ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Wikileaks & Beyond
By Chris Spannos at Nov 29, 2010 |
|
My initial reaction to the latest Wikileak is mixed. On the one hand there is concern about the release of “classified” diplomatic cables and its consequences. Some, for example in a Guardian editorial, have made the point that much of the released information is not that serious and maybe should not have been classified in the first place.
On the other hand, reading what has been released so far, those examples of classified information that are revealing, provide more evidence and texture for what everybody knows and expects already—that U.S. diplomatic relations are deceitfully contoured in service to U.S. Empire building, for example, in the revelation about spying on UN leadership and its general secretary Ban Ki-moon.
The 251,287 cables go back over four decades, from 1966 and into February of this year, exposing what Wikileaks describes as “the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in ‘client states’; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.”
All this is not only something that is not controversial among high ranking U.S. elites—and assumed as their given right and duty to spy (as in, their thinking won’t allow the slightest doubt about such practices anyway)—but there are actually very recent and more devastating examples illustrating a magnitude of deceit far outweighing anything I have read released since yesterday.
For example, the manufacture of false evidence of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq, to invade and occupy that country—a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Of course, this is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to U.S. foreign policy in any serious way.
Although previous Wikileaks have exposed brutal military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan there are limitations to these, in that massive data dumps such as this are just that—dumping the raw data for all to see where it is more likely that mainstream media will cherry-pick the data, and in doing so, set the parameters of our thinking.
Instead of developing a structural critique of U.S. imperialism highlighting the daily abuses of power by rulers over the ruled, both at home and abroad—and also before and after the leaks—there will be focus on various diplomatic scandals, people and personalities, and middle layer bureaucracies of U.S. government.
Although the long-term diplomatic consequences and fall-out are unpredictable, how past, present, and future leaks like this one will affect popular consciousness about the structural roots of these revelations, in the long-term, is largely up to the Left.
As Wikileaks explains, “The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.” Will there be popular anger or apathy? Perhaps there will be a combination that is hard to read.
Will there be building resentment on top of already existing distrust and adding kindling to embers of skepticism about Obama or any government after his administration? Will the distrust and anger feed into the Tea Party? How will this manifest itself without an existing mass movement for people to participate in, to improve, not just U.S. foreign policy and government bureaucracy, but more far reaching changes in our everyday lives for a new society and world that is classless, internationalist, self-managing and participatory?
--
Related: See interview with Michael Swartz about the Iraq War Logs, “War Logs Now and in the Future”
My reaction isn't mixed!
By Podur, Justin at Nov 29, 2010 17:09 PM
1. Details about what they've been up to that haven't come to light, now have a chance to. It's true that the mainstream media will try to cherry pick and frame things, but since we have access to the same data, we are on a more level playing field than we have been before.
2. The idea that they won't be able to keep this stuff secret has interesting potential consequences. I don't know if they are good or bad, but I do think that if this kind of thing keeps up and states start to get the sense that they won't be able to cover up what they do, they'll be forced to commit their crimes in the open.
Again, I don't know if that's a good thing. It might not be. As you say, in the absence of counter forces, a strong state being pushed to open criminality might not be a good thing. And yet, I can't see any benefit to them being able to hide their crimes, which is why my reaction is positive.
I also think that if we don't want these data to be cherry-picked and framed, we have to analyze them and put our analysis out there. They offer strong evidence for our view of the world, after all, and the only arguments against them have to do with smearing the people who exposed them or the usual "national security" trick. Helping people make sense of the data, and helping show how valuable it is to have these data in the public domain, will help with the precedent and with public support for more such leaks.
Reply this comment
Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Spannos, Chris at Nov 29, 2010 17:40 PM
Hi Justin!
I agree with your point 1., with the caveat that our ability to take advantage of a more level playing field will be made difficult because the mainstream megaphone is simply larger – as is usually the case. This is not a disagreement, as I assume you will agree that we just need to work harder and more skillfully to use the same data and window of opportunity to deliver a Left perspective. On this point however, I think Wikileaks should have been more selective in the data released, for example the assertions made by some diplomats that North Korea has provided nuclear weapons assistance to Iran. While these are only assertions, this is the type of data that can be cherry-picked and parroted as “truth” with disastrous effect for the Left while fueling the Right. We will have no choice but to compete with this narrative and continue to present counter evidence.
