This latest Wikileaks document dump reveals a simplistic, even childish, understanding of democracy on the part of Assange and his enablers. Popular control of government does not mean that there can be no delegation of power. The public can delegate power to conduct diplomacy, with the understanding that secrecy and discretion are its essence. Secrecy in foreign negotiations does not violate popular sovereignty or consent.
The minimal bright side to this latest data dump, which will surely have a chilling effect on our ability to negotiate on the world stage, is the revelation of how normal the Arab diplomats sound. We have been bombarded with the idea that Islam is the Other, fundamentally at odds with the Western world. And in certain respects it is. But it is nevertheless somewhat reassuring to hear the Arab leaders and diplomats act just as calculating and rational in their assessments of security risks as anyone else. Undoubtedly, Brezhnev’s diplomats sounded just as urbane. Still, rational discourse is a powerful, universalizing endeavor, as Habermas would say, with at least the potential to start breaking down irrational difference.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
Interesting, as usual.
Whatever the effect of this exercise, a more peaceful world seems unlikely to be among them. A far MORE secretive one does. (Gotta make extra sure the necessary secrecy is being respected.)
Regarding the normalness of the Arab politicians, this is somewhat problematic.
I have LONG suspected the “Arab World” is ruled by people more rational than the populace (Jordan in particular).
In fact, I think this widely held suspicion is the reason we have not (until recently) been eager to unleash democracy over there.
However, the MORE we support anti-democratic, but (semi) rational leaders over there, the more the population resents it and rightly views us as hypocritical.
Witness Turkey. The idea that democracies don’t cause problems for each other is, I think, largely an artificial artifact of the nature of the cold war.
BTW – the best thing I’ve heard on the Wikileakers naivete is Daniel Drezner who quotes (linking to YouTube) Don Draper from Mad Men. Draper has just encountered some beatniks who rip on to him for his square ways. Draper responds:
People want this grand narratives that are simple yet integrated into everything. Typically, however, there is far less than meets the eye. Or as Hanlon’s Razor puts it, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
“Or as Hanlon’s Razor puts it, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
…or in the case of the government, by incompetence.
I kind of assumed that the things being alleged of Hillary and the state department were always going on to some degree. Its like baseball, its part of the game to try and cheat somewhat without getting caught. Trying to read a catchers signals, a pitcher loading the ball, corked bats. How can there be hard and fast rules in diplomacy? You are trying to win and you do what you think you can get away with. That is not violating the public’s trust. Granted some of this might have been for the Clinton’s personal gain too.
I think the effect of the Wikileaks cable dump is way over-hyped. As “Spengler” has pointed out,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LK30Ak02.html
The cable dump did not tell us anything that any of us who spends time on the internet did not already know. The idea that it outed many “secrets” and is a “threat to national security” is hog-wash.
Indeed, the wikileaks actually venerated a “conservative” worldview with regards to foreign relations and about the Middle-east in particular. It also largely absolves the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the driver of current middle-east unrest.
Most significantly, the Wikileaks demonstrates more than anything the utter incompetence of the Obama administration in foreign policy and completely discredits Hillary Clinton as Secretary of state, for her spying on diplomats.
In anything, the Likileaks is a shot in the arm for the conservative/right wing worldview.
I think Assange did us a great favor.
kurt9 – Are you saying that diplomats from other countries don’t do the same thing? I find that hard to believe. Is there some honor among diplomats that makes this behavior unacceptable?
Is there some honor among diplomats that makes this behavior unacceptable?
Actually yes. It has been accepted for several hundred years that spying is a no-no among diplomats because it makes it impossible to engage in any meaningful diplomacy.
Speaking of the wikileaks in general, I’m sure that Assange wanted to somehow “discredit” the U.S. However, the leaks strongly reinforce a conservative/right-wing worldview with regards to international issues. I find it ironic that conservatives are complaining most loudly about these leaks when, in my opinion, they have done more than anything else over the past 40 years to support their worldview about the world.
I think the conservatives should stop whining about the leaks for this reason.
kurt9 says:
“I find it ironic that conservatives are complaining most loudly about these leaks when, in my opinion, they have done more than anything else over the past 40 years to support their worldview about the world.”
This sounds like an “end justifies the means” argument, which seems to be making a comeback. Or it never went away but I just now noticed it. In any case, I think it is ok to oppose something you consider morally wrong even if it helps your side.
But it is nevertheless somewhat reassuring to hear the Arab leaders and diplomats act just as calculating and rational in their assessments of security risks as anyone else.
What leak gives you this reassurance? We’ve all known the Sauds are a bunch of fat hypocrites for decades. Really, it’s this behavior that’s fueled the dissatisfied religious cranks in their own country.
Look, WikiLeaks is just using technology and possibilities that exist today, it’s a fact of life. If you eliminate them or tried to censor them, there will come others who will find new ways.
Governments should learn to adapt to the new reality. I understand this will be hard, considering how stubborn the music, television and movie industry have been towards downloading — from P2P Napster to Torrents to Newsgroups to VPNs. If anything, the possibility to download has only grown; more availability, faster downloads, better quality.
Mac Donald’s appeal to responsibility is also off target. In a world of 6 billion people you only need one ‘irresponsible’ (if that would be your preferred characterization) person to leak knowledge and the secret’s out. Even in the 60s, during the Cold War’s heatest moments, there were people who smuggled nuclear secrets to the Soviets. We might like humans to be different, but they’re not. You only need one leaker.
I must confess that Assange seems to have balls, confronted with countries like the US. Let’s see if his organization will have equally big balls confronted with the Chinese or Putin.
>>> We’ve all known the Sauds are a bunch of fat hypocrites for decades. Really, it’s this behavior that’s fueled the dissatisfied religious cranks in their own country.
Precisely!
This is exactly what I was trying to say, tho much more succinct.
I think it is ok to oppose something you consider morally wrong even if it helps your side.
I agree. On the other hand, it is also OK to say that what somebody did was wrong, and you don’t condone it, but it did make you better off.
Except during the cold war where nearly all spies worked out of embassies as diplomats.
This is really selective history. I don’t know about pre-WWII but I’d be surprised if it were only a facet of the cold war.
More to the point it has been accepted for hundreds of years that diplomats pretend to only be engaged in diplomacy. It’s standard procedure for some to be spies.
This sounds like an “end justifies the means” argument, which seems to be making a comeback. Or it never went away but I just now noticed it. In any case, I think it is ok to oppose something you consider morally wrong even if it helps your side.
No, not at all. Because I believe there is nothing morally wrong with the Wikileaks. All governments, including our own, are evil and corrupt. Anyone that strikes a blow against them, even a leftist like Assange (and you have to understand how much I truly despise leftist, so this is saying something profound about my attitude), is doing freedom-oriented people like myself a great service.
I LOVE the fact that the wikileaks occurred. I think its great and wonderful and I tell everyone this every chance I get.
Is anyone else concerned about Assange now being sought on “sex charges”? I know nothing about the guy, but doesn’t the charge, coming at precisely this time, that he is a “sex criminal” sound rather extremely suspicious? I know this is a separate issue from the (im)morality of Wikileaks, but this bothers me.
The sex charges were all over the news early this summer. The problem is that Sweden has some rather unusually broad sex charges. It’s not what I’d have called rape for sure. Someone told me that there was an influx of feminist law makers who made charges so broad as to be ridiculous. The person in question fully admits that the sex was consensual but that the condom broke. Apparently in Sweden that’s rape.
So you don’t think the sex charges have any connection to him having become rather unpopular among quite a few governments?
Wikileaks’ Willileaked and surely that must be a criminal offense.