WikiLeaks is not helping this war

WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange - Image source Washington Post

WikiLeaks recent decision to release more than 250 000 confidential diplomatic cables has yet again created international political and media hysteria. Media organisations around the world have publicly (and secretly) applauded them for releasing information that has fed news-cycles for weeks. Politicians, especially those from the US, have called for his arrest on grounds of breaching national security. While in the past WikiLeaks has released videos and documents that could arguably pose a risk to US national security, it chose to do so because it believed the information contained within those videos and documents would protect the international community. However in this recent release of diplomatic cables, the information that is contained within them is comparably trivial to the other documents that exposed US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as systematic failures in the US military. The leaking of a video depicting US soldiers opening fire on civilians was meant to help save lives by bringing greater public attention to the war. But what this leak has done instead is damage the integrity of diplomatic relations amongst all countries, and may in fact heat up an old 'cold' war. The exposure of diplomatic tensions between China and North Korea will only aggravate the increasingly aggressive state who doesn't like to be publicly denounced, especially by its closest ally, China.

The documents leaked outline China's growing unrest with North Korea, especially with its nuclear program. Colourful language - as colourful as diplomacy gets - such as China referring to the North as a "spoilt child" attracts headlines and attention. Though the issue here isn't what China actually thinks of North Korea, but how the DPRK (North Korean government) perceive the ensuing media attention. China has always been the negotiator between the US, Japan, South Korea and the unpredictable North Korea. It has been China who has repeatedly encouraged North Korea back to the six party talks after it has walked out because no one accepted the North's right to pursue nuclear weaponry. It is well documented that China supports North Korea because it stops 23 millions refugees from flooding over its boarder, and also keeps China, geographically speaking, an arms distance away from South Korea. Though China's unwavering support for the North was most recently seen when, in defiance of a reputable international finding, it supported North Korea's denial of the sinking a South Korean ship. Yet China doesn't like North Korea playing around with nuclear material in what it perceives as its backyard. In 2006 when the DPRK was flouting international law and openly testing its nuclear capabilities, China temporarily shut down power to Pyongyang (which it supplies) - a strong message for North Korea to keep it quiet. Then it also supported a UN resolution to impose further sanctions on the recluse state, despite its continual trade links and dodgy deals with the DPRK. China keeps its position ambiguous so as to avoid serious scrutiny, but also so it can reap the benefits of a US alliance and still have occasional shady dealings with North Korea. Though these diplomatic cables highlighting government tensions between China and the North will make both the US and North Korea question China's standpoint. To best serve its national interest, but also based on precedence, China will remain silent. Though the political skirmish that could ensue in both North and South Korea, may disastrously result in the end of a very tenuous Korean peace.

North Korea is very touchy to international condemnation. When the UN passes a resolution prohibiting it from pursuing nuclear weapons, the DPRK orders for missiles to be fired into the sea of Japan. When  South Korea and the US plan on having "war games" just outside North Korean territory to demonstrate the military prowess of the US and South Korea, the North shells a nearby South Korean island. Basically, North Korea and the DPRK don't like to have their power or image threatened. So the consequence of its closest ally, China, tittle-tattling to the US about how mischievous it is, will not go unnoticed. China and the North may be really chummy at the moment and this is China's way of feeding the US what it would like to hear, though it could also be an under representation of a very fragile relationship between China and the DRPK. Regardless, it is the airing of either fabricated or factual dirty laundry that will insight North Korea to demonstrate its military capabilities yet again. Because of the WikiLeak, North Korea's sovereignty is diminished because the main other state upholding it, is showing wavering support. Thus it will most likely demonstrate to the world that it a nation not to be reckoned with through the only way it knows how - military power and missile 'tests'. And it could well be China who will be in the firing range of North Korea's latest military display, for its unintentional public display of insubordination. WikiLeaks intentions of peace, honesty and accountably, may only provide further fuel for another Korean war.

