The Wikileaks Cablegate Pro & Con

I have tried to avoid airing my thoughts on this subject, but the pile of rubbish from supposedly able foreign policy experts all over the place that has been made public during the week makes this impossible. So, here's my take on Wikileaks and, in particular, the "cablegate" release of about 250.000 US diplomatic cables dating from 1966 up to the beginning of 2010. A very well-structured presentation of the publication, together with analysis and commentary, has been made available by UK newspaper The Guardian.

First of all, some - unfortunately necessary - preliminaries. Although this is not as evident as it should be on the Wikileaks website, the Wikileaks operation is not the same as its founder Julian Assange. As you may be aware of, when this is written, the latter has been arrested and, by reason of probable cause, detended in his absence in my country for one count of rape, two counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful coercion (during a time he spent in Sweden) – resulting in an Interpol wanted poster, a so-called Red Notice this wednesday. There has been a lot of conspiracy theories aired about this on blogs, forums and places like Facebook and Twitter, but the fact is that the allegations have some history, and that the Red Notice is a consequence of Assange not having made himself available to the police or the prosecutor to clear himself of what he claims to be false allegations. On some forums, I have seen the suggestion that the crimes he is accused of would not be grave enough to warrant international action of this sort and that this would be proved by the fact that Sweden seldom requests the issuing of such notices. Neither is true. Regarding the latter, the simple explanation for the lack of Swedish Red Notice requests is that the suspected perpetrator as a rule can be found in the country or apprehended in another country in simpler ways (ways which, in the case of Assange, have been tried before the notice was requested). Regarding the former, rape is a very serious crime in Swedish legislation and the level of suspicion underlying the arrest is of the higher level. That, together with Assange's apparently deliberate absence and lack of communication with the Swedish authorities is enough to warrant requesting the notice. As to the allegations themselves, it is apparently easy as a Wikileak supporter to forget that there are actual people who have made these - women who have reported to the police that they have been raped and assaulted by Assange - and that the prosecutor has found evidence enough for the court to find probable cause for a detention decision. Now, Assange may, of course, be perfectly innocent here, but as in any country, this is for a court of criminal law to establish, no matter who you happen to be and what good things you may have done.

But the point I want to make here is this: none of that has anything to do with the question about the justifiability of the actions of Wikileaks. Moreover, contrary to what this excuse for a political analyst believes, jailing or even killing Assange does not amount to punishing or, for that matter, closing down Wikileaks. Get it? Good! Over to the main show:

There is, in my view, not a shadow of a doubt that the first leak of US documents - the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs - was morally justified. Yes, the person who leaked the documents committed a serious crime in US jurisdiction. Yes, legally he deserves to be punished within that jurisdiction. However, regarding those documents, he did the right thing, as did Wikileaks when making them public. What made the source's action right is that it is a clear case of justifiable civil disobedience. He acted against the law, as well as his legally sworn professional duty, but nevertheless, he did the right thing. Why? Because what the documents reveal and their revelation is of that level of importance. What they reveal is a stinking heap of elaborate lies and cover-ups all intended at making two bloody and senseless wars look less tasteless in the eyes of the public. That is, the very same public that is supposed to be able to make informed decisions when it is election time. This blinkering of the people is by itself reason enough. However, to this may be added the effect of the lies to make the launching of war more easy. I'm not a pacifist. I believe that war may sometimes be justified. However, war should be made only after a decision made on as correct, complete and relevant information as possible about the expected gains as well as costs of war. And voters in a democracy, should have access to all these facts in order to be able to assess the decisions of their leaders in upcoming elections. The first publication of Wikileak is of the utmost importance for making this slightly more possible in the future. The United States claims itself to be the world's leading democracy and, indeed, is constitutionally bound to the democratic ideology and values by definition. The talk about the leak being against the US "national interest" is thus, if you excuse me saying so, a load of bollocks. There has also been talk about soldiers or others being put at risk by the leak. Well, perhaps that is so, but to make a moral assessment that cost needs to be balanced against the cost of future wars that a preservation of secrecy would have made more likely and all people that would have been put at risk by those.

