Paradox
Published in Liberation
(France) on 30 November 2010
by Laurent Joffrin, Directeur de Libération (link to
original)
Transparency, transparency: Will this become the letter of the law? A small group of Internet mavericks under the name of WikiLeaks have clearly made it the final word in the matter by publishing a massive amount of internal documents of American diplomacy.
Newspapers, dedicated to reporting on the world and shedding light on what happens behind closed doors, cannot complain about suddenly receiving such extensive documentation on how foreign politics function. Citizens can’t complain, either; it affects all of our lives. But surely, though such an observation is just common sense, it does not exempt them from giving serious thought to this demand for transparency at any cost.
In this process which occupies us all, we must note that this demand is not fully fleshed out. Before publication, media outlets verify, evaluate and cross-check all their sources; this is their function. Led by the New York Times, they especially make sure to negotiate with all involved authorities to take out any elements in their articles that would be a matter of national security or would place any person’s life in danger. Purists will see this as a questionable concession. They are mistaken.
In a world covered with violent conflicts, a State cannot make long-term, binding decisions under the scrutinizing gaze of instantaneous opinion. It has the right to guard its defense secrets, to discuss discretely with its allies or its adversaries, and even to conduct special operations, which are then controlled by the elected officials. Even the most open democracy, dedicated most fiercely to citizens’ rights, needs a State.
Moreover, it’s paradoxical to see WikiLeaks essentially targeting democracies, leaving the most opaque and repressive dictators be. On the plus side, it is fairly comforting to know that the important diplomats’ confidential exchanges bear a strong, intrinsic resemblance to their public statements. We must have faith in our governments, so often suspected of dark conspiracies. We must trust that their Machiavellianism is less significant than it is believed to be by certain slightly paranoid militants.
Newspapers, dedicated to reporting on the world and shedding light on what happens behind closed doors, cannot complain about suddenly receiving such extensive documentation on how foreign politics function. Citizens can’t complain, either; it affects all of our lives. But surely, though such an observation is just common sense, it does not exempt them from giving serious thought to this demand for transparency at any cost.
In this process which occupies us all, we must note that this demand is not fully fleshed out. Before publication, media outlets verify, evaluate and cross-check all their sources; this is their function. Led by the New York Times, they especially make sure to negotiate with all involved authorities to take out any elements in their articles that would be a matter of national security or would place any person’s life in danger. Purists will see this as a questionable concession. They are mistaken.
In a world covered with violent conflicts, a State cannot make long-term, binding decisions under the scrutinizing gaze of instantaneous opinion. It has the right to guard its defense secrets, to discuss discretely with its allies or its adversaries, and even to conduct special operations, which are then controlled by the elected officials. Even the most open democracy, dedicated most fiercely to citizens’ rights, needs a State.
Moreover, it’s paradoxical to see WikiLeaks essentially targeting democracies, leaving the most opaque and repressive dictators be. On the plus side, it is fairly comforting to know that the important diplomats’ confidential exchanges bear a strong, intrinsic resemblance to their public statements. We must have faith in our governments, so often suspected of dark conspiracies. We must trust that their Machiavellianism is less significant than it is believed to be by certain slightly paranoid militants.