What WikiLeaks has done is change the course of diplomacy for the forceable future, and ultimately damaged the ability for countries to form diplomatic and strategic alliances. Diplomacy is something that doesn't always need to be made public, mainly on the basis that it is ever changing. Shooting civilians in wartime or making obvious strategic mistakes when at war are actions that should be held to the highest account. The mentioning in a cable that North Korea is "a threat to the whole world's security" is hyperbolic diplomatic nonsense. The Economist very neatly summarised the necessity for diplomacy to be kept confidential.

At this point, what WikiLeaks is doing seems like tattling: telling Sally what Billy said to Jane. It's sometimes possible that Sally really ought to know what Billy said to Jane, if Billy were engaged in some morally culpable deception. But in general, we frown on gossips.

If the documents outlined the US secretly supporting North Korea, that would warrant public attention. Though having every menial detail of almost every US diplomatic cable since the 1960s released, only brings attention to the juicy, somewhat bizarre conversations that have occurred. China's sideways comment to the US about it not being so friendly with North Korea, suddenly becomes China's foreign policy in the eyes of countries like South Korea. This is because South Korea is under enormous domestic pressure to resolve the ongoing conflict, most preferably by uniting the North under South control. This gives politicians in South Korea who want to take a harder, more militarised stance against North Korea, greater political capital to do so. They have a few phrases from a couple of 'WikiLeaked' documents to prove it. This is where WikiLeaks intentions of creating accountability and transparency falter. The documents reception in mainstream media and politics is patchy and only focuses of the visceral, entertaining parts. Like the fact that mainstream media hasn't questioned why more US cables have been in direct reference to the state of Tasmania rather than the whole country of Australia? It's these entertaining and 'newsworthy' lines that'll attract media attention and change public attitudes, not the other plethora of documents that are the diplomatic equivalent of foreign ministers sending smily faced text messages to each other.

The intentions of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was inherently good. Transparency, honesty and accountability are values worth pursuing. Unfortunately for Assange that comes at the cost of being pursued by the US government for "endangering national security" and most likely, being charged for espionage. But the release of diplomatic cables is very different to war logs or footage of soldiers firing upon civilians. The benefit that occurs to the global population on behalf of this release is minimal. It doesn't foster transparency, it only shuts down diplomatic channels and harbours distrust amongst governments. It doesn't encourage honesty, governments will only deny the authenticity of the cables (like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done). Neither does it promote accountability, as the information it contains doesn't expose any one person or any government of serious wrongdoing. The only thing this leak has done is aired the private conversation of countries and diplomats, which in turn feeds the news-cycle and most likely, aggravates overly pretentious countries like North Korea. This leak only insights unstable countries like North Korea to demonstrate their military capabilities through missile strikes and war.

Links: 
WikiLeaks degenerates into gossip - The Economist

At-loss China accepts unified Korea: WikiLeaks - AFP

China ready to abandon North Korea: WikiLeaks - ABC Online

WikiLeaks cables reveal the problem of Pyongyang - Guardian 

Analysis: WikiLeaks reveals China, N. Korea tensions - CNN International

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea' - Guardian 

Anonymity is a necessary part of democracy

A New Yorker cartoon from 1993

Comment boxes at the end of online articles are the norm these days. The ability for the reader to fill out a short form and then tap away their thoughts before posting it to the author and the world, is only a few clicks away. It is democracy in action. It is an open relationship. The author can not sit on his or her high podium and dictate to all who reads, what is important and what isn't. If so, with the plethora of online media, people will be very quick to change. But through spam, vitriol, and often straight out bullying and libel, online comment boxes can become quite an unpleasant place that ruins the experience and democratic process for all involved. Though in no way should a few bad eggs ruin the benefits of online anonymity for everyone. Being anonymous is a right that may not be explicitly enshrined in the constitution or a bill of rights (to which we don't have), yet it is practised extensively throughout Australian society.

Being able to be anonymous empowers the individual. It gives them the ability to speak their mind without the cost of consequence and repercussions. Free speech is the first step. Being able to speak out on political and social issues is critical to the functioning of an effective society. Though while Australia isn't a dictatorial country that limits free speech, there are still consequences for speaking out on issues. This can be referred to as the "cost" of speech and opinion.  Standing up at a rally with a megaphone and blurting out your thoughts brands you and your identity with the words that come out of your mouth. At that point in time you choose to associate your "brand", - your face, voice and attitude - with a cause that you believe in. Though 20 minutes to 20 years later  you may not want to be associated with that same protest. People build up perceptions and prejudices about you because of your participation in that event. Their viewpoint of you, being either positive or negative, changes. This is the "cost"; people have perceptions about you and your "brand". The only way to change and remove that cost, is to change your identity and your "brand". Of course, try changing the perceptions that have been built up in peoples minds; like BP being an environmentally conscientious company for instance.

