Changes

WikiLeaks - the state persecutes its idealists1. The premise of the WikiLeaks WikiLeaks project is that the exposure of governmental governmental and corporate secrets is the critique of those those parties. The project and its manifesto - written by Julian Assange before WikiLeaks WikiLeaks took off - is concerned with with fighting conspiracies, acts carried out in hiding, away from the prying eyes of the publicpublic. WikiLeaks detects these these hidden agendas in authoritarian regimes regimes and - as a tendency tendency - in some democratic governmentsgovernments.1 Against those tendencies, WikiLeaks does not argue argue its point or its political position, since it assumes that exposing the secrets of those who are are in power suffices to upset upset the suppressed masses: “Authoritarian “Authoritarian regimes give rise rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against the individual individual and collective will to to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian authoritarian rule, once discovereddiscovered, induce resistance. Hence Hence these plans are concealed by successful successful authoritarian powers.”2 ”2 What WikiLeaks aims to accomplish is to reveal these concealed plans so that democratic resistance for freedom, truth truth and self realization is induced. According According to WikiLeaks, if the people do not rebel, it is because they do not know about the sinister sinister plans of their governmentsgovernments. 2. WikiLeaks claims that authoritarian rule and authoritarian authoritarian tendencies within within democratic governments are characterised characterised by their operation in hiding. However it is no secret that profit is the driving motive motive behind corporations, that that the USA and its allies are are fighting deadly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Afghanistan for their own national national interests, and that the US government considers WikiLeaks WikiLeaks to be an enemy of of the state. These things are are not suppressed information; on on the contrary, they are openly openly declared and discusseddiscussed. That Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt Egypt for 30 years, that his police police tortured and suppressed suppressed any opposition using a 30 year year state-of-emergency law, that the USA backed this rule because of its interests in the regionregion, that the EU negotiated a free trade agreement with with the Egyptian regime and that the EU cherished cherished Gaddafi's Lybia for for its contribution to keeping keeping refugees from entering Europe: all this is public record. There There are also actions and policies policies by authoritarian and democratic democratic governments which are are secret, such as extra-legal legal killings, torture, intelligence gatheringgathering, renditions and some deals with other states or corporations. But this does not imply that that these governments' rule is primarily characterised by what their subjects do not know aboutabout. On the contrary, a regime regime which tortures its enemies enemies to intimidate them wants them them to know about it, so that that they shy away from their their plans. 3. WikiLeaks proposes that that transparency leads to good good governance, to a better better life for the subjects. However, if a government government truthfully reports reports that the current debt crisis crisis requires large scale cuts to social servicesservices, this is transparencytransparency; if the US government openly declares its enmity to WikiLeaksWikiLeaks, this is transparencytransparency; if the law informs someone someone that his material needs count only insofar they are effective demand, this is transparencytransparency; if a state mobilises its population to to militarily defeat the mobilised mobilised population of another another state, this is transparency. Transparency Transparency in itself does not prevent prevent harm: rather, most of the the misery is wrought in the open.3 4. In characterising “successful “successful authoritarian powers” powers” as anxious to hide their their own character for fear of resistance, WikiLeaks WikiLeaks disregards the purposes purposes of domination. Before Before asking how something is achieved, one one must determine its intended intended purpose. Both modern modern authoritarian and democratic states demand demand much more than merely merely to maintain themselves. Since a strong economy is the basis basis of any state's power, especially especially so under capitalismcapitalism, the state's subjects are not merely tedious tedious masses but useful materialmaterial.4 States spend considerable considerableeffort fostering their economieseconomies, jealously compare GDPs - the overall economic economic activity of one country - with other statesstates, closely watch currency currency exchange rates and stock stock indices: they compare the economic economic performance of their populations populations because it is the basis of their power. But the population's contribution to the might might of the state does not end end with its economic activity. The state state wants its subjects to cherish cherish it, to support its policiespolicies.5 When it is deemed necessary necessary the state even demands demands that its population go to war. These purposes cannot be achieved achieved secretly, they must be publicised. 