Wikileaks and National Security in the 21st Century
We have all heard the old adage that information is power. In the digital era, it is increasingly difficult for actors, including states, to monopolise this power. The information communication revolution advanced globalisation and information diffuses quickly and easily throughout the global system. The changes in the speed and depth of information flows have created new opportunities for increased citizen participation and the growth of transnational interest groups. But these changes have also created new vulnerabilities for states – from cybercrime and cyber war to information insecurity.
Lauren Hutton, Senior Researcher, Security Sector Governance Programme,
ISS Pretoria
We have all heard the old adage
that information is power. In the digital era, it is increasingly difficult for
actors, including states, to monopolise this power. The information
communication revolution advanced globalisation and information diffuses
quickly and easily throughout the global system. The changes in the speed and
depth of information flows have created new opportunities for increased citizen
participation and the growth of transnational interest groups. But these
changes have also created new vulnerabilities for states – from cybercrime and
cyber war to information insecurity.
On Sunday 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange again grabbed international headlines with the
publication of 250 000 confidential US diplomatic cables. This came just months
after the explosive Iraq war files were released on the website, detailing
109,032 deaths in Iraq, 66 081 of whom were civilian casualties. WikiLeaks has come
to the forefront in the contest between secrecy and an increasingly information
savvy society. Some commentators have called WikiLeaks an assault on secrecy;
and presenting a head-on challenge to the rational and legitimate use of
secrecy by governments, especially in the context of national security.
Although the origins of the most
controversial documents released on WikiLeaks have been sources within the US
government, the content touches governments around the world. As US Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton commented, the release of the diplomatic cables was
an attack on the international community. This is forcing states to reconsider
when and how to keep secrets in an age marked by massive and instantaneous
flows of information across borders. It also calls into question our
understanding of what should be kept secret and when national security can
legitimately be used as a justification for restrictions on open, democratic
governance processes.
The most common defence from the
US government in seeking to control the damage has been that classified
information should not be leaked, as it endangers national security. Much of
the information that has been leaked this year - including the Afghan and Iraq
war logs and the diplomatic cables - have not presented a clear and present
threat to US national security. Yet they have made public and proven without a
doubt what has long been assumed about the conduct of the Afghan and Iraq wars
and the way in which US views itself and the world around them. The leaked
documents have damaged the US national and international image. Would the
leaked documents have caused any concern if they did not reveal the murder of
thousands of civilians or the spying on foreign diplomats and senior UN
officials? If the leaking of such information harms US national security, is it
the fault of those who leaked the information or those that authorised or
tasked officials to conduct such suspect operations?
WikiLeaks has been severely
criticised for the recent releases – by governments as well as civil society
groups claiming that the website takes the notion of public interest too far
and is inattentive to the unintended consequences of its actions. In most
instances, WikiLeaks and their partners publishing the documents have redacted
the names of sources and have sought to protect individual security as far as
possible. Is it a threat to US national security that the global community now
knows that US diplomats were tasked to collect DNA samples, passwords, frequent
flyer numbers and bank account details of senior UN officials? Is knowing that
the US diplomatic community were tasked with quite simply covert collection
functions not in the public interest? And given that they were doing this in foreign
countries including on our continent, is this not in our public interest?
Information as a commodity has
changed immeasurably: a newspaper in Uganda can publish the names of homosexual
people, directly endangering their lives but that same newspaper cannot publish
the annual budget of the national intelligence service. Similarly, following food
riots in Mozambique earlier this year there was an outcry from civil society
activists when the government shut down SMS communications to obstruct people
from mobilising and engaging in further social protests. In a 2009 poll, 52% of
Egyptians indicated that the government should have the right to restrict the
media from publishing articles that could be destabilising. The same poll found
that 38% of Kenyans believed that government should be able to restrict access
to certain Internet content. In some tenuous domestic political contexts, the
notion of restricting information for the sake of domestic stability seems an
easy option. How far can this line be walked until civil liberties are
sacrificed on the altar of expediency?
One of the gravest concerns with
the scope of leaks that have challenged the US secrecy regime this year is that
the response will be to tighten information security and place further restrictions
on access to information. This response will be a knee-jerk reaction of
reverting to secrecy to prevent embarrassment. The truth is that people leak
information because they want to expose unpopular behaviour. Preventing leaks
and the concomitant embarrassment that they cause, starts with pursuing
policies that are in agreement with the values of the population. If those
policies fly in the face of global values and perpetuate global inequalities
(as was evidenced by the lack of real response from the US to the massive
civilian casualties exposed by the Afghan and Iraq war logs), global citizenry
has a right to react. If it had been another military occupying another country
and murdering nearly 70 000 civilians, would the response of the international
community have been the same?
What the information revolution
provides is the opportunity for greater involvement of national and global
peripheries. Experience with the implementation of access to information
legislation in India has shown the empowering effect of information on
citizens’ participation. If knowledge is power, then is there potential for
greater access to information to change the dynamics of relationships between
rulers and their citizens or between global elites and those of the margins of
power? Navigating these changes, one can only hope that the need to keep
secrets is met with an equal need to keep the public informed.
