Changes

WikiLeaks - the state persecutes its idealists1. The premise of the WikiLeaks WikiLeaks project is that the exposure of governmental governmental and corporatesecrets is the critique of those those parties. The project and its manifesto - written by JulianAssange before WikiLeaks WikiLeaks took off - is concerned with with fighting conspiracies, acts carriedout in hiding, away from the prying eyes of the publicpublic. WikiLeaks detects these these hiddenagendas in authoritarian regimes regimes and - as a tendency tendency - in some democratic governmentsgovernments.1Against those tendencies, WikiLeaks does not argue argue its point or its political position, sinceit assumes that exposing the secrets of those who are are in power suffices to upset upset thesuppressed masses: “Authoritarian “Authoritarian regimes give rise rise to forces which oppose them bypushing 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 plansare concealed by successful successful authoritarian powers.”2 ”2 What WikiLeaks aims to accomplish isto reveal these concealed plans so that democratic resistance for freedom, truth truth and selfrealization is induced. According According to WikiLeaks, if the people do not rebel, it is because theydo not know about the sinister sinister plans of their governmentsgovernments.2. WikiLeaks claims that authoritarian rule and authoritarian authoritarian tendencies within within democraticgovernments are characterised characterised by their operation in hiding. However it is no secret thatprofit is the driving motive motive behind corporations, that that the USA and its allies are are fightingdeadly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Afghanistan for their own national national interests, and that the USgovernment considers WikiLeaks WikiLeaks to be an enemy of of the state. These things are are notsuppressed information; on on the contrary, they are openly openly declared and discusseddiscussed. ThatHosni Mubarak ruled Egypt Egypt for 30 years, that his police police tortured and suppressed suppressed anyopposition using a 30 year year state-of-emergency law, that the USA backed this rule becauseof its interests in the regionregion, that the EU negotiated a free trade agreement with with the Egyptianregime and that the EU cherished cherished Gaddafi's Lybia for for its contribution to keeping keeping refugeesfrom entering Europe: all this is public record. There There are also actions and policies policies byauthoritarian 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 theirsubjects do not know aboutabout. On the contrary, a regime regime which tortures its enemies enemies tointimidate 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 thesubjects. However, if a government government truthfully reports reports that the current debt crisis crisis requireslarge scale cuts to social servicesservices, this is transparencytransparency; if the US government openlydeclares its enmity to WikiLeaksWikiLeaks, this is transparencytransparency; if the law informs someone someone that hismaterial needs count only insofar they are effective demand, this is transparencytransparency; if a statemobilises its population to to militarily defeat the mobilised mobilised population of another another state, this istransparency. Transparency Transparency in itself does not prevent prevent harm: rather, most of the the misery iswrought in the open.34. In characterising “successful “successful authoritarian powers” powers” as anxious to hide their their own characterfor fear of resistance, WikiLeaks WikiLeaks disregards the purposes purposes of domination. Before Before asking howsomething is achieved, one one must determine its intended intended purpose. Both modern modern authoritarianand democratic states demand demand much more than merely merely to maintain themselves. Since astrong economy is the basis basis of any state's power, especially especially so under capitalismcapitalism, the state'ssubjects are not merely tedious tedious masses but useful materialmaterial.4 States spend considerableconsiderable effort fostering their economieseconomies, jealously compare GDPs - the overall economic economic activity ofone 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 theirpower. But the population's contribution to the might might of the state does not end end with itseconomic activity. The state state wants its subjects to cherish cherish it, to support its policiespolicies.5When it is deemed necessary necessary the state even demands demands that its population go to war. Thesepurposes 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 appreciationfor the institution of government government as such. WikiLeaks WikiLeaks aims to induce a resistance resistance which aimsto “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 ofthe conditions they establishestablish, is not present in WikiLeaks WikiLeaks publications or actionsactions. Accusingthe WikiLeaks project of being anarchist, possibly opposed to governments andcorporations in principle, is wrong. On the contrary, WikiLeaks' activism is driven driven by theassumption 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, sincethe data itself ought to spark spark resistance. Yet, it is not not information - facts - as such that getspeople to oppose certain policies policies - but how people interpret interpret these facts. The slaughter slaughter ofIraqi civilians by US troops troops is interpreted by opponents opponents of the war in Iraq as yet anotherreason to stop the war. Others Others might take away the message that war had ugly ugly sides yet thatthose are unfortunately necessarynecessary, that the insurgents insurgents are to blame since they would hidebehind 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 notdetermine verdicts. This is is especially so when most most of the data that reached the publicthrough WikiLeaks only confirmed what everybody everybody knew already: “This is a description ofthe 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 