WikiLeaks: Do Limits Exist for Freedom of Expression?
Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 13 December 2010
by Diego Torres (link to original)
It seems that the Americans’ worst enemies are themselves; this is proven by the recent and immensely embarrassing public disclosure of hundreds of communications between the North American government and its different diplomatic relations throughout the world. In spite of all the attempts to minimize the importance of the rumors in which American diplomatic arrogance puts its most hallowed mantra, “freedom of expression,” on display — a mantra which they defend tooth and nail — in this case it works against them. Seemingly no one can detain the leaking of documents to WikiLeaks, nor can they detain one of its founders, the Australian Julian Assange, in London on charges of sexual abuse brought against him by Sweden.
In reality, if the documents revealed up to now are carefully reviewed, there’s nothing surprising: that Brazil knew that las Farc was in Venezuela; that Italy’s prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is a good friend of the Russians and likes to party with young girls; that the Chinese don’t know what to do with North Korea; that Iran is acting suspiciously; that the war in Afghanistan is going from bad to worse, but that it’s better to say the opposite. Until now, nothing has appeared to change the current situation in the world, except, clearly, to make Hillary Clinton blush each time they ask her about the world among questions about her diplomatic corps.
What is really interesting are some immediate questions that come up: Who sent the documents, and why? What will be the documents’ effects on American international politics? How will public opinion form within the United States? Those answers will continue to appear over the course of the next weeks or decades, in an international novel that will be full of daily surprises. Nevertheless, there are logical conclusions, as well as embarrassing ones, for American government and society.
The source is from within the U.S. government, and it’s not a low-level source. Maybe there are various sources that are tired of the government’s treatment and motivated by profit, which is nothing new in a society obsessed with money; and in the midst of an economic crisis, this happens to even the best families. International politics won’t change much, in spite of this bad American episode, and views of a future in which a country like China would be the new world power are not at all encouraging; if not, look at China’s indecision over managing the North Korean problem in contrast with the rapid action taken by America. The documents demonstrate the clear political ideal of the United States to try to understand the behavior of the states and their leaders. The North American state is not as simple as some have come to think, and maybe it knows foreign governments much better than they themselves are capable of sensing.
With respect to the position of American society, that’s a problem that worries the government. Americans fanatically defend their First Amendment and one of its most powerful points: freedom of expression. Nevertheless, when referring to its national and political security, they find it problematic justifying the actions of their government. Whether Americans want it to, their government possesses enormous infiltrative power, which it has used at an international level, and whose level of use still remains unclear at the national level. It shouldn’t surprise us that in the future, it will come to light that the government has spied on many of its citizens, political opponents and businesses in an indiscriminate manner and without judicial authorization. This would present an enormous problem for the administration (or administrations) responsible for said actions. Precedent already exists in the Watergate case, which felled the president of that era, Richard Nixon, for poking at the opposing party during his reelection campaign (it’s worthwhile to remember that the technique of repeatedly spying on political opponents by the government was not invented in Colombia).
Lastly, we should recognize that American diplomats really are committed to serving their country, and they keep busy working for the American diplomatic system. That isn’t always the case in Colombia, where diplomacy is still used to pay political favors, and many times the diplomats pass almost unnoticed through their posts in the world, not even noted by Colombian citizens abroad.
In reality, if the documents revealed up to now are carefully reviewed, there’s nothing surprising: that Brazil knew that las Farc was in Venezuela; that Italy’s prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is a good friend of the Russians and likes to party with young girls; that the Chinese don’t know what to do with North Korea; that Iran is acting suspiciously; that the war in Afghanistan is going from bad to worse, but that it’s better to say the opposite. Until now, nothing has appeared to change the current situation in the world, except, clearly, to make Hillary Clinton blush each time they ask her about the world among questions about her diplomatic corps.
What is really interesting are some immediate questions that come up: Who sent the documents, and why? What will be the documents’ effects on American international politics? How will public opinion form within the United States? Those answers will continue to appear over the course of the next weeks or decades, in an international novel that will be full of daily surprises. Nevertheless, there are logical conclusions, as well as embarrassing ones, for American government and society.
The source is from within the U.S. government, and it’s not a low-level source. Maybe there are various sources that are tired of the government’s treatment and motivated by profit, which is nothing new in a society obsessed with money; and in the midst of an economic crisis, this happens to even the best families. International politics won’t change much, in spite of this bad American episode, and views of a future in which a country like China would be the new world power are not at all encouraging; if not, look at China’s indecision over managing the North Korean problem in contrast with the rapid action taken by America. The documents demonstrate the clear political ideal of the United States to try to understand the behavior of the states and their leaders. The North American state is not as simple as some have come to think, and maybe it knows foreign governments much better than they themselves are capable of sensing.
With respect to the position of American society, that’s a problem that worries the government. Americans fanatically defend their First Amendment and one of its most powerful points: freedom of expression. Nevertheless, when referring to its national and political security, they find it problematic justifying the actions of their government. Whether Americans want it to, their government possesses enormous infiltrative power, which it has used at an international level, and whose level of use still remains unclear at the national level. It shouldn’t surprise us that in the future, it will come to light that the government has spied on many of its citizens, political opponents and businesses in an indiscriminate manner and without judicial authorization. This would present an enormous problem for the administration (or administrations) responsible for said actions. Precedent already exists in the Watergate case, which felled the president of that era, Richard Nixon, for poking at the opposing party during his reelection campaign (it’s worthwhile to remember that the technique of repeatedly spying on political opponents by the government was not invented in Colombia).
Lastly, we should recognize that American diplomats really are committed to serving their country, and they keep busy working for the American diplomatic system. That isn’t always the case in Colombia, where diplomacy is still used to pay political favors, and many times the diplomats pass almost unnoticed through their posts in the world, not even noted by Colombian citizens abroad.
Previous article![]( "The Fate of Julian Assange")
Next article![]( "Christmas Dilemma: Let Them Touch You or Let Them See You")
