things that might have been otherwise

Much ink and more megabytes have been spilt over ‘cablegate’. I’ve seen some pretty shoddy attempts at an ethical analysis, so feel bold enough to try my own, in the hope of providing something more rigorous. Do point out any flaws you might find.

There have been good, bad and ugly arguments for and against the leak. Let me dismiss some ugly arguments first. Ad hominem arguments in support of the US ‘it has been wronged because it is a more ‘moral’ state’ look like dressed-up jingoism to me. Surprisingly, this is a tack taken by Mike LaBossiere.
[– edit: LaBossiere has pointed out that he isn’t making a patriotic point, rather his claim is that the leak might help bad nations, thus leading to a worse outcome than not leaking. Nonetheless, the jingoistic version has been run elsewhere. And LaBossiere’s ‘consequences’ argument relies on the leaked cables being helpful to wrongdoers.]

An ad hominem against the US (‘we must check the advance of this overweening superpower’) is just as threadbare. Such approaches have nothing of substance to say about the ethics of cablegate. The corollary is that partisan defences of the Wikileaks team as persecuted fellow netizens ignore the real issues. And the focus on the alleged character of Assange might be expedient, but  is yet another red herring. Surely, in enquiring into the ethics of cablegate, we want a solid account of which actions, if any are ethically justified, which are not, and why. Such an account needs to stand up in its own right, independent of political preferences.

One bad argument offered in favour of leaking is to point to the facility of access to the US cables. Journalists rely on this — “when these papers came into our possession, so we were honour bound to publish”. This is a bit like excusing a mugging on the basis that one’s victim was an easy target. A slight caveat here is that the US government bears some responsibility for keeping its secrets secure. But the main point stands — capability is not a solid enough justification. See the ring of Gyges for an early discussion or this angle.

Enough of the duff arguments — time to review some of the better ones. First, Wikileaks could (and does) appeal to the background principle that more openness makes for better and more democratic government. This is very plausible in a lot of cases, as shown by some of Wikileaks’ earlier releases. But is the openness –> democracy relation absolute? Can the demands of transparency overrule any claim of government officials to confidentiality? I think the transparency at all costs claim does not stand up. In a representative democracy, we can’t help but devolve some powers to officials. We rely on intermittent scrutiny (elections, parliamentary committees, enquiries) to hold policy to account, without micromanaging every executive decision. In the particular case of diplomatic traffic, I think it is self evident that a degree of discretion will enable more candour, hence better analysis, hence better decisions from our officials. Although this need for candour and confidentiality is highlighted by diplomats themselves, it is still a valid point. To be cynical for a moment: if politicians and officials were bent on wrongdoing, they would be naive to document it (unless they were Nixon). The prospect of utterly undocumented policy and process, a potential consequence of frequent leaks, looks like a greater barrier to scrutiny in the long run. For these reasons, I think the specific case of cablegate weakens Wikileaks’ general case for more freedom to publish.

Now to what might be the strongest argument for cablegate. Perhaps this leak (a minor wrong) prevents or exposes a much graver crime? This is a very common and valid moral defence for a whistleblower. It’s a common one for investigative journalists, who when able to prove ‘public interest’ can win justice in court, even if they have broken existing laws. So what are the great wrongs exposed specifically by cablegate? We can assume that any such crimes would be seized on by the media. To date, the revelations seem much more embarrassing than explosive. So no grounds yet to justify this leak. Perhaps this is the problem? Instead of a single smoking gun, Wikileaks have released a pile of slightly whiffy laundry. This does much to provoke the US, but nothing to burnish the image of press freedom.

Having concluded that Wikileaks’ actions don’t have an ethical basis, what now?

I began by dismissing crude ad hominem attacks, but I think the way out is for both the US and Wikileaks to act with better character. If the US government acted like a benign, complex institution, it could recast the tide of leaks as more of a puddle. This might involve cranking back the ‘enemy of the state’ rhetoric, owning up to some ineptitude, and downplaying the seriousness of the leak. This might turn up the heat on the state department, but would deflate Wikileaks’ ‘we’re persecuted by a superpower’ narrative, thus cooling the media furore.

For Wikileaks, a better approach might be to place less emphasis on their ‘persecution’, and fill in some details about what, exactly, cablegate is supposed to expose. In doing this they would be behaving more like traditional campaigners for democracy, many of whom don’t evade the judicial consequences of their actions, but instead confront them. Think Pankhurst, Gandhi and Mandela.

I don’t deny that some anonymous leaks (including some from Wikileaks) are needed to protect democracy. But the case of cablegate is more like a vain attempt to make waves by splashing in the froth.