In comparison, Aung San Su Chi choses to associate herself, her identity and her "brand", to the cause of democracy and liberty in Burma.  However many of her supporters who made statements to western media just before she was released, chose to be anonymous. They chose not to forever brand themselves with her identity for fear of persecution. In Australia, persecution doesn't always come at the end of a gun. It can be a look, comment or vibe you get from a friend, passer by, or even your boss. It doesn't have to be overt. Surprisingly enough, these judgements don't even need to occur. All that needs to happen is this thought process:"What will people think?. Suddenly the "cost" of free speech and participating, outweighs the overall benefits and "return" of speaking out. Under this system, free speech comes at a cost. The consequence of this is that less people participate. They won't voice their opinion, won't participate in public discourse, won't leave a comment on the end of an online article. In China, where to participate in a protest you must register your details with the government, participation is low and sometimes doesn't even occur because of fear of government reprisal. In Australia, the majority of people don't fear their government, they fear the judgement they receive from there friends and family around them. In order for democracy to properly function, participation in public discourse needs to occur because everyone should have the ability to help shape ideas and contribute to society. This is why we vote in secret ballots; so citizens can feel free to vote for whomever they choose. Similarly, it should be the same when making a comment online.

When you remove your identity from free speech, the "cost" to you becomes almost negligible. The person serving you on the other side of the counter doesn't know you are 'Sally_528', neither does your boss or maybe even your partner. Suddenly all those judgements and consequences that that could be possibly be made against you, are now made to the "brand" ('Sally_528'). You have a greater ability to speak out and participate without reprisal. Some claim that this lacks credibility, as there is no face to be put to the name, no system of accountability. But a face doesn't really matter, a brand does. If all 'Sally_528'  does is spam comment walls and write drivel, then people and authors will start to ignore her comments, and the "brand" looses credibility. Similarly, when you read an article, say from the Economist, you may not intimately know who wrote the article, but you trust the name of the Economist.  It is the same principle with online commenting. People trust certain authors and commentators, just as they trust certain parts of Wikipedia, even though they may have not the slightest idea who wrote it. And that is a good thing, because then peoples' judgements are not clouding or disregarding the information that is presented. Political, cultural and social prejudices are put aside. The information that is displayed has to taken on its merit.

Yes, drivel in comment columns are annoying, but they can be ignored. If need be, they can even be deleted. Systems and laws that that require people to disclose their identity, like South Australia's proposed bill earlier in the year (that was quickly repealed), prevents people from making a comment or adding to a discussion on an issues, without reprisal or judgement. All online speech, just as with voting, should be anonymous unless an individual choose it to be otherwise. When a persons identity (which they can hardly escape from) becomes attached to their speech and participation in public debate, it  comes at a "cost" to them. Though the real cost this has on society and Australia's democracy, is a reduction in participation, ideas and freedom.

Links:
Internet comments may one day receive the recognition they deserve - Sydney Morning Herald

In defence of anonymous pricks - ABC The Drum 

New media have made deriding politicians a national sport - The Daily Telegraph

News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments - The New York Times 

Silent progress on the international stage

Gillard and Obama talk for the media - Image Source AFP

Julia Gillard has been jet-setting around the globe, representing Australia on the international stage. She hasn't yet been nicknamed after an aircraft like Kevin 747 yet, though the Liberal Party machine or Joe Hockey may churn something out in the near future. Interestingly enough, Kevin Rudd, when not in bad health, has been doing the same. His role as Minister for Foreign Affairs has seen him give a berating lecture to the UN, criticising it for all talk and no action. It is about time someone else other than Colonel Gaddafi gave the UN a good dressing down. Yet the real progress that has been made hasn't been Gillard getting used to foreign affairs, but what she and the international community have done in regards to trade liberalisation. Not to mention strengthening Australia's bilateral and multilateral relations. 

