Implications of governments’ reactions
The 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables prove that the US Administration depends on its belligerent mindset and similar policies to overrule the world. This is the revelation, which hurts it. But it does not mean that the world considers Americans their enemies. It is the ruling character that is being criticized globally. It is something that Americans have to create a check-and-balance situation in their country. While the Administration does immoral things to the world in the name of American interests, it is the American people that can determine what humanistic path the political forces there need to take up. It would be much better if the majority of Americans realize that a rule reliant so much on hypocrisy and conspiracy does not benefit them in the long-run.
Governments of the world do not like such exposure because it does not benefit them much. They would prefer suppression of such information. They would like their peoples to believe exactly what they have been saying and doing in appearance. They would at no cost prefer peoples to know what the states in the name of peoples have been doing in underhand forms. This is the nature of their reactions over the leakage of information by the Wikileaks. Of course, nations may give a legal logic that their laws ban such exposure of information. However, the nature of information that has been kept secret tells us that governments follow hypocritical and impulsive lines of saying and doing things.
Thus, their credibility in general is questioned worldwide. No governments of the world would by nature like what the Wikileaks has been doing. The United States, in particular, and European countries almost simultaneously have reacted very negatively and panick-strickenly to the Wikileaks campaign of leaking classified documents of secrecy.
The US Administration’s reaction appears the most painful. Following the US Administration’s patterns of reaction, European, African, South American and Asian governments have also reacted, depending on their domestic and foreign policy realities.
Most of the governments’ reactions disseminated by the global mass media contain arguments that the disclosure of classified secret documents on domestic, bilateral and international matters could jeopardize international peace and friendship. Their reactions have apparently concentrated on the existing nature of international diplomacy—hypocritical and backstabbing. These highly terrified reactions from the governments of different nations provide us a few positive implications that the globe’s ruling communities have not completely lost a sense of moral embarrassment; they are still alert enough to fear their peoples—the ultimate source of political power as well as the actual history makers. These implications give much hope to the peoples of the world that they have the unlimited potential as to forming any degree of force and restructuring their states as need be.
In practical terms, the governments of the world appear like individuals with individual interests. It is a ghastly reality that the peoples are tricked into serving the governments though they are actually meant to serve the peoples.
However, the moral constitution—neither written nor declared in any form—of the majority of peoples has so far prevented the world from complete self-destruction.
The global mass media, especially those belonging to multinational corporations, have demonstrated their patterns of reactive journalism regarding the leakage of secret documents by the Wikileaks. Most of the media coverage in this context has depended on the reactions ventilated by the US Administration.
US retorts diplomatically, technologically, economically and legally
The US Administration appears the most hurt by the acts of the Wikileaks.
Diplomatically, it has ordered the governments of the developing countries to prevent any further leakage of bilateral secrecy (between the US and the concerned countries).
Technologically, it has been doing what it is up to in order to furtively disrupt the information flow and their online channels. The ISPs in the developing nations, where several US-trained technocrats work, seem to be lured to serve US interest as they manipulate the Internet speed and quality to a higher extent.
Economically, the US Administration would not hesitate to spend any amount of money in order to suppress the present embarrassing conditions arising from the leakage of secret documents by the Wikileaks. Besides, online monetary transactions dealing with the Wikileaks have been disrupted as part of an economic retort.
The US Administration has already declared that what the Wikileaks has been doing is totally against the US constitution and laws. However, Julian Assange, the founder of the Wikileaks, has been arrested not on the basis of the US laws but on the basis of a vague accusation related to a faint dispute within a sexual relationship.
Interpretations of press freedom and varying motives behind it
Even without Wikileaks or some other similar campaigns in the past, peoples of the world knew to a greater extent that the governments did not function in a morally and diplomatically compatible manner. Ordinary suffering masses have experienced their plight brought about by the ruling classes concentrated on their own privileged interests. The ruling elites of the world never count the working class peoples as dignified and decision-making human beings. They think the working class peoples are meant to become mere voters and followers of political parties. This low-cultured viewpoint can be easily traced even among the most gigantic democracies in the world. The global and local mass media are not free from prejudiced mentality regarding what the press freedom means and how it ought to be used.
But the majority of the world peoples stand for the use of press freedom for public wellbeing. They feel frustrated as they see the press freedom being used mostly for the ruling class and political elites. In fact, it is the will of the world’s peoples that the press freedom be used to serve the public interests rather than merely the interests of the rulers.
However, when it comes to transparency of information, not only governments and bureaucracies but also journalists affiliated to party organizations seem extremely worried. They pay some lip service to press freedom but are reactive to the issue of transparency of information.
But the genuine press freedom cannot be enjoyed unless there is a higher degree of information transparency. Governments and bureaucracies are not expected to work as conspiring agencies geared against peoples. If they are under the do-good-be-good principle, they need not be afraid of information transparency. As far as threats or danger out of a higher degree of information transparency is concerned, state mechanisms are to prove their moral integrity to prevent and control any criminal activities resulting out of information. When people are not accessible to the information they need, they are more likely to be defeated as usual.
