Wikileaks, Security, Transparency, and Agency
The Wikileaks site has created turmoil because it represents a contest between two major principles of governance: security and transparency. Modern political theory since Hobbes argues that security is the main reason for a government to exist. It creates a rule of law that protects people from “the state of nature” which is anarchy. On the other hand, transparency gives a government legitimacy, for if the rules are unknown or if some people are treated by rules different than the social compact, the political system is considered unjust and the state is likely to stumble or fail.
In a democracy, where the people are supposed to be in control of their own government, transparency of government actions is essential for the people to keep power. Knowledge is power, and the persons with the most complete knowledge tend to have greater power. This is also true in the economic sphere where special knowledge can lead to greater wealth. Economist George Stieglitz shared a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on information assymetry. He raised the ire of many people in both Washington and the International Monetary Fund. His demands for greater transparency posed a threat to those with great power and great wealth.
On the other hand, there are genuine reasons for secrets. Parents need not give their children access to their credit cards or bank accounts. Teachers need not give out the questions on an exam ahead of time. Homeowners, businesses, and jails need not give out the codes for locks on their doors. States should not publish missile locations or launch codes on the internet.
Wikileaks is also a challenge because its leaks cover that blurred area between sovereign states and global community. On the one hand, there is a rising consciousness that all people of the world have equal dignity and rights and ought to be treated the same. On the other hand, we have states with sovereign power that want to put national interests and security above global justice.
Foreign policy is often a quest for information asymmetry. The U.S. wants to know where North Korea’s missiles are hidden, but does not want North Korea to know where its missiles are hidden. The U.S. wants to know if Iran has nuclear weapons, but Iran doesn’t want others to know. Knowledge is power.
Those with power, those who hold secrets, don’t want leaks. Those who don’t have information, those who are in the dark, want it. Governments want corporations to be transparent so they can control them. Corporations want governments to be transparent so they can control them. We all want other people to be transparent, but do not want to be transparent ourselves.
In my chapter on transparency in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, Version 4.0, I offered a “golden rule of transparency”:
Do not ask for transparency from others unless you have provided transparency to them.
There are genuine security interests at stake related to Wikileaks, and the PFC who sits in jail for divulging classified information deserves to be there. However, as Rodney B. McDaniel, Executive Secretary of the National Security Council under President Reagan said, only 10 percent of classification is “for legitimate protection of secrets.” President Clinton declassified over 200,000 older documents, but this caused fear in the hearts of the bureaucrats under his administration and even more after 9/11. Unnecessary classification of documents actually increased after Clinton’s transparency efforts.
There needs to be stricter criteria for what gets classified. Most documents classified in the name of security are for the purpose of hiding abuses of power, like Adam and Eve’s use of a fig leaf, and not to provide genuine security to citizens. With respect to transparency, our systems of government are dysfunctional. More transparency would create better government and more honest bureaucrats. It is currently way too easy for bureaucrats to abuse citizens in the name of security.
Good journalists know that, as a rule, if people are hiding something it is to protect themselves from others learning about something they shouldn’t have done. Or, they are keeping some secret that gives them unjustified power. Most of what gets called “national interest” is some “special interest” masquerading as national interest.
Take a look at the content of the Wikileaks releases, if the website isn’t shut down, and determine how many of the over 250,000 cables reveal genuine security concerns. These cables are written by agents of U.S.citizens, and as agents they work for the citizens. In this respect, there is a greater argument for monitoring public communication than the conversations of private citizens, as citizens need the knowledge to hold their agents accountable.
Agency theory is inadequately understood and improperly implemented in most modern political and financial institutions. Agency involves a transfer of power from the principal (citizen or stockholder) to the agent (a CEO, legislator, or bureaucrat). When agency involves a few people in face-to-face relations it is fairly easy to hold an agent accountable, however in their research done in the 1930s, Berle and Means noted that the interests of corporate managers and shareholders diverged in practice and that millions of passive shareholders translated into the “absolute power in the corporate managements.” The same principle applies when one U.S. Senator is elected as the agent for 10 million people. It is very difficult for individual citizens to hold senators accountable after they are elected.
