In case you haven’t been paying attention, WikiLeaks has released yet another set of classified government documents, this time some 250,000 diplomatic cables containing the gossip of diplomats around the world- think of this as People Magazine, foreign affairs edition. Juicy details unlocked include China’s impatience with North Korea, America ordering diplomats to spy on their counterparts, and Saudi impatience with Iran.

By now, it’s pretty obvious how these leaks can hurt American national security and destabilize international relations. However, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is obstinately committed to the proliferation of this secret information, arguing that it promotes transparency. Is he acting out of malice towards the U.S or simply for his belief in freedom of speech?

It would seem strange that some Swedish man would have a grudge against the U.S. To the public’s knowledge, he doesn’t have a grudge against America. In addition, the materials he released recently don’t just deal with the U.S., but also other nations. If he was trying to undermine U.S. efforts, he would’ve selectively published documents to maximize the backlash against U.S. government actions. In other words, cables like China’s growing concern over North Korea’s belligerence wouldn’t have seen the light of Internet day.

So is it a demonstration of the importance of freedom of speech similar to the Freedom of Information Act? Not quite either.

WikiLeaks is not a naive attempt to uphold a fundamental right. Assange is completely aware of the consequences of his website’s leaks. In fact, he seems to cherish the muckraking; WikiLeaks’ mission is to provide “total transparency” on the secrets maneuverings of governments everywhere for the public to discuss. The idea behind the website is that if citizens knew what was going on with their officials, they have an extremely powerful tool to hold them accountable for their actions. For example, our knowledge that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy will certainly impact our assessment of her tenure.

Therefore, my reaction to WikiLeaks is not suspicion of possible subversion or support of their efforts to improve transparency. It is concern over the consequences where private communication between governments is becoming increasingly impossible.

In our daily lives, we have two selves: one public, one private. The public self says the right things, is courteous to others, and acts in a way that assumes that society is judging it. The private self reveals the thoughts underneath: your dislikes, complaints, and beliefs about people and environments, which, due to its improper nature, you only share with a couple of close friends, perhaps to warn them or as a gesture of trust. Now imagine if someone can hear those conversations and post it for the public to see. Now, you can no longer reveal your private self’s thoughts to anyone, hindering your ability to signal trust and aid your friends.

WikiLeaks has this effect on nations. It is already undermining international relations: the U.S.-German relationship is getting frayed, as is China’s relations with North Korea. By airing all the dirty laundry of these countries, WikiLeaks has increased the cost of information sharing and trust among close allies. Communication both within and between embassies is severely hampered, reducing the effectiveness of diplomats. This may result in a fragmentation of nations due to lack of communication as diplomats and government agencies no longer feel safe to be frank in their reports to other agencies or other nations. In the worst case, WikiLeaks can initiate conflict between nations as a result of leaked memos or messages. Therefore, while transparency can be beneficial, I urge Mr. Assange to consider the impact of his publishings instead of relentlessly pushing his own agenda and radical vision of a privacy-free international stage.


(Photo: R_SH)