So, how about cablegate? It does look a bit more complicated, doesn't it? The argument above is surely not applicable here. My assessment so far is undecided. But, what I don't agree with are the many statements about the cablegate leak making the world a less safe place through undermining the prerequisites for efficient foreign policy and diplomacy in the service of peace.

It seems to me that the cablegate revelations fall into two categories. The first one is that diplomats express themselves less than nice and polite about their colleagues in other embassies and foreign dignitaries. Of course, while this was surely not very surprising, it may be used as an excuse by one or the other country to jump out of a negotiation or deal or two. But claiming this revelation to be the end of diplomacy or something close to that, as my own foreign minister did just a day or two ago, is just ridiculous. And it remains ridiculous even if we assume that states will be forced to seriously count on Wikileaks-like leaks in the future. Why? Because the cure to the supposed problem is as easily accessible to all diplomats as it is obvious: Refrain from slandering other people or calling them by less than honorable names - at least in your diplomatic cables. Put more simply: behave yourselves! I'm sure that diplomacy and world peace will survive that apparently drastic culture change in diplomatic circles.

The other category of revelations from cablegate concerns less laughable matters. Secret messages and requests between countries (such as Saudi Arabia asking the US to attack Iran), reports about proofs of various covered up actions of the US as well as other countries (China cyber-attacking Google), and actions taken within the US foreign policy hierarchy. Most sinister of all is a report belonging to this last topic and is, of course, Hillary Clinton's reported orders to US diplomats to spy on UN high-level leadership, staff and representatives. In what way, I ask, do any of these revelations threaten foreign policy and diplomacy in the service of peace? A number of arguments may be launched in response to this, but they all come down to one thing: the need for hush-hush. So, the crucial issue seems to be about this: how necessary is hush-hush for foreign policy and diplomacy in the service of peace?

This question is not an easy one to answer, since it is ambiguous. Here's one apparently sound and valid pattern of reasoning: When making foreign policy and diplomacy in the service of peace with respect to some particular chain of events or a particular topic or area, any nation must have the possibility to adapt to the fact that other players are making things secretly. If a nation cannot act in secrecy itself, it will be played for a sucker by those nations that can or, at least, it will be more difficult to reach desirable results. So, for instance, country A may approach country B with the message that it will yield on some important topic of negotiation only if country B assists country A in an action against country C that country C would react very strongly to if taken by country A. If country B cannot keep this request from A secret, there is a risk of conflict between C and A even in the lack of action from B's side. And if A can't trust its request to B being kept a secret, it will never make its offer regarding the important topic of negotiation. I assume that numerous examples of this sort, many far more complex and dirty than this generic sketch, can be given by those who know better than me. As regards spying, there are many examples through history (not least from the cold war era) of espionage intelligence being very important from the perspective of peace. Conclusion: hush-hush does seems to be a vital ingredient in foreign policy and diplomacy to secure peace. Thus, threats to hush-hush, such as Wikileaks, are  threats to peace.

Against this picture, the following, equally sound and valid, line of argument may be mounted: Suppose that, e.g., the US and the EU countries launched a policy of complete openness about foreign policy actions taken and information received regarding foreign policy. This would include refusing to keep secret any sort of clandestine request or offer, but also openly declare all intelligence or "ops" activities - such as wanting to scan the irises of Ban Ki Moon, or paying off some corrupt Afghan minister for not rocking the boat. From a democratic point of view, such a position would seem to be much more desirable than the one described in the former paragraph. Here, the voters are perfectly aware of what their elected representatives are doing in their name. The argument for this is the same as the one outlined earlier. What is more, however, the strongest powers in international politics taking up such a position would seem to cripple the chances of any other country playing them for suckers by applying a hush-hush policy themselves. This since they will then not be able to cooperate at all with US or the EU. In effect, all other countries would have a strong incentive to adapt the openness position as well! As a consequence, a situation would develop where the default premise in international politics would not be that others are lying to you and hiding things from you, but the other way around. Just as in the hush-hush dominated world, openness and honesty of a single player would lead to ruin, in the openness world, trying to hide your actions or intentions would become extremely risky. Chances are that you are discovered and, as a consequence, made a pariah in the international community. Now, the question is this: which world would the better one from the standpoint of peace - the one where nations habitually lie and cheat and expect everyone else to do likewise, or the one built on the opposite of that? The answer should be obvious and, thus, to have foreign policy and diplomacy promoting peace, hush-hush is, in fact, not essential. Even stronger, hush-hush actually diminishes the chance of foreign policy and diplomacy to deliver peace.