5. WikiLeaks' practical critique critique of governments across across the globe is driven by by its appreciation for the institution of government government as such. WikiLeaks WikiLeaks aims to induce a resistance resistance which aims to “shift regime behavior”6behavior”6, not to end regimes. The prospect of getting rid of domination - i.e. systematic and forceful forceful rule - and the idea that regimes are only necessary necessary because of the conditions they establishestablish, is not present in WikiLeaks WikiLeaks publications or actionsactions. Accusing the WikiLeaks project of being anarchist, possibly opposed to governments and corporations in principle, is wrong. On the contrary, WikiLeaks' activism is driven driven by the assumption that the democratic democratic state as such deserves deserves defense and not fundamental fundamental critique. 6. WikiLeaks promotes the the raw publication of unpublished unpublished data, without commentarycommentary, since the data itself ought to spark spark resistance. Yet, it is not not information - facts - as such that gets people to oppose certain policies policies - but how people interpret interpret these facts. The slaughter slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US troops troops is interpreted by opponents opponents of the war in Iraq as yet another reason to stop the war. Others Others might take away the message that war had ugly ugly sides yet that those are unfortunately necessarynecessary, that the insurgents insurgents are to blame since they would hide behind civilians, that those those killed should not be out in the streets in a war zone zone or that those “subhumans” deserve no better. The facts only provide provide the material for verdictsverdicts, they do not determine verdicts. This is is especially so when most most of the data that reached the public through WikiLeaks only confirmed what everybody everybody knew already: “This is a description of the Afghan War that a bright bright 10-year-old could have have given you without the benefit benefit of [...] 90,000 leaked documents.”7 ”7 All that previously unknown unknown facts can provide is a necessary precondition for new verdicts verdicts that might be impossible impossible to make without them. 7. WikiLeaks' ideal of a state is one that is measured measured by the principles of the democratic state.8 A modern democratic state state presents itself as a service service to its subjects and as an an expression of the will of those subjectssubjects. It grants its subjects rights rights and freedoms, it asks its subjects to select its agents, it provides provides basic infrastructure for their economic activities and it provides some social security. That That the state establishes the conditions which force its subjects to rely on the state does not change this fact. WikiLeaks WikiLeaks agrees with these principlesprinciples: “Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations corporations and other organisationsorganisations.”9 ”9 Restricting oneself to battling corruption in government government and corporations implies that it is not the principles principles of these organisations which ought to be blamed for the the observed misery, but the the deviation from those principles.10 Thus, WikiLeaks' fight against against corruption indicates indicates support in principle for those organisations organisations once they are free of corruption. When WikiLeaks WikiLeaks agrees with the US Supreme Court Court about “effectively exposexpos[ing] deception in government”11government”11, this is no rhetorical trick - they they both want effective institutionsinstitutions, the institutions of of the current social order. Both WikiLeaks WikiLeaks and the US constitution constitution share the ideal of a democraticdemocratic, capitalist state which fosters fosters its citizens' “pursuit of of happiness”. 8. Some of WikiLeaks' distrust distrust of those who are in power is also institutionalised institutionalised in the state. The institutional set-up of of the state reveals a considerable considerable lack of trust in those those who hold office, it reveals the suspicion suspicion that the state's agents agents might secretly (or openlyopenly) abuse their power. Law requires regular regular elections and thus ensures ensures that the collective will will of the people corresponds to that of politicianspoliticians.12 Some countries even have have term limits for the highest highestoffices in order to prevent prevent one person from clinging clinging to power. Law mandates mandates a division of powers between the governmentgovernment, parliament and the the courts so that no branch can appropriate the power vested vested in it for purposes other other than those in their job descriptiondescription. Law guarantees freedom of presspress, speech and assembly and thus allows the democratic democraticopposition to voice its concernsconcerns. Also, presidential candidates sometimes pledge pledge to “strengthen whistleblower whistleblower laws to protect federal workers workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government”13government”13. The democratic state is a state of law and as such suspicious about its agents agents who exercise this law. 9. This institutionalised distrust distrust is not without reasonreason. First, these agents are people who - like everyone else - have private private interests, yet their job is to maintain the order in in disregard of particular private interestsinterests. If bourgeois society is a society of competing subjects subjects then recruiting from this society society carries some risk. These These agents might abuse their their power to pursue their own agenda, by accepting bribes or by bending law to benefit their their friends.14 It is this kind of misapprehension misapprehension of positions of power power against the state's rulesrules, regulations and separation of power is is aimed. It is also this kind kind of corruption against which which people like the US president want to mobilise whistleblowers. 