“To state this argument is to expose its anti-democratic essence”
by zunguzungu
Jordan Stancil, a former U.S. diplomat, describes how cables get classified, and gets to the heart of it:
The classification rules were supposed to induce openness by requiring cable authors to choose from a list of justifications in the controlling executive order before classifying a document, but in reality, as I saw during my own Foreign Service postings, everybody chooses reasons 1.4(b) and (d)—foreign government information, and foreign activities of the United States. In fact, nearly all officers simply had those justifications pre-pasted into a cable-writing template on their computers. As everyone can now see, almost all the WikiLeaks cables released so far were classified based on reasons 1.4(b) and (d).
There is not a national security reason to keep secret, as a general rule and for an extended period, the interactions between representatives of the US government and representatives of foreign governments. We claim a national security imperative by arguing that foreign politicians would not talk to us if we did not hide what they said from their own constituents and domestic opponents and the governments of third countries. To state this argument is to expose its anti-democratic essence. But this is what Hillary Clinton means when she praises secrecy for permitting what she calls “honest, private dialogue.” She means dialogue among the powerful, safe in the knowledge that they will not be held accountable to their own citizens or legislatures.
Or, as the Economist’s Democracy in America blog put it:
The careerists scattered about the world in America’s intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America’s unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.
I don’t buy any of a “former” state department head told us! He is born, bred government issue and not to be trusted. No mention of the death these released memos enumerate over and over again as a matter of government policy. I don’t see how anyone can ever trust the US government. They lie, they cheat and they rob and no mention of those sins is there? WikiLeaks told me all this and I thank him but not you sir!
This article is a nice job. Well done.
*Finally* after all the weeping over damage to trust between nations, a mention of trust between nations and *gasp* their citizens. It’s a funny world where a business journal has to speak up for hoi polloi.
That unelected officials have their opinions and advice kept confidential is part of the key public service bargain. It suits political actors because then they can present policy as a united front when in reality it’s nothing of the sort, and it suits unelected actors because they can offer advice without fear of repercussion.
Opening up that process encourages political actors to appoint officials based on political beliefs in order to preserve that united front, and I think this is what Wikileaks misses in its networking analogy. Rather than assuming conspirators are fixed, in reality conspirators can be changed and altered to suit. Dissenting actors might be replaced with consenting actors, which increases the power of a particular idea.
Sure, the new actors would be technically accountable, but in reality every decision would be biased towards popular vote. Alternative ideas would be discouraged, and that is just as anti-democratic as the public service bargain.
I suppose I should clarify my above comment. By trust that citizens have in their nations I mean trust that nations are by and large have a moral compass and are following it, more or less. Then we as citizens don’t feel we have to micromanage our leaders and can let them get on with statecraft. I don’t care to watch sausage being made as long as I can be confident it’s fit to eat. The released cables confirm that’s seldom true. Telling the Indonesian government they could depopulate East Timor as long as they’re quick about it was the kind of thing that western governments got away with during the Cold War. Not many people knew about it unless it turned up in a Jack Anderson column. With the Endless War on Terror, we’re seeing the same bad habits, so we need to keep a closer eye on our leaders this time. Putting a stop to that “war” would be better, but this will have to do for now.
“We claim a national security imperative by arguing that foreign politicians would not talk to us if we did not hide what they said from their own constituents and domestic opponents and the governments of third countries.”
Much as newspapers insist on keeping their sources strictly confidential.
Without elaboration, your comment makes very little sense. I was under the impression that the reason newspapers keep their sources confidential is to keep informants safe from the kind of horrible retaliation that US authorities have inflicted on the “collateral murder” informant and, presumably, many other past informants.
If newspapers are unable to guarantee the personal safety of either informants or journalists, how can they ever present real news?
Aside from the “embarrassment” suffered by US authorities in recent weeks due to the content of Wikileaks’ Cables, many people have suddenly become acutely aware just how corrupt and complicit some mainstream media have become. And the reason? Thanks to widespread snooping and spying in the US – all in the name of national security, of course – it was thought that anonymity was dead. Nearly all “leaks” to the media were fake for many years, and the moles in government and large corporations were biding their time, hoping for a wikileaks to come along one day.
In my personal opinion, the hysterical uproar from persons in positions of power in the US and, to a certain extent in other countries such as Australia (where I am), is scary in its own right. It suggests that US authorities were taken completely by surprise, strengthening my opinion that they thought they had the media safely under control. Their palpable fear also suggests that either the juiciest Cables are yet to come, or they’re suffering some kind of collective paranoia or psychosis. Perhaps both.
that was not anti-democratic,she;s that was exposing her, and gsthering infoiven