Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, has irrevocably changed the course of international affairs for the rest of our lifetimes, if not for generations to come – and not for the better. Recently, the New York Times, along with four other international news outlets, published details of leaked U.S. government documents obtained by the WikiLeaks website from U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning – currently under court-martial – in a highly publicized issue of transparency in government. Among the nearly 260,000 released documents are several thousand classified and secret U.S. diplomatic cables with messages written with surprising proximity to international power and inside information. The Obama Administration and State Department opposed the release of these documents in the name of national security. Despite the claims of WikiLeaks supporters, the United States government is completely justified in this position.
While greater transparency would be beneficial for the health of our democracy, this objective must be accomplished through traditional investigative journalism – not through an extreme, illegal, unsanctioned release of classified documents. There are very good reasons why some of these diplomatic communications were classified. Revealing their contents for everyday Americans – and, more significantly, everybody in the world with a computer and an Internet connection – is far from the national interest. The release of such documents will endanger our precious relationships with our allies, inhibit our efforts in the war on terrorism, and further alienate our enemies.
Specifically, this leak might alienate our fellow nations when the leaked diplomatic cables discuss the U.S. suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government and the bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison. By notifying the corrupt Afghan officials that we are aware of their duplicity, we risk jeopardizing our entire relationship with them and sacrifice years of invested effort. By demonstrating our desire to incentivize nations into taking on Guantanamo detainees in exchange for aid or diplomacy, we risk being labeled hypocritical. The list goes on and on, spanning nearly every ally and enemy of our nation, on every continent save Antarctica, from 1966 to 2008. Such methods are better left to be practiced under the table, absent from the public sphere. Once publicized, such diplomatic tactics portray the United States as underhanded and nefarious – when in reality, it’s no secret that every nation on the face of the earth engages in espionage and internal diplomatic communications that might be inappropriate for the global sphere.
The New York Times justified its decision to publish the documents online by arguing that Americans have the right to “know what is being done in their name.” This argument, simply put, cannot possibly be universalized. Americans do have a right to know what their government is doing – but only to a certain extent. Once we elect our representatives, we are entrusting them to act in accordance with the oath they swear, and to do what they believe is best for the nation. Because each of us cannot directly make decisions for our country of over 330 million people, we delegate this responsibility to the trustees we elect to the Congress and the White House, and by extension to the bureaucrats and diplomats in the executive branch and specifically the Foreign Service. Their judgment, while certainly flawed at many times in our nation’s history, must prevail at this critical juncture for U.S. foreign policy – for these cables are forever in the public realm, no matter how dire the consequences. The New York Times should not have taken part in the distribution of these cables, and the foreign publications that collaborated with WikiLeaks – Germany’s Der Spiegel, Spain’s El Pais, France’s Le Monde, and the UK’s Guardian – should be aware that they are engaging in a tactless assault against American diplomatic sovereignty.
As Senator Christopher “Kit” S. Bond (R-MO) stated this morning, having secure, private, correspondence between U.S. diplomats and Washington is a crucial element in shaping policy. “And if you can’t have candid conversations without having some worm disclose them…then we are in danger of not having an effective foreign policy or an effective military policy.” According to Senator Bond, the vice chairman on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and key proponent of the acclaimed 2008 FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) proposal, those responsible for the leaks should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Senator Bond is categorically in the right on this issue.
Transparency has its place, and open government is a great thing for the citizenry of our democratic republic – but all of this ends when national security is threatened. When we sacrifice our national security or knowingly give up much of our diplomatic power for the sake of transparency, we have crossed the line. At a time when the Obama Administration is rebuilding America’s global image, we simply can’t afford to waste any of our international political capital. President Obama’s political capital is already quickly declining on the domestic front, and now, in the name of transparency, it is plummeting in the foreign policy arena as well. Thus, Pfc. Manning is right to be court-martialed for his disloyal and seditious behavior. Julian Assange’s actions and decision to distribute these leaked cables have grave consequences for the national security and the future well being of our nation. Though an Australian national with unknown whereabouts, we must attempt to find him and extradite him for prosecution – and hopefully our allies will assist us in this endeavor, understanding that America’s internal diplomatic matters have no place on the world stage. For our country’s sake, let’s hope we can address these concerns before the clock runs out.
Photo credit: AP Photo
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.