So bear with me being a little bit utopian here. I hereby make the following suggestion to the US, the EU, Russia and China on how they should best respond to the Wikileaks phenomenon in general and cablegate in particular. Use Wikileaks to your advantage! Stop playing the hush-hush game! Adapt the openness position and you will have secured a win-win situation that no one will be able to touch! If you do, tomorrow belongs to you!

Dr. Haas Running for Cover

Re. my post yesterday, Dr. Haas has apparently been all over the place priding the National Catholic Bioethics Center with his insights in the media on what the Vatican position on using condoms for preventing HIV/AIDS amounts to nowadays. Given the quality of analysis and reasoning of the piece I related, the result may seem predictable.

More on the Pope's Condom Turnaround: Dance of the Imbeciles

Just the other day, I offered my analysis of the Pope's apparent turnaround on the morality of using of condoms for preventing HIV infection. Most other readings made by people who are supposed to know a bit of ethics I have seen have made a similar interpretation (see, e.g. this comment and the ensuing discussion): The Pope is using the Doctrine of the Double Effect, according to which the good intention of trying to avoid the transmission of HIV (slightly) whitewashes the otherwise (according to past dogma) sinful act of having safe sex. Although the Pope, in the interview where he was reported to state his new opinion, was reported to use only the example of a male prostitute, obviously, the argument from the DDE is applicable no matter the gender of the person having safe sex or in what relationship they stand to each other. Indeed, this was confirmed by the Vatican spokesman Father Lombardi at a press conference yesterday, reported at the website Catholic Culture (emphasis added by me):

Father Lombardi explained that the Pope did not attach great significance to his choice of a male rather than female prostitute to illustrate his point. The basic point, he said, is “the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of another.”

According to the Catholic News Agency, Lombardi even added:

“Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point,”


At the same time, several other high representatives of Catholicism have been very active, some (reported at the Catholic Culture website) pointing out what us secular ethics guys saw immediately - that reasoning from the DDE is old news in Catholic ethics - others, rather desperately, doing their very best to push the toothpaste back into the tube. Some in this last crowd makes for a splendid illustration of what an oxymoron the notion of combining dogmatic religious faith and well-reasoned ethical analysis is. Catholic Culture thus reports (my emphasis added):

In response to questions about whether the Pope’s statement applied to married couples in which one partner is HIV-positive—which it clearly did not—the Catholic bishops’ conference of South Africa issued a statement emphasizing “the primacy of an informed conscience.” Going far beyond the Pope’s statement, the South African bishops said: “Where one spouse is infected with HIV/AIDS they must listen to their consciences. They are the only ones who can choose the appropriate means.” 

Wonderful! So, according to the South African version of Catholic moral dogma, there is nothing(!) to be said for having safe sex with your spouse if you are infected by HIV rather than having unsafe sex. If it is not a question of spouse but girl-/boy-friend, a fiancee, a one night stand or - indeed - a prostitute, however, then protecting the life of your sexual partner immediately becomes morally significant. In some mysterious way, however, consulting one's conscience is not of importance in the latter case, but (apparently) highly so in the former. And, by the way, as to the the reference to the (marital?) ethical importance of conscience: How very Lutheran!