On point number 2. I also agree. I didn’t comment on this in my blog because I just wanted to get to some quick thoughts out on the leak. But I think you are right and it may make cover-ups and elite crimes harder to commit, although, on the other hand, it may also drive elites to cover their tracks in more sophisticated ways...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Podur, Justin at Nov 29, 2010 22:15 PM
On a related note, I naturally went straight to the US-Tel Aviv cables, and was sort of disappointed to see how ideological they were. I guess a part of me believed that they were more honest among themselves than they were with us - but even their cables to each other contain lots of propaganda, which I suppose is just a sign that their world views run deep, and there's no secret place where they take off their masks and get a good laugh about fooling the rest of us...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By George, Justin at Nov 30, 2010 02:59 AM
I did likewise, seeking out some of the cables discussing Israel and Palestine, and was surprised at the language use and world view. I too expected more 'truth' or even more of a geopolitical realist perspective on the conflict.
Which is another area that the Left needs to help clarify- while these cables contain a wealth of information just because its raw data doesn't mean that such data is somehow objective or authoritative in nature.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Spannos, Chris at Nov 30, 2010 15:04 PM
I think my use of the word "selective" was not accurate because I also agree with releasing all cables. What I was driving at, is that, in this first round of cables released they should have somehow created a way to more clearly distinguish fact from assertion (among other categories)—yet I know this is easier said than done, and especially when handling so much data. Of course Wikipedia has a way for users to indicate if a claim should be contested (that takes far less resources than a mainstream media outlet and millions of reader’s time!). The hope would have been anticipatory for the mainstream spin on certain cables for war-mongering ends. Actually, I find it hard to believe that Wikileaks and Assange did not anticipate this or its consequence (but will be tremendously disappointed if they didn’t). Hopefully they have a grander media strategy that we will see unfold over the coming months. As of this morning there are only 288 docs released out of the quarter million yet to be. And if some outlets are already running with war-making assertions like the Iranian nuclear missiles I would be very pleased if down the road it proved to be a trap for the media and what we see right now is the mainstream taking the bait – with cables based on overwhelming evidence in both number and fact released later and that counter the pro-war assertions being released now. Of course this is only wishful thinking. Soon it may be too late anyway, with damage already done, not least if Wikileaks can withstand U.S. pressure, calls to hunt Assange down, and countries who say they will cooperate.
Interesting what you both say about the US-Tel Aviv cables. But I’m not surprised that they actually believe what they believe and in many ways I think that is necessary.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Govender, Indira at Dec 07, 2010 11:04 AM
During apartheid South Africa, most of the hate crimes were committed by brainwashed foot soldiers acting as puppets for statesmen. Perhaps this is a pattern throughout history that those who see through the facade are less likely to partake in perpetuating it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Emersberger, Joe at Dec 01, 2010 01:01 AM
You say
"I guess a part of me believed that they were more honest among themselves than they were with us - but even their cables to each other contain lots of propaganda, which I suppose is just a sign that their world views run deep, and there's no secret place where they take off their masks and get a good laugh about fooling the rest of us....... "
I read a cable from the US embassy in Caracas and it seemed comincal to me the sources the person was using to base his view of Venezuela's health care system - the rabidly right wing anti-Chavez newspapers.
I kind of share your surprsie about how ideologically blinkered they are. However the cables from Honduras that Naiman wrote about show that they do and must retain some ability to evaluate the world based on facts.
That brings up an interesting question. What is more important to be a servant of the eilte?
a) ideological fanaticism or
b) technical competence.
I guess you could answer "a" is more important the higher up you go, but their are costs involved to the powerful in giving up "b".
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Marty, David at Dec 01, 2010 14:03 PM
My answer would be that if you were only a skilled person with no ideology it would require too much energy from you to be able to 1) do the job well and at the same time 2) be able to deal with the bullshit.
So it is much easier to be an ideological person from the beginning, then you only have to focus on 1).
Reply this comment
Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Marty, David at Nov 30, 2010 17:08 PM
Interesting post (clicked on it from FB).
I basically agree with both of you with nuances and comments I'd like to add.
My take on this is that Wikileaks has, I'm speculating now, calculated the cost/advantage of all aspects of the release. And it seems to me that their decisions are actually based on a rational choice:
- What I mean is that their very existence relies on their reputation. If they decided to either 'select' (yet I understood it wasn't Chris' point) or even organize data (in categories or adding even the shortest comments) they would appear as a political organization. And if that happened, then they would probably 1) deter some whistleblowers who, in spite of their action, are distrustful of political movements and 2) provide an easy rationale for Wikileaks opponents who would strategically decide to discredit by labelling anything that comes out as 'ideologically' tainted. So in this regard, Wikileaks has nothing to gain from touching anything. It is sort of a labor division based on the same principle as several compartments of a boat's hull: if one compartment gets flooded, by having a strict separation from other compartments the boat doesn't sink. Here Wikileaks knows that any politically active action could compromise the entire movement.