10. The second reason for for distrust is that the checks checks and balances of a democratic democratic state get in the way of effective governmentgovernment. A limit on the power power of the government is a limit on its ability to do its job. The checks checks and balances are blind blind towards what the government government tries to accomplish and thus may hinder it in pushing through through policies which are in the the national interest. This is why politicians politicians and other agents of the state who have the highest highestadmiration for democracy and the rule of law regularly regularly bend the rules - illegal illegal wiretaps, rendition, etc. Whether these these kind of transgressions are treated as violations of of the principles of the state or not not cannot be decided a prioripriori. This depends on the success of these policies. Avoiding a possible conviction for such such a digression (whether it is for personal enrichment or doing doing the best for the nation without following the law) is one reason why state agents may may choose to try to keep certain certain actions away from public. 11. Thus the US campaign campaign against WikiLeaks, which which is backed by its international international allies and both big parties in the USAUSA, is aimed against a project project which is fundamentally fundamentally supportive of the state as such. It is running running a campaign against people people who have the highest highest admiration for its principles. The people people who are declared enemies enemies of the state are driven to their actions by their admiration admiration for the principles of the state. 12. It could seem like a miscalculation miscalculation on the end of of the US administration and and other governments to attack WikiLeaksWikiLeaks: both seem to be in favour of the same principlesprinciples. However, there is a fundamental fundamental difference as to what what role these principles play play for both sides. For WikiLeaks and its supporters democratic principles are the first and and grounding principles of the state, it is is what makes the state. For For the state, on the other handhand, these principles are means of dominationdomination. Just because the the state provides services to its citizens does not imply its role is restricted to this provision. If that were the case, no coppers, courts and prisons would be needed. Just because the the state is a state of law and and principles, just because it seeks the support support of its subjects, just just because it aims to use the the private interests of its subjects productively productively for its own powerpower, does not mean that its its rule is no domination and requires no no secrecy. It still suppresses suppresses interests which fundamentally fundamentallyoppose its rule. In generalgeneral, it presents boundaries to to any interest of its subjectssubjects: one may pursuit one's own interest - but in accordance with the law.15 Put differently, just because becausethe state fosters and protects protects some legitimate private private interests, this does not imply - contrary to WikiLeaks' belief - that that its ultimate goal is to guarantee guarantee the well-being of its subjects: benevolent domination is a contradiction. 13. Second, the publication publication of the diplomatic cables cables and internal military reports reports by WikiLeaks does threaten the US internationallyinternationally. Public statements statements by agents of the state - especially within the realm of international international diplomacy - are considered considered to be expressions of expressions of policy. An open critique of another state state or its personnel is an attempt to show this state its limits or to probe these limits. The official official account of one's own own war efforts is aimed to send send a message to friend and foe.16 By publishing internal US US memos WikiLeaks made made policy for the USA, it made the US government government say things it did not want to say in public, sending all kinds of messages to governments governments across the globe. The point here is not whether whether these cables contain news in terms terms of factual statements. The point is that the US government government did not want to say these things things to its allies and enemies enemies openly; WikiLeaks made made the US government say it regardlessregardless. WikiLeaks forced the hand of US foreign policy policy by publishing those memos. In reaction the state interprets interprets this attack as a very principle principlequestioning of its rule - regardless regardless of WikiLeaks' intentionsintentions. 14. The US campaign against against WikiLeaks is conflictedconflicted. On the one hand, there there are calls by some politicians for Assange's assassination and the US administration is looking for legal loopholes to charge AssangeAssange. Bradley Manning - the the alleged whistleblower who leaked the cables and other internal US documents - is likely to rot in prison for a long time to make an example of those who threaten threaten the state. On the other other hand, WikiLeaks still is is not illegal in the USA, and hardly any regard has been given to e.g. the New York Times, which collaborated with WikiLeaks WikiLeaks on the release of the diplomatic diplomatic cables.17 The state does want to shut down WikiLeaks but it hesitates to dismantle dismantle the freedom of press in the process. The state want citizens like like Julian Assange, but these these good citizens should consider consider the reality of the state they are are subject to before acting on their idealist conceptionconception. 