necessaryprecondition 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 expressionof the will of those subjectssubjects. It grants its subjects rights rights and freedoms, it asks its subjects toselect its agents, it provides provides basic infrastructure for their economic activities and it providessome social security. That That the state establishes the conditions which force its subjects torely on the state does not change this fact. WikiLeaks WikiLeaks agrees with these principlesprinciples: “Betterscrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies democracies in all society's institutions,including government, corporations corporations and other organisationsorganisations.”9 ”9 Restricting oneself tobattling corruption in government government and corporations implies that it is not the principles principles ofthese organisations which ought to be blamed for the the observed misery, but the the deviationfrom those principles.10 Thus, WikiLeaks' fight against against corruption indicates indicates support inprinciple for those organisations organisations once they are free of corruption. When WikiLeaks WikiLeaks agreeswith the US Supreme Court Court about “effectively exposexpos[ing] deception in government”11, government”11, thisis no rhetorical trick - they they both want effective institutionsinstitutions, the institutions of of the currentsocial 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 holdoffice, it reveals the suspicion suspicion that the state's agents agents might secretly (or openlyopenly) abuse theirpower. Law requires regular regular elections and thus ensures ensures that the collective will will of the peoplecorresponds to that of politicianspoliticians.12 Some countries even have have term limits for the highesthighest offices in order to prevent prevent one person from clinging clinging to power. Law mandates mandates a division ofpowers between the governmentgovernment, parliament and the the courts so that no branch canappropriate the power vested vested in it for purposes other other than those in their job descriptiondescription. Lawguarantees freedom of presspress, speech and assembly and thus allows the democraticdemocratic opposition to voice its concernsconcerns. Also, presidential candidates sometimes pledge pledge to“strengthen whistleblower whistleblower laws to protect federal workers workers who expose waste, fraud, andabuse of authority in government”13government”13. The democratic state is a state of law and as suchsuspicious about its agents agents who exercise this law.9. This institutionalised distrust distrust is not without reasonreason. First, these agents are people who - likeeveryone else - have private private interests, yet their job is to maintain the order in in disregard ofparticular private interestsinterests. If bourgeois society is a society of competing subjects subjects thenrecruiting from this society society carries some risk. These These agents might abuse their their power topursue their own agenda, by accepting bribes or by bending law to benefit their their friends.14It is this kind of misapprehension misapprehension of positions of power power against the state's rulesrules, regulationsand separation of power is is aimed. It is also this kind kind of corruption against which which people likethe 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 inthe way of effective governmentgovernment. A limit on the power power of the government is a limit on itsability to do its job. The checks checks and balances are blind blind towards what the government government tries toaccomplish and thus may hinder it in pushing through through policies which are in the the nationalinterest. This is why politicians politicians and other agents of the state who have the highesthighest admiration 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 theprinciples of the state or not not cannot be decided a prioripriori. This depends on the success ofthese policies. Avoiding a possible conviction for such such a digression (whether it is forpersonal enrichment or doing doing the best for the nation without following the law) is onereason 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 andboth big parties in the USAUSA, is aimed against a project project which is fundamentally fundamentally supportive ofthe state as such. It is running running a campaign against people people who have the highest highest admirationfor its principles. The people people who are declared enemies enemies of the state are driven to theiractions 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 othergovernments 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 bothsides. For WikiLeaks and its supporters democratic principles are the first and and groundingprinciples of the state, it is is what makes the state. For For the state, on the other handhand, theseprinciples are means of dominationdomination. Just because the the state provides services to its citizensdoes 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 privateinterests of its subjects productively productively for its own powerpower, does not mean that its its rule is nodomination and requires no no secrecy. It still suppresses suppresses interests which fundamentallyfundamentally oppose its rule. In generalgeneral, it presents boundaries to to any interest of its subjectssubjects: one maypursuit one's own interest - but in accordance with the law.15 Put differently, just becausebecause the state fosters and protects protects some legitimate private private interests, this does not imply - contraryto 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 WikiLeaksdoes threaten the US internationallyinternationally. Public statements statements by agents of the state - especiallywithin the realm of international international diplomacy - are considered considered to be expressions expressions of policy. Anopen critique of another state state or its personnel is an attempt to show this state its limits or toprobe these limits. The official official account