If youâ€™ve figured out the true intentions of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, please let me know. In the meantime, Iâ€™m starting to feel troubled, even defensive, about the groupâ€™s mass releases of U.S. government confidential documents.
Adding information to the public domain on important issues â€” this is a journalistic duty few would deny. Major publications will certainly be excited to see what WikiLeaks publishes this time, as they have in the past.
Yet this latest batch of documents concerns U.S. diplomatic affairs around the world, from confidential assessments by ambassadors about foreign leaders to the private communiquÃ©s from Washington to individual embassies. This latest broadside from WikiLeaks makes the journalistic position more troubling.
In a recent blog post, Blake Hounshell of Foreign Policy asked if WikiLeaks has gone too far. Hounshell admitted he was eager to see the documents but expressed doubt about undermining the ability of diplomats to do their jobs and WikiLeaksâ€™ dismissive stance on its role. The group argues that the world should have as many classified documents as possible â€” any nation, any time.
Thatâ€™s not really how itâ€™s working out. Itâ€™s now increasingly hard to ignore an anti-American vendetta in Assangeâ€™s efforts. Documents about U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may have informed the public in meaningful ways, even if they apparently had nothing new for those living in the region.
With the State Departmentâ€™s files, however, there will certainly be revelations, and many seem preliminarily more likely to embarrass and damage U.S. foreign policy than do anything else. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been leading efforts to mitigate the upcoming onslaught by reaching out to world leaders before ambassadorsâ€™ private observations of them come to light.
One might argue that Assange has no vendetta against the U.S. and that he only publishes these U.S.-focused documents because theyâ€™re what his group has available. Consider Assangeâ€™s own words, however: â€œThe material that we are about to release covers essentially every major issue in every country in the world.â€
So, ignoring the Assange arrogance factor, we have confidential U.S. government documents on every major issue in the world. Am I the only person who believes that those issues include important ones in which U.S. secrecy is beneficial to the public good?
The State Department has taken the position that these documents were obtained illegally and will risk the lives of various individuals. Assange responded by offering to negotiate on individual redactions, a possible compromise with which the U.S. government refused to participate.
Even assuming that this offer of partial redactions meets the concern of individualsâ€™ immediate safety, it doesnâ€™t address the broader possibility of ambassadorsâ€™ efforts being undermined in efforts such as helping to ensure the protection of aid organizations in those nations.
WikiLeaksâ€™ founder seems to believe that any secrecy or confidentiality by a government is inherently suspect. Yet secrecy isnâ€™t always sinister.
The unfortunate byproduct of this release is that, as WikiLeaks publishes by massive salvo, not by individual scoop, the U.S. will suffer in areas we canâ€™t yet predict.
Like the rest of the journalistic field, Iâ€™m usually excited by breaking news that holds governments and large corporations accountable for their actions.
But as an American, Iâ€™m worried about WikiLeaksâ€™ actions. Whether by circumstance or by design, Assange seems to be harming my countryâ€™s ability to operate. Because I reject the notion that all American operations are wrongful, I cannot view this release of documents as simply a journalistâ€™s bonanza.
We can hope that the release of these documents encourages government accountability. Then Assangeâ€™s latest efforts will have yielded a positive contribution for the global community. Iâ€™m now increasingly suspicious that this wonâ€™t happen.
Alexander R. Konrad is a UWIRE columnist who writes for The Harvard Crimson. Letters and feedback can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.