World’s peoples in confused mental state cannot decide better. The less information they have, the less powerful they are. Do we want them to be mere slaves of the ruling individuals? While, in principle, fundamental rights, including the right to information and press freedom, are well documented in national and international legal provisions, the examination of the ground realities does reveal to us that there exists a strong tendency to misuse press freedom for political and commercial missions, the impact being seen in the promotion and expansion of ultra-consumerist and sensualist culture amidst the suppression of the voice of the voiceless—the core social responsibility principle of journalism universally recognized.
Journalists’ global representative organization the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has already condemned the US move against the use of press freedom for the voiceless. The IFJ General Secretary Aidan White commented on the US move against people’s right, “It is unacceptable to try to deny people the right to know.” Referring to the Wikileaks’ leakage of secret US documents, Aidan added, “These revelations may be embarrassing in their detail, but they also expose corruption and double-dealing in public life that is worthy of public scrutiny. The response of the United States is desperate and dangerous because it goes against fundamental principles of free speech and democracy.”
However, a different response on the leakage of secret documents by the Wikileaks comes from the Reporters without Borders General Secretary Jean-Francois Julliard. In an open letter to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, Julliard states, “Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake.”
Thus is divided the world of journalists on the issue of information leakage.
There is no doubt that the leakage of the oceanic volume of information that world governments want to keep secret as long as they can definitely does not benefit them individually and institutionally; nevertheless, people as the final power in democracy can decide better with information that they get.
Amidst the possibility of merits and demerits of such leakage, more pro-public analysts and interpreters have a special role to play in this context. Intelligence agencies, accustomed to using much power and finance, are not likely to so easily repair their moral tools regarding their own do’s and don’ts. But information players at personal, community, national and international levels have a significant role to play regarding the interpretation and analysis of leaked information.
Since the Wikileaks has leaked a huge quantity of information on the issues related to war and massacres, governments, commerce, suppressive moves, unethical diplomacy, corruption and ill-governance, human rights violations, nature and environment, they definitely carry much significance. But at the same, journalists need to make them journalistically important. The information available from the leaked documents needs analysis and meaningful interpretation.
Moreover, as the RSF General Secretary has urged, the Wikileaks needs to process information so as to prevent genocides and massacre of millions of people, especially in the Muslim world. For example, publishing the name list of Afghan nationals who knowingly or unknowingly served the CIA highly risks their lives. That the CIA does function by employing locals in all countries is not a new fact. Morally corrupt security officials and bureaucrats knowingly betray their own motherland while thousands of ordinary citizens might be working unknowingly for the CIA. For example, INGOs and NGOs funded by global agencies but directed by CIA operatives may have employed thousands of ordinary citizens in the developing nations. Leaking their names without filtering may risk their right to life.
However, it would be in the public interest to publish the names of well-confirmed national traitors in different countries where foreign intelligence rules. Such a leakage mainly depends on the morally rooted portion of bureaucracy.
Journalistic Significance of Wikileaks’ Leakage
The journalists and the mass media in favor of genuine press freedom do their best to use it for the broad public wellbeing. They understand press freedom as a tool to further empower people. Those with feudalistic mindset often tend to use press freedom to further weaken people’s mental status by feeding them with more consumerist entertainment and fun programs while presenting news and views tailored to the needs of the conservative and privileged establishments. This is the noted difference in understanding and using press freedom.
As the Wikileaks has become a major issue yet to be thoroughly studied and analyzed from public journalism perspectives, the transparency of information that its founder argues for is a welcome step. Assange claims his site is a global mass media. He also assures that the Wikileaks-obtained information is verified and analyzed before publication. From this perspective, the Wikileaks can be considered an alternative media with its own merits and demerits. Most media hungry for substantive information can use this alternative media as a huge source. The question who will analyze and interpret all the information leaked remains a big question. It involves money and ethical dedication.
For the time being, Wikileaks has preserved stocks of unanalyzed and uninterpreted information—a tough challenge for media analysts.
It is crystal clear that the information leaked by the Wikileaks is of international significance. So far, the Wikileaks’ campaign has exposed the degrading morality of the ‘best’ democracies. In addition, the Wikileaks’ archive is of long-term significance in the world.
As soon as the 250,000 US diplomatic messages were published in the website of the campaigner, its founder Julian Assange was blacklisted for arrest for a rape charge. The process to arrest him was accelerated with the highest priority. This implies t he weightage of the information material that the Wikileaks has published.
To be further clear, the fact that Assange is in custody now reminds us of how Daniel Ellsberg was arrested for revealing the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times during the Vietnam War era. It is revealed that the British government has agreed to do its best to extradite Assange to Sweden at the earliest. This is a move to discourage what the Wikileaks is doing at present. World crimes and state terrorism must not be overshadowed while establishments are trying to punish an information player.