Another example regards the expansion of the DDE reasoning to situations where we are not only talking about two people, but a society. I argued, in my analysis, that a logical expansion of the Pope's argument implies that there are (Catholic) moral reasons for states to employ condoms to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic: Handing them out freely or subsidizing them, educating people about how HIV is transmitted and how condoms might prevent it, et cetera. From a Catholic point of view, obviously, such actions are second best to having the population resort to abstinence, but that does not take away the moral reason, especially when the state knows that abstinence is not to be expected no matter what political measures are employed (and, for that matter, that any democratic government taking such measures would be out of office by the next election). This, however, is obviously viewed with some horror by the Catholic Culture reporter:

Secular journalists have routinely interpreted the Pope’s statement as an admission that condom use can be justified, although the Pope’s full statement, in context, clearly makes no such claim. Many reports have suggested that the Pope was backing away from earlier statements, in which he said that condom-distribution campaigns are the wrong way to fight AIDS. In fact, in his interview with Seewald, the Pope was defending those earlier statements when he made the remarks that have prompted so many headlines. 

So, is the point here that the intention of protecting the life of others is morally worthy when directed at one person, but not at several? If the ideas of the South African bishops looked a bit over the top, this one seems to be right in the center of the madhouse. But, obviously, this can hardly be what the Pope meant, or what is the present standing on the dignity, sanctity and value of human life within Catholic ethics. Neither can the point be that a good intention makes no difference, since that would imply that the Pope is wrong altogether in everything that he says on this matter (which I, actually, can't imagine being a view that the Catholic Culture is representing). My suspicion is that the reporter has been missing out on what I claimed to be a bit of a novelty as regard ethical analysis in official Catholic moral teaching in the Pope's pattern of reasoning: an idea of degrees of wrong and right. So, just as with the case with two people having sex, the condom solution is not claimed by the Pope as being the morally best one. But neither is it the worst one! If you have HIV and is going to have sex (which, as a good Catholic, you really shouldn't), better use a condom than not. Similarly, if you're going to shape a policy to stop HIV and can't or won't have people to practice abstinence, better use condoms than not. Clear enough?!

But the most hilarious example of desperation and confusion comes from a person who is supposed to be a highly proficient and sharp mind when it comes to ethical analysis, US moral theologian John Haas – head of the National Center for Catholic Bioethics. As reported by the Catholic News Agency. Dr. Haas' object of complaint is not the statement of the Pope, but the interpretation related above that the DDE argument for condom use applies no matter the gender of the person (my emphasis added):

“The gender of the prostitute is indeed relevant to the point the Pope wanted to make with regard to the use of condoms,” Haas said. [...] the “presumption is that the male prostitute has AIDS. His decision to use a condom perhaps might mean some expression of concern and regard for the other person.” Haas pointed out that female prostitutes do not use condoms. If a female prostitute does use condoms, he said, that act would likely reflect a selfish concern – to protect herself from disease.
"She would want to protect herself from being infected and in no way would be expressing the concern for the 'other' that the Pope said might be the first step toward 'moralization' if it were being done by a male prostitute. This is why the example of a female prostitute doesn't work,” Haas said.

First of all, note that Haas seems to clear transgender people. Fine, but what is he doing next??? Primo, it seems, making false assertions and contradicting himself better than in any textbook example you might want to use in A-level logic or argumentation class. Female prostitutes don't use condoms (false!), but, then again, they do. Or what? Secundo, he seems to be suggesting that the value of a human life is not very important when that life is one's own. That is, the value of human life is, in fact, not the sort of absolute that I would have thought would be the last conviction of a Catholic ethicist to be sacred on the altar of dogmatism. Anyhow, splendid news for all Catholics who are contemplating suicide: keeping yourself alive is a mere "selfish concern" that is in no way to be seen as being a step towards "moralization" - just ask Dr. Haas! Tertio, and most startling, considering that Haas is supposed to be a prominent bioethicist, he demonstrates what must either be lack of willingness to learn some basic facts about the case he is commenting on, or a conscious refusal to apply those facts known to him. For, considering that we are talking about a lethal pandemic, the assumption about the woman's motive can only involve herself and her client is clearly faulty. This is an infectious disease we are talking about, and one that is spreading rapidly. The woman's concern may therefore be about herself, her present family, her forthcoming children, people who may become infected in a secondary stage, should she herself be infected, and so on and so forth up to a concern for the entire population.

Back to school, Dr. Haas!