The Wikileaks Organization and Its Affecting for Policy - Essay Example

& Number: Collateral Damage (http www.wikileaks.ch 03 November (word count 705) Introduction War is best fought in total secrecy. This aspect pertains to war planning so that all the perceived enemies of a state are caught unprepared. This was the case of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor which started the war in the Pacific theater during World War II. The element of surprise is a very powerful tool, especially when waged by the smaller or weaker state such that it gains the initial advantage which it hopes can be translated into more permanent gains. At any rate, a combatant that gains access to military secrets gains knowledge of the enemy in what ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu termed as “know thy enemy.” This is maybe a no-brainer of sorts but this admonition still holds true in modern warfare where technology is often used to great advantage to vanquish the enemy. In ancient times and in the not so very recent past, spies were employed obtain military secrets and leverage this type of information into something actionable to not only win the battle but win the larger war as well. The United States of America employs a variety of means to obtain vital information against its perceived enemies, such as the terror network of Al Qaeda today. It uses the drones which are unmanned to observe the enemy, eavesdrop on their conversations using satellites, hires locals as spies in the countries where it operates or even co-opt politicians to gain access to the highest levels of policy-making decisions and even influence the decision process. In an era of instant worldwide communications afforded by Internet technology, it seems there are no secrets safe enough from prying eyes such as those of highly-motivated hackers. Their idea is to expose some sordid secrets of some governments to the whole world. This paper deals on the subject of the exposes made by the Wikileaks organization and how it affects policy. Discussion Mr. Julian Assange who founded Wikileaks is an Australian by birth but he finds no solace or help from the Australian government for all his troubles. A brilliant computer wizard who can hack into anything no matter how secure, he and his team had decided recently to put a stop to publishing pilfered (hacked) confidential information for the time being in order to focus first on raising money as their site is experiencing a payment blockade imposed by most global Internet payment and remittance companies. He is also fighting extradition for charges of sexual harassment from Great Britain (where he turned himself in) to Sweden in which he suspects the United States of America has a hand in, for publishing sensitive information such as confidential diplomatic cables and more importantly, assessments by US war commanders like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. His motivation defies easy explanation and categorization, mainly because he is not motivated by money or fame but by an ulterior motive. Be that as it may, there is general agreement that Wikileaks has a very profound and long-lasting impact on how governments run their business these days. Its implications range from the merely potentially embarrassing (such as how the United States treats its allies in the confidential diplomatic cables and reports by ambassadors) to life threatening such as in war conditions where the names of particular army units were exposed to the enemy's knowledge, the names of local collaborators who offered support and critical information to U.S. army, to the names of corrupt politicians and even the processes in top-level policy-making decisions. Mr. Assange wants complete transparency from governments which exposes his naivete to a certain extent when it comes to diplomacy (the art of double-talk) but more importantly, to the structure of our international relations and global order where secrecy is of utmost importance too. The release of highly-classified material is certainly harmful, most security experts agree. In a sense, Mr. Assange can be likened to the one of the greatest spies in history, Mr. Klaus Fuchs, who gave American nuclear secrets to the Soviets without anything in exchange. He did not ask for money or anything in return for giving the Russians the American blueprint for the nuclear bomb, allowing Joseph Stalin to predict with certainty down to its exact year to when Soviet Russia will have it own atom bomb. This digression is a bit necessary discussion to put into context the actions of Mr. Assange, whose motivation or lack thereof is a mystery of sorts. Klaus Fuchs (Atom Spy) did it out of moral and ethical grounds as he did not want to see a uni-polar world dominated by one country only (the United States) so he wanted Soviets to have the atomic bomb also to level things up in a bi-polar world. In case of Mr. Assange, he wanted governments to reveal all secrets and let the public decide. He had purposely put into harm's way a lot of people who are working to make the world a better and safer place but he himself is adamant not to disclose his own sources, ironically (Stengel 1). Once a secret is out in the open, it is already quite difficult to contain its damage. In the extraordinary case of Klaus Fuchs, the world is now definitely not safer due to the nuclear proliferation, where even some Third World countries possess the bomb but could not even in its best efforts, provide for the basic necessities of its citizens, like Pakistan and North Korea. One cannot entirely predict with certainty the possible ramifications and consequences of any intentional or even inadvertent