WikiLeaks, WikiDrama and WikiGossip
What should we make of the Wikileaks story?
leading first amendment advocates support Wikileaks as a vital
resource. For example, John Perry Barlow - founder of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (a great organization with a long and proven track
record in fighting censorship) says:
The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.
Likewise, the ACLU has been fighting for Wikileaks for years.
However, many savvy observers argue that that Wikileaks is not what it seems.
example, former U.S. National Security Adviser under President Carter
(and top foreign policy advisor) Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn’t think all
the leaked information coming out of Wikileaks is a result of Army PFC
Bradley Manning, and suspects a foreign intelligence service may be
providing the more embarrassing leaks for their own political reasons.
As Brzezinski told PBS:
The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia
on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting
a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of
it seems surprisingly pointed.
For example, there
are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders
favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.
This is clearly designed
to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very
pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective
undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of
public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually
play against them at home…
It’s, rather, a question of whether
WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to
either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to
undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.
I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations
internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to
WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to
embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with
For example, leaving aside the personal
gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the
Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on
disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.
Seeding — seeding it is very easy.
have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort
of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is
identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time
from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.
Other smart people point out that - while there is pointed information challenging the actions of other countries
- the information coming from Wikileaks about the U.S. is more of the
nature of gossip, and doesn't actually challenge U.S. foreign or
domestic policy is a direct manner. For example, the information
disclosed to date doesn't challenge the narrative of the "War on Terror"
itself, the government's handling of the economic crisis, or any other
central American policy.
So whether Wikileaks is a first
amendment champion or an intelligence service psychological operation
aiming to persuade and embarrass, so far it has mainly been a bunch of
gossip in terms of leaks about America.
If you don't believe me,
read some of the actual cables which have been released. While there
have been some stunners about foreign countries, the ones regarding U.S.
actions have been nothing but idle chatter about well-known people or
events, providing interesting but wholly irrelevant details about what
people were wearing or who they slept with. No breakthrough
revelations which actually challenge core U.S. policy.
(Many people are saying that the disclosure that the U.S. has spied on
the United Nations shows the value of Wikileaks. But it has been known
for years that the U.S. spies on the U.N. See this, this and this.)
As the very mainstream, Murdoch-owned Herald Sun notes:
We're told the leaks are "explosive" and "sensational", revealing America's "dark face".
In fact, the WikiLeaks dump of more than 250,000 classified cables
from US diplomats reveals little more than gossip on the embassy
These leaks expose no crime and nail no US lie.
Assange may also have done the US an inadvertent favour, just as he
did with his earlier dump of documents on Iraq, which showed there was
actually no conspiracy and no war crimes being hushed up.
[It] all confirms the world is as menacing as the US grimly says.
Overall, then, there is more in these leaks to confirm the US view of this world than there is to comfort its critics.
As the head of long-time whistleblower Cryptome (and former Wikileaks supporter - John Young - argues, Wikileaks has been more hype than substance:
does not seek publicity or media coverage. Wikileaks does by
issuing press releases, taunting the media, orchestrating bombshell
releases, glamourizing Julian Assange, behaving mysteriously, ...
exaggerating the value of what it publishes, editorializes about
its publications excessively -- all the methods used by those who
believe excessive valuation is a good thing.
So far - despite the media frenzy - it's more like WikiGossip than WikiLeaks.
Don't get distracted by the WikiDrama ... Unless WikiLeaks releases something which discloses criminal behavior by a large American bank, more damning information about the government's actions than the Fed's own data release, or facts which undermine the false war on terror narrative - Brzezinski himself told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative" - such as previously unknown false flags, then it's mainly a publicity-seeking melodrama more than an authentic challenge to American power.
Remember that the corporate press tends to be pro-war.
The more cynical might argue that the fact that the corporate press is
publishing all of the cables released by Wikileaks could imply that the
material is not fundamentally of an anti-war nature.
The more cynical also point out that many
credible whistleblowers - including former high-level government
officials - have been ignored over the last 10 years by the corporate
media when they have disclosed facts which challenged core U.S. policy. But Wikileaks is getting 24/7 coverage. I'm
strongly for whistleblowers ... I'm just not convinced that WikiLeaks
is as hard-hitting as other whistleblower groups out there.
All people of good faith agree that freedom
of information and freedom of speech are vital in a free society. The
real question is whether this particular organization is made up of
WikiHeroes, WikiPublicityHounds, WikiDupes, or WikiDisinfoAgents.
Only time will tell.
- advertisements -