- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
- Points
- 0
Dec 20, 2010
WikiLeaks in dubious 'Battle for the Truth'
By Ong Weichong, For The Straits Times
A video, shot from a US army helicopter gunsight on July 12, 2007, shows a group of men in Baghdad just before they were fired on by the helicopter. WikiLeaks put together and released the leaked video in a way that grossly misrepresented actual events. -- PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
ON JULY 25, the Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel published simul-taneous reports on the 'Afghan War Diary', a collection of more than 91,000 classified reports on the war in Afghanistan furnished by WikiLeaks. Since then, hundreds of thousands of United States diplomatic cables have been leaked by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website, to a wide array of news groups, including the Sydney Morning Herald.
Viewed by some as the 'New Robin Hood' battling for government transparency, the actions of Mr Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, have inspired a network of like-minded supporters and activists. These include 'Anonymous', a group of pro-WikiLeaks 'hacktivists' responsible for Operation Payback - a botnet campaign against service providers who have withdrawn their support for WikiLeaks.
The magnitude of the 'WikiLeaks effect', though, in terms of both the nature of the leaked documents and the immediate response from like-minded activists, hides three important facts: First, many of the leaked documents do not intrinsically challenge what we already know from extant open sources. Second, many of the leaked documents are based on poorly sourced ground-level reports. Third, WikiLeaks is designed not merely to inform but also influence its target audience at the expense of national governments.
Therefore, it is imperative that governments should come to grips with the WikiLeaks effect - a free-floating ideology based on an apparent 'Battle for the Truth' propelled by a diffused network of legal and illegal Internet-based activists and supporters. The Wiki-Leaks effect creates an illusion that something is being done 'for the Truth' - even when such actions (often non-violent but illegal) threaten to destabilise international security and stability.
In a BBC report on the 'Afghan War Diary', Mr Assange claimed that since all the material was over seven months old, it had 'no current operational consequence, even though it may be of very significant investigative consequence'. The message sent to members of the armed services is clear: We appreciate the efforts of the troops but not the governments that put you in harm's way.
Nonetheless, this implied support for the troops has not been so consistent - particularly when juxtaposed against leaked footage of AH-64 Apache attack helicopter strikes on suspected Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad on July 12, 2007.
The airstrike resulted in the deaths of several Iraqi civilians including women and children. The leaked video of the airstrike made available on WikiLeaks in April this year was entitled 'Collateral Murder'. The preface to the leaked video did not provide the context leading to the airstrike in which an infantry company received incoming fire all morning from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. The manner in which the Collateral Murder video was put together and released was a gross misrepresentation of actual events. Indeed, on several occasions, WikiLeaks has been criticised for its lack of credibility.
In the battle for the moral high ground, WikiLeaks has been able to exploit its 'whistle-blowing' underdog status. WikiLeaks' self-proclaimed primary aim 'to reveal unethical behaviour in governments' is a message that strikes a visceral cord with anti-establishment sentiment worldwide. WikiLeaks postings are designed for maximum visceral and political impact. The goal is to win the moral high ground without the more complex considerations faced by national governments.
These visceral emotions stirred by WikiLeaks' revelations, often couched in idealistic moral terms, can undermine the relationships between friendly countries, coalition partners and their respective electorates. As exemplified by comments in Der Spiegel, the electorates of European coalition partners in Afghanistan such as Germany are particularly sensitive to allegations of misconduct in Afghanistan.
In response, national governments need to communicate the credibility of their actions in a more effective and timely manner. Unlike national governments, WikiLeaks is not bound by the bureaucracy, complexities and norms inherent in the conduct of foreign policy - an asymmetry exploited by WikiLeaks to full advantage. In order to challenge the WikiLeaks effect, government agencies must reconsider the definition of 'need to know', 'when to know' and 'what to know' when it comes to information sharing in the public domain.
Comprehensively, national governments have to demonstrate that their intent and actions are more credible than those of their non-state opponents - particularly when collaborating as a coalition of nations on issues of common interest. To ignore the realities of the WikiLeaks effect will further erode the credibility of national governments. It will also undo the progress the international community has made in the enhancement of international security and stability.
The writer is associate research fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He is attached to the Military Transformations Programme at the school's constituent unit, the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.