11 “Today, with authoritarian authoritarian governments in power in in much of the world, increasing increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing increasing amounts of power vested vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency transparency is greater than ever.” https://wikileaks.org/About.html22 WikiLeaks Manifesto, https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf33 WikiLeaks posits an opposition opposition between hoarding information information and publishing publishing it: “By definition, intelligence agencies want want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite.” HoweverHowever, intelligence agencies agencies do publish informationinformation, that is, when it suits their agenda. They use use information to embarrass embarrass or intimidate competing competing states and their governments. It is not its admiration for WikiLeaks' idealism of democracy which which caused China to promote WikiLeaks as a candidate candidate for the Nobel peace peace price; China proposed WikiLeaks because it embarrasses the USA and and in order to demonstrate demonstrate the function of the Nobel Nobel price as a title by the USA and its allies against against its competitors.44 There are indeed some states states where the population is of no use to the state since since these states have their economic basis simply in exporting their natural resources. In such states the population is mainly kept away from the sources of of revenue for the state. The The Sudan is, besides most countries in the “Third “Third World”, such a state which which expects little of its population population and has little to offer to it, because because it cannot compete on the the world market against successful successful economic powers such as the USA, the EU and China.55 Democratic states even invite invite their populations to choose choose the agents of the statestate. See “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?” in kittens #1 available available at http://www.junge-linke.org/en/you-mean-they-actuallyactually-vote-for-the-lizardslizards6 WikiLeaks Manifesto77 http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9348/88 “In its landmark ruling on on the Pentagon Papers, the the US Supreme Court ruled ruled that ‘only a free and unrestrained press can can effectively expose deception deception in government.' We agree. Publishing improves transparency, and and this transparency creates creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption corruption and stronger democracies democracies in all society's institutionsinstitutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We We are part of that media.” https://wikileaks.org/AboutAbout.html (emphasis added)99 https://wikileaks.org/AboutAbout.html1010 “Similarly, some intelligence intelligence services have an obligation obligation to go about their activities activities to the best of their ability and that, sometimessometimes, involve secrecysecrecy. But, what is not a right, is for a General or, Hillary Clinton, to say that that they want to use the criminal criminal law on every person in the country, to stop talking about embarrassing embarrassing information, that has has been revealed from her institution or from US military. She does not not have the right to proclaim proclaim what the worry is, that's a matter for the court.” Julian Assange in an interview on “Frost over over the World” on Al Jazeera Jazeera (21.12.2010).1111 https://wikileaks.org/AboutAbout.html1212 This goes both ways. The leadership shall not stray too far from the people and and the people shall realise where the national problems lie. See “You mean mean they actually vote for the lizards?” in kittens #1 available at http://www.junge-linke.org/en/you-mean-they-actually-vote-for-the-lizards1313 http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agendaethics_agenda/1414 To avoid a misunderstandingmisunderstanding: If certain policies benefit benefit some people more than others this does not violate the purpose purpose of democratic rule. HoweverHowever, if policy is made solely solely to benefit a particular group in disregard disregard of the national interestinterest, it generally does.1515 See “Private property, exclusion exclusion and the state” in kittens kittens #0 available at http://www.junge-linke.orgorg/en/private-propertyproperty-exclusion-andand-the-state1616 Additionally, allies of the the USA started to wonder in public whether it was safe safe to share sensitive information with with US officials in light of the leaks. This might limit limit the US' ability to collect this kind of informationinformation.1717 The difference in treatment treatment of the NYT and WikiLeaks WikiLeaks also shows what kind kind of press the state has an interest in. As a “fourth “fourth branch of government” government” the press exposes inefficiencies inefficiencies and outright corruption. On the the other hand, the NYT insists insists - against all evidence to the contrary - on not calling interrogation tactics tactics by US troops “torture”“torture”, underlining its pledge of allegiance to the American state. WikiLeaksWikiLeaks, on the contrary, is not obstructed by patriotism in demanding its ideal of the state to be fulfilled.