Foreign Affairs in Australian politics occasionally gets as juicy and zealous as "boat-people", Afghanistan and or something to do with New Zealand. When it comes to election issues, it's all about domestic politics with the exception of the aforementioned. Yet as all major parties declare that they are for 'responsible economic management' and 'furthering Australia's national interest abroad', Australia's involvement with free trade agreements are swiftly glossed over. Instead, images of the protesters and rallies being held outside of the G20 meeting, and the dress on Gillard's APEC doll are much more exciting. Then again, reams of documents outlining every miniscule detail about every product coming under a FTA (Free Trade Agreement) doesn't make for an interesting headline. But the agreements and relations that Australia has been fostering within these last two meetings, have set the framework for a more positive economic future for Australia as well as the Asia Pacific region.  

Gillard's conscientious effort to become more diplomatically engaged with other heads of state sets a positive outlook for future relations. It may seem corny that Gillard calls Obama her "mate", but such superficial and symbolic relations can be significantly built upon in times of need. Howard's chummy friendship with George W. Bush was a significant factor that lead to Howard evoking the ANZUS treaty soon after September 11, and unconditionally supporting the US in both its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. All the diplomatic hand shaking, smiling, and pandering to the media about being buddies and good friends is bluff. But it is bluff that can be turned into powerful political capital when necessary. 

Despite the leaders circus, minus the funny attire this time, the most important and significant outcome of both the G20 and APEC summit has been the continuing push towards the finalisation of a multilateral free trade agreement. Surprisingly enough tariffs and barriers to trade still extensively exists amongst most countries. China's (below market value) fixed currency acts as a practical barrier to imports while strengthening their exports. Similarly, the US Federal Reserve's decision to artificially lower its dollar via a $600 billion stimulus package acts as a barrier to trade. Such barriers are hard to regulate in an international environment, especially when it is the 'big two' (China and the US) who are playing dirty. But barriers like Japan's 778% tariff on imported rice can be dismantled and regulated easier. For many reasons (though mainly shorted sighted political self interest), developed countries block or try to slow down multilateral trade liberalisation agreements, like the Doha round, which benefit emerging economies more than it does them. Though with developed countries seeking post GFC recovery, trade liberalisation that encourages economic development, is what they appear to be turning to. Despite Japan having numerous conservative governments that have failed to create significant growth, Japan's is showing signs of accepting, or even supporting, more free trade within the Asia Pacific area. If economic growth is going to occur, Japan wants to be part of it. 

The US backed free trade block, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is gaining momentum and support from many countries within the Asia Pacific region, including Australia. Having such an agreement would not only benifit Australia, but the entire region. It would open up Australia to the fastest growing export market, as well as foster stability within an otherwise relatively unstable region. Both Obama and Gillard acknowledged that regional stability comes with economic growth; which is the ideological objective of multilateral free trade agreements. Along with this, many APEC countries have agreed that the Doha round has been the elephant in the room for too long, and that agreement and action needs to be reached. Unsurprisingly enough, Gillard pledged Australia's support. 

Suddenly and silently, action appears to be occurring. The more media gusto and grandeur that is placed around these events, the greater the flop they usually are - Copenhagen anyone? So this relatively unnoticed summit that has fostered consensus, may yield some results. Though despite the international political acknowledgement that there are mutual benefits from an Asia Pacific free trade area, it could still silently slide of the table and into the abyss. Though all is not lost. Howard and his buddy Bush used their relationship to finalise the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. If so, let us hope that Gillard can use some of the political capital she has built up to further bilateral free-trade agreements with China and our smaller regional neighbours. Plus, she has always got Kevin Rudd on hand. 

Links:

Gillard on the go is being undersold - National Times

APEC leaders agree on free trade zone - ABC online

Resist protectionism, Julia Gillard urges leaders at G20 summit in Seoul - The Australian 

Japan is test case for Pac Rim free trade zone - Associated Press 

Unite for free trade, Gillard tells G20 leaders - National Times