WikiLeaks in dubious 'Battle for the Truth'
By Ong Weichong, For The Straits Times
A video, shot from a US army helicopter gunsight on July 12, 2007, shows a group of men in Baghdad just before they were fired on by the helicopter. WikiLeaks put together and released the leaked video in a way that grossly misrepresented actual events. -- PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
ON JULY 25, the Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel published simul-taneous reports on the 'Afghan War Diary', a collection of more than 91,000 classified reports on the war in Afghanistan furnished by WikiLeaks. Since then, hundreds of thousands of United States diplomatic cables have been leaked by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website, to a wide array of news groups, including the Sydney Morning Herald.
Viewed by some as the 'New Robin Hood' battling for government transparency, the actions of Mr Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, have inspired a network of like-minded supporters and activists. These include 'Anonymous', a group of pro-WikiLeaks 'hacktivists' responsible for Operation Payback - a botnet campaign against service providers who have withdrawn their support for WikiLeaks.
The magnitude of the 'WikiLeaks effect', though, in terms of both the nature of the leaked documents and the immediate response from like-minded activists, hides three important facts: First, many of the leaked documents do not intrinsically challenge what we already know from extant open sources. Second, many of the leaked documents are based on poorly sourced ground-level reports. Third, WikiLeaks is designed not merely to inform but also influence its target audience at the expense of national governments.
Therefore, it is imperative that governments should come to grips with the WikiLeaks effect - a free-floating ideology based on an apparent 'Battle for the Truth' propelled by a diffused network of legal and illegal Internet-based activists and supporters. The Wiki-Leaks effect creates an illusion that something is being done 'for the Truth' - even when such actions (often non-violent but illegal) threaten to destabilise international security and stability.
In a BBC report on the 'Afghan War Diary', Mr Assange claimed that since all the material was over seven months old, it had 'no current operational consequence, even though it may be of very significant investigative consequence'. The message sent to members of the armed services is clear: We appreciate the efforts of the troops but not the governments that put you in harm's way.
Nonetheless, this implied support for the troops has not been so consistent - particularly when juxtaposed against leaked footage of AH-64 Apache attack helicopter strikes on suspected Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad on July 12, 2007.
The airstrike resulted in the deaths of several Iraqi civilians including women and children. The leaked video of the airstrike made available on WikiLeaks in April this year was entitled 'Collateral Murder'. The preface to the leaked video did not provide the context leading to the airstrike in which an infantry company received incoming fire all morning from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. The manner in which the Collateral Murder video was put together and released was a gross misrepresentation of actual events. Indeed, on several occasions, WikiLeaks has been criticised for its lack of credibility.
In the battle for the moral high ground, WikiLeaks has been able to exploit its 'whistle-blowing' underdog status. WikiLeaks' self-proclaimed primary aim 'to reveal unethical behaviour in governments' is a message that strikes a visceral cord with anti-establishment sentiment worldwide. WikiLeaks postings are designed for maximum visceral and political impact. The goal is to win the moral high ground without the more complex considerations faced by national governments.
These visceral emotions stirred by WikiLeaks' revelations, often couched in idealistic moral terms, can undermine the relationships between friendly countries, coalition partners and their respective electorates. As exemplified by comments in Der Spiegel, the electorates of European coalition partners in Afghanistan such as Germany are particularly sensitive to allegations of misconduct in Afghanistan.
In response, national governments need to communicate the credibility of their actions in a more effective and timely manner. Unlike national governments, WikiLeaks is not bound by the bureaucracy, complexities and norms inherent in the conduct of foreign policy - an asymmetry exploited by WikiLeaks to full advantage. In order to challenge the WikiLeaks effect, government agencies must reconsider the definition of 'need to know', 'when to know' and 'what to know' when it comes to information sharing in the public domain.
Comprehensively, national governments have to demonstrate that their intent and actions are more credible than those of their non-state opponents - particularly when collaborating as a coalition of nations on issues of common interest. To ignore the realities of the WikiLeaks effect will further erode the credibility of national governments. It will also undo the progress the international community has made in the enhancement of international security and stability.
The writer is associate research fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He is attached to the Military Transformations Programme at the school's constituent unit, the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.