of one's own own war efforts is aimed to send send a messageto friend and foe.16 By publishing internal US US memos WikiLeaks made made policy for theUSA, it made the US government government say things it did not want to say in public, sending allkinds of messages to governments governments across the globe. The point here is not whether whether thesecables contain news in terms terms of factual statements. The point is that the US government government didnot want to say these things things to its allies and enemies enemies openly; WikiLeaks made made the USgovernment say it regardlessregardless. WikiLeaks forced the hand of US foreign policy policy bypublishing those memos. In reaction the state interprets interprets this attack as a very principleprinciple questioning 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 somepoliticians for Assange's assassination and the US administration is looking for legalloopholes to charge AssangeAssange. Bradley Manning - the the alleged whistleblower who leaked thecables and other internal US documents - is likely to rot in prison for a long time to make anexample of those who threaten threaten the state. On the other other hand, WikiLeaks still is is not illegal inthe USA, and hardly any regard has been given to e.g. the New York Times, whichcollaborated with WikiLeaks WikiLeaks on the release of the diplomatic diplomatic cables.17 The state does wantto 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 thereality of the state they are are subject to before acting on their idealist conception.Footnotes1 “Today, with authoritarian governments in power in much of the world, increasing authoritariantendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountablecorporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever.” https://wikileaks.org/About.html2 WikiLeaks Manifesto, https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf3WikiLeaks posits an opposition between hoarding information and publishing it: “By definition,intelligence agencies want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wantsto do just the opposite.” However, intelligence agencies do publish information, that is, when itsuits their agenda. They use information to embarrass or intimidate competing states and theirgovernments. It is not its admiration for WikiLeaks' idealism of democracy which caused China topromote WikiLeaks as a candidate for the Nobel peace price; China proposed WikiLeaks becauseit embarrasses the USA and in order to demonstrate the function of the Nobel price as a title bythe USA and its allies against its competitors.4 There are indeed some states where the population is of no use to the state since these stateshave their economic basis simply in exporting their natural resources. In such states thepopulation is mainly kept away from the sources of revenue for the state. The Sudan is, besidesmost countries in the “Third World”, such a state which expects little of its population and haslittle to offer to it, because it cannot compete on the world market against successful economicpowers such as the USA, the EU and China.5Democratic states even invite their populations to choose the agents of the state. See “You meanthey actually vote for the lizards?” in kittens #1 available at http://www.junge-linke.org/en/you-mean-they-actually-vote-for-the-lizards6 WikiLeaks Manifesto7http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9348/8 “In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘only a freeand unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.' We agree. Publishingimproves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutinyleads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, includinggovernment, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalisticmedia plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.” https://wikileaks.org/About.html (emphasis added)9https://wikileaks.org/About.html10 “Similarly, some intelligence services have an obligation to go about their activities to the bestof their ability and that, sometimes, involve secrecy. But, what is not a right, is for a General or,Hillary Clinton, to say that they want to use the criminal law on every person in the country, tostop talking about embarrassing information, that has been revealed from her institution or fromUS military. She does not have the right to proclaim what the worry is, that's a matter for thecourt.” Julian Assange in an interview on “Frost over the World” on Al Jazeera (21.12.2010).11https://wikileaks.org/About.html12This goes both ways. The leadership shall not stray too far from the people and the people shallrealise where the national problems lie. See “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?” inkittens #1 available at http://www.junge-linke.org/en/you-mean-they-actually-vote-for-the-lizards13http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/14 To avoid a misunderstanding: If certain policies benefit some people more than others thisdoes not violate the purpose of democratic rule. However, if policy is made solely to benefit aparticular group in disregard of the national interest, it generally does.15 See “Private property, exclusion and the state” in kittens #0 available at http://www.junge-linke.org/en/private-property-exclusion-and-the-state16 Additionally, allies of the USA started to wonder in public whether it was safe to sharesensitive information with US officials in light of the leaks. This might limit the US' ability tocollect this kind of information.17 The difference in treatment of the NYT and WikiLeaks also shows what kind of press the statehas an interest in. As a “fourth branch of government” the press exposes inefficiencies andoutright corruption. On the other hand, the NYT insists - against all evidence to the contrary - onnot calling interrogation tactics by US troops “torture”, underlining its pledge of allegiance to theAmerican state. WikiLeaks, on the contrary, is not obstructed by patriotism in demanding its idealof the state to be fulfilledconception.