conscience is conscience). It was an American soldier – who is now in jail, and who does not enjoy international adulation, or defence funds paid for by celebrities – who acted.
I doubt this soldier will be pleased that Assange is using the information to cause such damage to the US.
As to the benefits of this information being placed in the public domain, the beneficial result is a neat round zero. At its lowest level, stealing and publishing the private personal comments made by professional diplomats is little better than a person stealing someone’s private e-mail correspondence and giving it to someone else to publish openly. It has the potential to ruin people’s lives and careers for little more than low-level titillation.
At worst, the release of this information will cause further destabilisation in unstable areas of the world, bring about loss of life and endanger people.
An example of this is North Korea. It recently attacked the South in an unusually provocative land attack. This was just before WikiLeaks revelations that the Chinese government will accept a reunified Korea with (South Korean) Seoul as its capital. Other leaks included disparaging remarks made by the Chinese Government about North Korea in general.
It is possible that the North Koreans obtained advanced notice of the Wikileaks release from a source and that this provoked them into the action.
The general North Korean populace faces famine every winter, during which hundreds of thousands of people (men, women and children) starve to death. Only in recent times has this suffering been reduced, because the country’s leaders began to allow food aid in from China and South Korea (including a lot of food sent by the US). Does anyone think it likely that this paranoid, unstable, dictatorial state will now allow the US or China or South Korea to send food in this winter (thereby increasing their leverage on the North Korean authorities) – after having learnt that all of these states are “plotting its demise” ? Not likely.
This is just one example of the results of unleashing the laws of unintended consequences through rash and reckless actions.
Another example: Does anyone really think the government of Iran will let pass the fact that the Saudi king asked America to “cut off the head of the snake”? The Iranian government will deliver some clear messages to Saudi Arabia, in a quiet and (as these things are usually done) deadly manner.
What of the people who live and work at the locations which have been published as being strategically vital to the US? Does anyone think of how they – ordinary people like you and I – will feel, knowing that they have now become primary targets for extremists ?
WikiLeaks’ release of information hasn’t harmed anyone? I think the people responsible had better start to grow up quickly.
The publication of this information has already set back international diplomacy in unstable regions, potentially escalated tensions in others (including in nuclear-armed countries) and exposed nations and their governments to potential threats. It has also caused loss of life and pinpointed potential targets for extremist groups. Not only this, it has done so among people and to countries and governments that are among the most pitiless and dangerous on earth.
Does anyone really think they will just let it lie ?
The reactions of the US government are the least of the concerns that those intimately involved should have. The Americans may be furious, but they will react using due process and try to effect legal action against the Wikileaks personnel involved. They are really not the problem.
The real problems are likely to originate from pitiless and dangerous societies, in the form of:
l Families or friends of people who have lost their lives or careers as a result of the leaks.
l Governments whose decades of work has been ruined, or who have been humiliated or put at extreme risk.
l Hardcore commercial interests (like Russian oil pipeline owners) whose property and revenue have now been put at risk by being openly classified as being in strategic US interest, and is now therefore a target.
The people intimately involved with the leaks have also inadvertently made themselves a commodity in this most dangerous of arenas. This is because it will potentially be in the strategic interests of various extremist organisations or governments to use these people – by taking their lives. They will know full well that the blame for such actions will be laid at the door of the US and embarrass or undermine that country.
This is the most dangerous possibility, because acts such as this are likely to be state-sponsored and therefore very difficult or impossible to prevent.
These are the people and entities that are the most unpredictable, and the most (potentially) dangerous. They never forget, they never forgive and they are as merciless as they are patient. Generally, they will exact such revenge as they see fit, not only on those that they (subjectively, and often illogically) deem responsible, but also on their families.
Strangely enough, the safest possible location for Assange at this time is probably the US, because they will keep him in custody, thereby protecting him. On his own, he is defenceless, as are those who are intimately involved with this matter.
Generally this arena is the preserve of senior diplomats, or members of a country’s intelligence agencies or Special Forces. There are strict rules and consequences in this arena.
This is the real world here, not a Gameboy or PlayStation world, or a Jason Bourne movie. It is a terrifying, merciless and deadly world if one gets on the wrong side of the wrong people, and it has no end, and no sanctuary.
Although I no longer do so, due to work pressures, I have advised many governments previously on geopolitical matters.
I was able to do this because a long time ago I was a Special Forces Operator, and I am fully familiar with diplomatic matters, geopolitical matters and the hidden world that the Wikileaks people have now inadvertently and unknowingly stepped into.
As a result of exposure to war a long time ago, I have spent a great deal of my later life engaging in humanitarian activities and encouraging dialogue over conflict. I also like and support young (non-violent) café latte revolutionaries too, as many of them grow up to be genuine forces for positive change or action in the world.
As such, I was an early supporter of WikiLeaks, but am no longer so; for what is happening now is not whistle-blowing. It is, rather, extremely destructive and dangerous behaviour for no good reason or purpose.
I have the faint hope that perhaps, someone involved in this matter may read this, and if they do, that they may listen.
What you are doing is wrong. It serves no positive purpose, and on the contrary, it is contributing to further destabilisation in dangerous and unstable regions of the world. It is also causing damage and much, much worse to real people and their families.
In my long ago career as a wartime Special Forces Operator, if I had been ordered to effect a mission which required doing that which you are currently doing, and knowing as I did (and do) the potential consequences to be visited upon persons who effect such destructive actions to such a wide variety of extraordinarily dangerous entities and persons on a global basis (and they will blame you, not the Americans) , I would have made my will and not looked forward to a particularly long existence thereafter.
Stop what you are doing. Just for a moment. And think of who and what you are (albeit unintentionally) potentially making your most serious blood enemies worldwide. Let your rational mind subordinate emotion. Think through what this could potentially mean for you and those close to you. For the rest of your life. Then stand up. Walk to the door. Open it.
And RUN.
l The writer is an international businessman who has been consulted by national and regional governments in various countries worldwide on geopolitical matters, as well as to national representatives of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe.
From: http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/wikileaks-world-be-warned-1.1000722