Wikileaks violated genuine security concerns, but it also should serve notice that genuine agency and transparency concerns exist and that transparency and proper checks and balances are woefully lacking in the modern world. Corruption and abuse of power seek to cloak themselves under the banner of security interests in order create elite ruling classes that are a threat to the security of those they are sworn to protect and the constitutions they are supposed to uphold. Citizens in both the United States and the European Union are witnessing the fruits of their lack of vigilance. This is a core underlying concern and reason for the rise of the “Tea Party” movement and its European counterparts. Such movements will continue arise as leaders of the so-called “free world” continue to violate the major principles of sound governance and hide corrupt actions under veils of secrecy.
It seems unlikely that a buck private was the real source of all these documents. Discovering the complete sources of the leaks surely merits further investigation.
Much greater than security concerns is that Secretary of State Madame Clinton ordering 33 embassies to steal the personal credit card numbers, passwords and encryption keys of all major UN leaders. Where is the moral outrage that a aspirant to the oval office, besides being loved by Saul Alinsky in her college days, is running a major government department like a Soviet commissar? She should be indicted and punished, after resigning in disgrace from the government, of course. Trent Lott and Tom Delay committed no crimes, yet they were howled out of office by the Democrats and their media lackeys. Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, and Hillary Clinton commit real crimes and there is nary a peep, much less punishment.
According the the Secretary of Defense, Wikileaks has not endangered anyone.
The ongoing release of U.S. diplomatic communications by the Wikileaks organization is “embarrassing” and “awkward,” said Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates yesterday, but its consequences for U.S. foreign policy are likely to be “fairly modest.”
“I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets… Other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.”
The Espionage Act some want to charge Assange under dates from the dark days of Woodrow Wilson, and gave rise to the Palmer raids. Attorney General Palmer denied due process rights like reasonable bail, the right to a defense lawyer and jury trials to over 3,000 people.
In this age of a gargantuan out of control federal government, Wikileaks is a wonderful tonic. The purpose of the American government is to protect individual freedom in the anti federalist tradition of the Declaration of Independence.
The internet (bless those hippies from the 60’s!)is one-and perhaps only-magic bullet to prod our inauthentic human relations into the light of transparency and honesty. We do live in a world where human relations are still based on fear, mistrust, self-serving manipulations, and duplicitous social interactions. Whatever appears to help breakdown and alter this sick and perverse form of human relations is welcome by me.
Gordon; you got some acrion on this one. You mentioned Sovereignty, Membership in the United Nations- NATO etc. has seriously undermined our sovereinth as a Nation. State dept. treatys have totaly undermined our Constitution as have the Admiralty Jurisdiction (maritine law) that our courts operate under. That is why we are kept under a continual state of war. The Korean war is still not over by the way. I know this leads off into a whole different, however it is a key piece of the whole jigsaw puzzle we are struggling with.
Charles, sovereignty is a complicated issue that certainly merits more discussion, perhaps with more articles. However, one of the main points that I make in my book is that each level of government has its proper sphere of sovereignty. In fact, the first level of government is the individual citizen. Creating a government “of the people” means to create one based on sovereign citizens. When citizens create a state, they give it some sovereignty, but only sovereignty over that with they agree among themselves to cede. When the sovereign states, entered into a federal union, they ceded some of their sovereignty, but they should not have ceded any individual sovereignty of citizens, only their sovereignty in certain things better done at the federal level-e.g. protection from foreign invasion and monitoring interstate commerce. When the United States joined the United Nations, it should not have ceded any sovereignty of its member states or its citizens, but only some sovereignty related to genuinely international concerns, like war between nations or the mistreatment of one nation by another.
The key point to this system of organization is that for a world of peace it has to be voluntary. Members at every level should have a right of withdrawal if the higher body is not serving its purpose. A world based on force, conquest, and oppression prevents secession. A world of freedom requires voluntary participation based on the idea that the higher level will perform a useful purpose the lower levels cannot perform. It is wrong to expect the UN to plow your driveway, but it would also be wrong to expect one individual not to obey some international air traffic controls when flying a plane to another country.