disclosure of classified materials or critical information better left in the dark and kept to a few people. Information is like a double-edged sword which can be used for better or for worse; useful information can fall into the wrong hands instead. It can be said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saw goes. Fuchs may be a little regretful later on of what he had done but he was convinced at that time he did the very right thing as he was once a Communist party member in his youth (Melzer 97). Both Mr. Assange and Mr. Klaus Fuchs are imbued with a messianic complex in that they believed they are out to save the world from its follies. However, both governments and diplomacy cannot survive for long if some secrets are not kept from public view and so a big question or moral dilemma is whether secrets are harmful or even necessary in a modern age. This brings into question an eternal enigma whether there is such a thing as “diplomatic truth” when people at the highest levels exchange pleasantries but at the same time be duplicitous. A careful re-examination of the intentional disclosure of closely-guarded diplomatic secrets, for example, will show that more harm than good has been done by the disclosures of WikiLeaks. Diplomacy is euphemistically defined as the art of postponing war, by the intentional use of a language that is ambiguous but still deliver the message as intended. It is the technique of the diplomats to answer a question without really saying anything (Callieres 190). Collateral damage is defined as unintended damage to the innocent parties, such that innocent civilians were somehow victimized from an intended military action. The examples of civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are considered as collateral damage in military parlance but the fallout from the WikiLeaks go beyond from the military field to the important fields of global endeavors such as in diplomacy, international trade and politics. In a world that is increasingly threatened by the growing network of terrorism, the war on terror is greatly hampered by these disclosures and even American national security is compromised to a big extent with an incalculable preventable loss of American lives serving in these wars. A case in point is that of Pakistan's supposed links with the insurgents fighting all the American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. There have been many various incriminating, or even direct evidence, that showed Pakistan's military intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, is supporting and giving information to these Taliban fighters and insurgents. Pakistan is considered as an American ally, receiving billions in aid but its actions do not show its gratitude towards its benefactor. The leaked information from WikiLeaks showed growing stringency in American diplomatic language based from secret military field reports (Mazzetti, Perlez, Schmitt & Lehren 1). The collateral damage comes from Afghanistan itself in which its President Hamid Karzai will not back America in the event of war with Pakistan (Rivera & Rahimi 1). This is indeed a very ironic twist in American diplomacy in which all its efforts to secure peace in Afghanistan are wasted despite spending money and American lives. Mr. Karzai is particularly incensed at the collateral damage caused by night time raids and the use of drones to attack legitimate military targets but inflict civilian casualties as well. In this particular instance, one can see how damaging the WikiLeaks disclosures are in this regard. Conclusion The thesis of Mr. Assange himself is to do away with all government secrets in hopes of probably improving the world situation but this can indeed be very alarming and damaging. News organizations have hailed his actions as courageous that is equally important as the new digital equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act passed a few years ago. His act to pilfer government secrets through hacking can have salutary or beneficial effects, such as the video showing the collateral damage (or collateral murder) of about a dozen people in the suburbs of New Baghdad in Iraq that included two Reuters journalists as well as two children who tried to help the victims (WikiLeaks 1). The Reuters news organization had tried but failed to get a copy of this video taken from an Apache helicopter, but the disclosure had forced the military to review its rules of engagement to prevent similar wartime abuses or collateral damage that frayed its reputation as highly respectful of human rights even during combat operations. But the debate does not end there, as Assange just lost his fight against extradition (Somaiya 1). Works Cited Callieres, Francois de. The Art of Diplomacy. Eds. H.M.A. Keens-Soper and Karl W. Schweizer. Lanham, MD, USA: University Press of America, Inc. 1983. Print. Stengel, Richard. “TIME's Managing Editor on WikiLeaks.” Time Magazine, 02 Dec. 2010. Web. 02 Nov. 2011 Mazzetti, Mark, Perlez, Jane, Schmitt, Eric and Andrew W. Lehren. “Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert.” The New York Times, p. A1. 25 Jul. 2010. Web. 02 Nov. 2011 Melzer, Richard. Breakdown: How the Secret of the Atomic Bomb was Stolen During World War II. Santa Fe, NM, USA: Sunstone Press, 1999. Print. Rivera, Ray and Sangar Rahimi. “Afghan President says his Country would back Pakistan in a Clash with the U.S.” The New York Times, p. A4. 23 Oct. 2011. Web. 02 Nov. 2011 Somaiya, Ravi. “Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal.” The New York Times, 02 Nov. 2011. Web. 02 Nov. 2011 WikiLeaks.org “Collateral Murder.” http://www.wikileaks.ch/ 05 Apr. 2010. Web. 02 Nov. 2011 Read More