Since my post on WikiLeaks last week in which I half-seriously called for a declaration of war against the group I’ve had some rather interesting conversations with my politically-aware friends. I have liberal and conservative friends (as a moderate, I can do that) and had fully expected them all to share my views on WikiLeaks. My conservative friends shared my view that the release of classified diplomatic cables was a malicious attack on the U.S. and deserved some kind of counterattack, either in the courtroom or in some other fashion. I expected this. My liberal friends, however, did not share my view at all, and I didn’t expect that. In fact, they were rather dismayed that I, a supporter of internet neutrality and the potential for the internet to be a force for good, would take the position that I have. The misunderstanding goes both ways. They were focused on Julian Assange (who they have constructed as some kind of folk hero) and cast this as a battle for free speech. I was dismayed that my liberal friends seemed oblivious to the absurdity of a Australian citizen living in Sweden (or hiding in the UK) claiming his First Amendment rights have been violated. Think about it for a minute.
In my general reading on the WikiLeaks scandal I came across this piece in The Atlantic which seems to well represent the liberal perspective. In it, the author compares the effort to silence WikiLeaks to another famous leaking scandal in American history:
It is dispiriting and upsetting for anyone who cares about the American tradition of a free press to see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gibbs turn into H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman and John Dean. We can only pray that we won’t soon be hit with secret White House tapes of Obama drinking scotch and slurring his words while calling Assange bad names.
Of course, younger readers will find themselves scratching their heads at the Watergate-era names (Haldeman who?) but you get the point: corrupt politicians and bureaucrats trying to silence the good guys intent on telling truth to power. Well, I have to admit, it’s a compelling narrative, but I had to remind my liberal friends of earlier discussions we had about Iran. All that talk about war with Iran a while back and their united stand was – give diplomacy a chance. It’s that recourse to diplomacy – war-avoiding, peace-promoting diplomacy – that’s been most been harmed by WikiLeaks.
Liberals should understand that they have no friend in a Wikileaks that attacks the modern machinery of diplomacy and statecraft. Blow the whistle on tyrants and despots, sure; shine the light on human rights abuses, absolutely; reveal corruption in high places, by all means; disclose toxic leaks and environmental damage, more power to you; but attack diplomacy? There’s nothing humanitarian or socially redeeming about attacking the people who negotiate peace agreements, trade deals, and cultural exchanges. By fostering a climate of mistrust and bitterness among top diplomats WikiLeaks represents an attack on world peace and internationalism.
So, did I persuade my liberal friends to share my view? Sadly, no, they seem intent on seeing Mr. Assange as a heroic free-speech crusader. I hope, though, that I at least gave them some doubts.
Photo Credit: dailymail..co.uk