- Another aspect that also includes cost/advantage thinking has to do with the more direct consequence of their release on political decision making. By making such actions 'public' it simply raises the social cost of the decision makers and provide a powerful incentive for even more discreet actions, ergo less violent. This is, at least, my interpretation of such actions by looking at recent history in my country, France, the US and other fairly civilized countries. So, I don't think that governments will act more openly, they will, indeed as Chris suggested, try to find more sophisticated ways to act, but contrary to what Chris has said, I find it is a good sign and a good thing in itself, not the opposite.
Also, I should say, in light of the strategy adopted to undermine Wikileaks, I think their choices were the right ones and the smear campaign has not succeeded. The rape case was an embarassing disaster and quickly forgotten, and the very fact that they attack Julian Assange is a sign of despair, since the point was for Wikileaks to have him as a scapegoat from the beginning. So far they haven't touched the substance of Wikileaks which is the trust they inspire and their rather apolitical nature.
Cheers!
ps: Finally, Justin, I should add that there is, in fact, a place where decision makers take their masks off and laugh about us, it's a place in the desert called 'Ye Old Cock Tavern'. They have happy hour from 7 to 8, they also have Chef Sarkozy's Special Puppy Ribs for only $25,000, free shot of tequila if you bring somebody else's wife and a jukebox that plays Karl Rove's rap song in a loop. I could get you in if you want, I know this guy who knows a guy...
Reply this comment
Re: My reaction isn't mixed!
By Garrigues, Chris at Dec 03, 2010 18:12 PM
Re: point #1, I think there's some insight from Remembering Tomorrow
"This phenomenon of an academic discipline being less than it claims to be is not confined to economics. Consider political science. Noam Chomsky told me a story that revealed how the same thing holds there. When Daniel Ellsberg stole highly classified documents detailing decision making in the U.S. government during the war in Vietnam, what was called the Pentagon Papers, he wasn’t trying to be an ideal academician, of course. But, when you think about it, there was an academic dimension to it.
To convey the insight, Noam asked me to imagine, for example, that some Soviet government employee stole documents detailing decision making in the Politburo during the Stalin purges or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Afghanistan. In the USSR, of course, these documents would not be used in political science courses on penalty of losing one’s job and being shipped off to Siberia. Courses on political science in Soviet graduate programs would use government public proclamations, reports found in the state newspaper, Pravda, etc. Doctoral programs would use specially filtered content consistent with arriving at conclusions acceptable to the Kremlin.
Returning to the U.S., Ellsberg’s act was to copy and then to smuggle out of high security offices documents revealing some of the true calculations of U.S./Vietnam policy making. So Noam asked, did our political science departments overwhelmingly use these documents, either then or later, as primary sources for understanding our government? It wouldn’t have been a crime to use them, but still, it didn’t happen. What should have become virtually universally utilized core material, far more valuable than government pronouncements, public speeches, and New York Times reports, essentially disappeared from public and even scholarly attention and certainly never achieved real prominence in the political science discipline.
What the analogy showed me was that political science in the U.S. is not firstly about understanding the operations of the U.S. government. As in the Soviet case, damning data was avoided. Commitment to rationalizing existing institutions precluded full revelation and analysis. My added observation was that this holds for the economics profession, too, so it shouldn’t be surprising that you can go through graduate economics training, teach for decades in a university, and still have no serious comprehension of the impact of markets or corporate divisions of labor on human behavior, preferences, or intergroup relations."
Not to assume that academic Left is the same as the Left, but how are we on any more of a level playing field than when the Pentagon Papers were released? I'm not at all confident in my history of that event or its times, but it seems that the media is only more powerful and even a solid, significant minority would still need to be looking past mainstream analysis to see this raw data let alone be receptive to clear-minded assessment. That being said, I don't really have any mixed reactions either. The data is there and methodologies exist to convey it into useful information - so redacted, abridged, etc serve no purpose beyond unnecessarily treating people with kid gloves. If Julian Assange can handle it, I can handle it. If I can handle it, anyone off the street can too.
Reply this comment