Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
WikiLeaks shines light on dark areas but likely outcome is more secrecy
By Peter Singer |
December 23, 2010, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
AT Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson, who was president of the university before he became president of the United States, is never far away.
So when the furor erupted over WikiLeaks' recent release of a quarter-million diplomatic cables, I was reminded of Wilson's 1918 speech in which he put forward "Fourteen Points" for a just peace to end World War I. The first of those 14 points reads: "Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."
Is this an ideal that we should take seriously? Is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a true follower of Woodrow Wilson?
Wilson was unable to get the Treaty of Versailles to reflect his 14 points fully, although it did include several of them, including the establishment of an association of states that proved to be the forerunner of today's United Nations. But Wilson then failed to get the US Senate to ratify the treaty, which included the covenant of the League of Nations.
Flawed argument
Professor Paul Schroeter wrote recently that open diplomacy is often "fatally flawed," and gave as an example the need for secret negotiations to reach agreement on the Treaty of Versailles.
Since the treaty bears substantial responsibility for the resurrection of German nationalism that led to the rise of Hitler and World War II, it is arguably the most disastrous peace treaty in human history.
Open government is, within limits, an ideal that we all share.
US President Barack Obama endorsed it when he took office in January 2009. "Starting today," he told his cabinet secretaries and staff, "every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known." He then noted that there would have to be exceptions to this policy to protect privacy and national security.
Some of the leaked cables are just opinion, and not much more than gossip about national leaders. But, because of the leak, we know, for example, that when the British government set up its supposedly open inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war, it also promised the US government that it would "put measures in place to protect your interests."
The British government appears to have been deceiving the public and its own parliament.
We have also learned more about the level of corruption in some of the regimes that the US supports, and in other countries with which the US has friendly relations.
Ideal
In a democracy, citizens pass judgment on their government, and if they are kept in the dark about what their government is doing, they cannot be in a position to make well-grounded decisions.
But openness is in this respect like pacifism: just as we cannot embrace complete disarmament while others stand ready to use their weapons, so Woodrow Wilson's world of open diplomacy is a noble ideal that cannot be fully realized in the world in which we live.
We could, however, try to get closer to that ideal.
If governments did not mislead their citizens so often, there would be less need for secrecy, and if leaders knew that they could not rely on keeping the public in the dark about what they are doing, they would have a powerful incentive to behave better.
It is therefore regrettable that the most likely outcome of the recent revelations will be greater restrictions to prevent further leaks. Let's hope that in the new WikiLeaks age, that goal remains out of reach.
(The author is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. www.project-syndicate.org)
So when the furor erupted over WikiLeaks' recent release of a quarter-million diplomatic cables, I was reminded of Wilson's 1918 speech in which he put forward "Fourteen Points" for a just peace to end World War I. The first of those 14 points reads: "Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."
Is this an ideal that we should take seriously? Is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a true follower of Woodrow Wilson?
Wilson was unable to get the Treaty of Versailles to reflect his 14 points fully, although it did include several of them, including the establishment of an association of states that proved to be the forerunner of today's United Nations. But Wilson then failed to get the US Senate to ratify the treaty, which included the covenant of the League of Nations.
Flawed argument
Professor Paul Schroeter wrote recently that open diplomacy is often "fatally flawed," and gave as an example the need for secret negotiations to reach agreement on the Treaty of Versailles.
Since the treaty bears substantial responsibility for the resurrection of German nationalism that led to the rise of Hitler and World War II, it is arguably the most disastrous peace treaty in human history.
Open government is, within limits, an ideal that we all share.
US President Barack Obama endorsed it when he took office in January 2009. "Starting today," he told his cabinet secretaries and staff, "every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known." He then noted that there would have to be exceptions to this policy to protect privacy and national security.
Some of the leaked cables are just opinion, and not much more than gossip about national leaders. But, because of the leak, we know, for example, that when the British government set up its supposedly open inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war, it also promised the US government that it would "put measures in place to protect your interests."
The British government appears to have been deceiving the public and its own parliament.
We have also learned more about the level of corruption in some of the regimes that the US supports, and in other countries with which the US has friendly relations.
Ideal
In a democracy, citizens pass judgment on their government, and if they are kept in the dark about what their government is doing, they cannot be in a position to make well-grounded decisions.
But openness is in this respect like pacifism: just as we cannot embrace complete disarmament while others stand ready to use their weapons, so Woodrow Wilson's world of open diplomacy is a noble ideal that cannot be fully realized in the world in which we live.
We could, however, try to get closer to that ideal.
If governments did not mislead their citizens so often, there would be less need for secrecy, and if leaders knew that they could not rely on keeping the public in the dark about what they are doing, they would have a powerful incentive to behave better.
It is therefore regrettable that the most likely outcome of the recent revelations will be greater restrictions to prevent further leaks. Let's hope that in the new WikiLeaks age, that goal remains out of reach.
(The author is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. www.project-syndicate.org)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
