Wikilogue

The first time I came across WikiLeaks, I thought what a great idea. It's online nature gave it a level of impunity from state actors and it was therefore a formidable tool for making governments more accountable to their citizens. It promised to empower whistleblowers around the world, to be a thorn in the side of elected politicians and dictators alike, should they think of dusting over any shady dealings. So, commendable stuff, surely.

Since releasing WikiLeaks some four years ago, the founder, Julian Assange's work has been at considerable cost to himself. He has received death threats and his freedom of movement is severely curtailed - as tends to happen when one is wanted by several governments.

I'd still be applauding him if all these sacrifices were due to a simple, altruistic compulsion to promote freedom of information. On this occasion, however, by publishing documents that identify facilities around the world which the US State Department perceives as vital to American security, Mr Assange has taken an unwise and unhelpful step, from exposing injustices already committed to placing people in clear and present danger.

The earlier sections of these Embassy Cables were more interesting than revealing. There was little of real consequence, for example, from learning what American diplomats really thought of our European leaders. Nor was it stop-the-press news that the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was of the view that Saudi Arabia helped raise funds for Sunni terrorists.

The Cables contained another 250,000 or so letters and snippets like these, but the majority of the information in them did little more than provide a glimpse into the views and mindsets of the American foreign policy machine. 


That said, the straight forward language deployed by the US officials did probably ruffle a few feathers around the world and complicate some international relationships - which is another factor Assange doesn't seem to have troubled his mind with. Indeed, as a result of putting this information in the public domain, diplomats and officials will doubtless be less candid in their future correspondence - something that is surely not conducive to good public policy or amicable international relationships.

In any case, publishing detailed information on hundreds of military and civilian buildings, Assange inadvertedly began aiding and abetting those out to harm the United Sates and every other country identified in the documents. He has placed everyone who works at these facilities in direct danger, and indirectly endangered all of us those who rely upon the facilities and the services they provide - that's you, me, us.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind said that this leak bordered on criminal, and it certainly did fulfil the criteria of recklessness in English law at least. Publishing this material did and does entail a foreseeable risk that some nutjob or disgruntled visa applicant decides to find the nearest place whence to vent their anger at the US - or against another community or government. If advising terrorists on the best targets around the world is not recklessness, then please enlighten me as to what is.

This week Mr Assange wrote that, "WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time, we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed." But WikiLeaks in no way vets the people accessing the sensitive information it provides - so for who's benefit are these documents supposed to be for? And what part are they to play in what Assange is out to accomplish? Does he really consider it useful, for example, that everybody is allowed unfettered access to detailed information on the gas pipelines that are most important for European security?

Judging by how his wikirays seem to be projected solely on the US, he has a beef with America, quite likely with its foreign policy and global dominance in particular. He's probably out to create a more just and equitable world order as well. This would be fair enough and good on you, of course, but I find it difficult to believe that he would be so stupid or naive as to not realise that the only people likely to benefit from this information are those out to harm others. How will Assange explain his role, should an intentional tragedy occur in one of these places.

This disregard for the safety of others reveals how he's actually less a champion of freedom of information, the common good, and more a person on an anti-US quest. In this instance at least, the collateral damage that may ensue is of no consequence for him, as long as the main target suffers.

Even his colleagues seem to think so: In the NYT article "WikiLeaks Founder on the run, Trailed by Notoriety", they are said  to be "abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behaviour, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood." According to his colleagues, it was also his decision alone "to release the Afghanistan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for Nato troops."

His actions are thus guided by a most shallow form of utilitarianism where the end always justifies the means. By putting the health, safety and security of others at risk solely to further his agenda, he puts no premium on the intrinsic value of others, and sees us only in terms of our utility toward fulfilling his plan. He doesn't even allow for any discussion or debate on the wisdom of his actions, he just does it, whatever the consequences.

These particular leaks are no longer about freedom of information: they are about one person putting others in danger so as to further his singular world view. He is, in short, an idealogues - and they tend to be dangrerous.

UPDATE: Some former employees of WikiLeaks have just released a new website, OpenLeaks. Although not fully operational yet, according to the creators, the main impetus for creating the new site was to have a democratic and accountable organisation for helping whistleblowers, rather than that lead by Assange, who they accuse of behaving like "some kind of emperor or slave trader."