Well, not that Welsh, although talk of leaks always stirs thoughts of Roland Rat for me. Ah, Roland, you were the most endearing of vermin.
Certainly more endearing than some of the rabid comments being tossed about in response to the actions of Julian Assange. I for one have taken some time to weigh up my thoughts about what he's done, and more importantly, its possible ramifications.
Whether or not Assange has broken any laws is for the Courts to decide. I'm not particularly interested in the rape allegations against him; not because I don't regard such allegations as serious, but because they ought to have no bearing on considering his wikileaks actions. Whether or not there is a link between the two is going to receive considerably more attention from conspiracy theorists than it is going to get from me.
Assange has certainly put a number of noses out of joint by revealing the information that he had. Red-Faced politicians and diplomats don't really concern me. And in truth, the sum total of Assange's recently published revelations amounts to little more than tabloid-level gossip. It is, of itself, really rather banal.
But the precedent he may have set could be something else entirely. It's one thing to reveal a US Diplomat's less than glowing characterisation of Kevin Rudd or Vladimir Putin. They'll get annoyed, and bluster a bit, but not much else. But it could be quite something else to reveal, for example, that the US Secretary of State has stated her belief that Kim Jong-Il is a fat pansy with Mother issues. Something like that might very well put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Up until now, Assange has either exercised some prudent restraint in what he's chosen to publish, or he's simply not had that much of substance to reveal. I think the real reason many Governments (but particularly the US Government) are so up in arms, is due to the fact that a failure to appear any less than extremely irked by what Assange has done might very well invite others to go one step further, and in the name of freedom of information, reveal all, and let the chips fall where they may.
Ironically, an unwarranted attack on Assange might such provoke the very reaction that the US would be wise to guard against; retribution. The US has a rather shameful history of trumpeting the freedom of speech, whilst exercising extremely careful (and utterly censorious) control of information. Information is power, and when a bloke like Assange publishes US Diplomatic cables, then US Diplomatic power is weakened. I honestly don't know whether this a good thing or a bad thing. I know that there are better things that an all-powerful nation that can control the affairs of other nations, but I also know that there are worse things, too. And actually, these documents have done quite an impressive job of revealing just how impotent US Diplomatic relations can be. Again, I'm not sure that this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
I do know that Assange needs to be tried if there is a case to be brought against him. I also know that he deserves the full support of the Australian Government, no matter what his fate. He is an Australian citizen, and Julia Gillard thoroughly deserves to be taken to task for her ridiculous allegations of illegality on his part. That she's back-tracked only reinforces a fairly negative - and increasingly negative - perception of her political acumen, in that when called upon to think or act without the act of an internal poll, she's about as sure of herself as an amnesiac.
Assange may very well have acted irresponsibly; many people do. But crime is a very different thing. It remains to be seen to what extent the US - and other nations - will attempt to re-draw the criminal boundaries in order to snag Assange, and deter others from following his lead.
They say sunshine is the best disinfectant. I wonder how a supernova compares. Because right now, the machinations and minutae of international diplomacy are under a very, very bright light. I'm not sure what's the worse case scenario; the revelation of something awful, or the revelation that there's nothing of substance there at all.
Either way, it remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To say that the leaks amount to little more than gossip is incorrect. Some are, no question. Others serve to confirm what many people already suspected but, even so, it's nice to have it set out in black and white. Others however are ground-breaking and rightfully undermine the legitimacy of Governments and corporations.
ReplyDeleteOn Wednesday it was leaked that the US knew that Al Qaeda was funded not by Iraq but by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Ariabia is the US' greatest middle eatern ally. Yet the US rallied its other allies, Australia and the UK included, for war against Iraq because Iraq was sponsoring terrorism. Australia and the UK either swallowed that lie or knowingly lied to their own respective populations. It was bullshit. Australia and the UK should either be royally pissd off with the US or the populations of Australia and the UK (and other countries dragged into the mess) shouold be royally pissed off with their own Governments.
Today it has been leaked that the allied forces don't think the Afganistan war is winnable and haven't thought so for a long time. None of the US, UK or Australian Governemtns have admitted that publically. Last month the Prime Minister said Australia would be there for at least another decade. She may be a moron but, worse, she's treating the population as morons who are beneath such trivialities.
Also leaked today is the news that Pfizer effectively tested pharmaceauticals on Nigerian children. Six died. The Nigerian Govt sued and Pfizer spent untold dough on investigators to dig up dirt on the Nigerian prosecutor in the hope that he'd drop the case. They should be called to account.
The Pfizer story is the lead story on the Guardian online. The lead story in the Age is about Prince Charles having his car shaken by student demonstrators (that is gossip); the SMH, that someone was eaten by a croc in Africa (that is gossip); the Australian, about a Labor free-trade plot; the Herald-Sun; Ablett's feud with Bomber (gossip).
WikiLeaks, like it or lump it, is a publisher. Assange, like or loathe, is a journalist. Before the popular press started relying wholly on press releases for stories and later became cheerleaders for whatever side of politics their owners favoured, this is what investigative journalism looked like. I for one would like to welcome it back.