Which is it, Mr. Assange?

Posted By Blake Hounshell Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 2:35 AM Share

In an op-ed published Tuesday in the Australian newspaper, WikiLeaks frontman Julian Assange wrote:

WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed.

But just four months ago, Assange was singing a different tune:

When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

It's probably unlikely that WikiLeaks swung the Kenyan election and provoked massive violence. But Assange can't have it both ways.

EXPLORE:AFRICA, WIKILEAKS

(6)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

ZALMOXES

5:13 AM ET

December 8, 2010

ugh

I'm not sure if the writer is bothering to read comments, but I had to register just to reply to this post.
This post seems very disingenuous.
When Assange talks about nobody getting hurt, he is obviously responding to criticism of innocent people(like informants) getting hurt because their names were revealed in a leak.

The second quote is about Wikileaks reporting sparking a revolution. While it's sad when innocent people die, I don't see how it's a problem that citizens of a country would rebel when they discover that their government is corrupt.

While I didn't follow the Kenyan election closely, I know that Wikileaks received an award from Amnesty International for the reporting they did in Kenya. Surely, at least someone thought wikileaks did something important for the kenyan people.

XENOPHON

4:40 AM ET

December 9, 2010

Very Good Point

Yes, exactly. Our fearless author is failing to provide the "context" he celebrates in his other post above. Here is a more complete citation from Assange's piece in the Australian:

"Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?
It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone."

You are quite right, Zalmoxes. Assange's reference here is to the complaints that US forces or agents will be put in jeopardy. It is not comparable at all to the Kenya issue as discussed in the August Guardian article.

M1BURNS

9:02 AM ET

December 8, 2010

"While it's sad when innocent

"While it's sad when innocent people die, I don't see how it's a problem that citizens of a country would rebel when they discover that their government is corrupt."

It didn't take Wikileaks to reveal this information to them, or to the world for that matter -- it was an already known fact prior to the election that corruption existed.
Which brings me to my point; wasn't it a bit like throwing gasoline on the fire to leak this inflammatory information?

And the writer makes his point saliently at the end; you can't have both.
Indirect misery inflicted, whether for the assumed good or not, does not make right.

Moreover, I would argue that we westerns see transparency and the promotion of democracy as the right thing, simply because it seems right TO US. After spending time in East Africa, I can tell you that there are millions who know nothing, or care nothing of "democracy and transparency."
I firmly agree with human rights etc, but it is not our job to force change; to sway political action in countries that we know are already volatile: doing so is nothing short of a contradiction of the very principles we supposedly espouse.

...wikileaks will eat itself, if it doesn't cause a major global conflict in the process.

DEFENNDER

5:12 PM ET

December 12, 2010

Wikileaks only leaked info

"I firmly agree with human rights etc, but it is not our job to force change; to sway political action in countries that we know are already volatile: doing so is nothing short of a contradiction of the very principles we supposedly espouse."

Wikileaks didn't force any change. They leaked documents and that was all. It was unfortunate that people died, but this was not the intended consequence of the leak. Suppose there's a secret document out there which proved that President Obama is little more than a puppet controlled by some global cabal, are you saying it would be a definite no-no to leak it since an open rebellion would result along with likely thousands of casualties?

AGX

10:34 AM ET

December 8, 2010

Fashionable Extremes in WikiLeaks

To get some perspective on this, we only have to think back to the early 90s to see the same kinds of arguments used to perpetuate similar points of view, but which were held by political opposites.

In the 90s when Phil Zimmerman of MIT was racing to bring public key encryption to the general public, it was the FBI who was advocating "transparency." In the early 2000s, it was the Bush administration who wanted warrant-less wiretapping. Today, we see another political contest over information with anarchists like Assange profiteering with stolen information.

What unifies these trends? How about, power.

When people feel alienated from information, they will advocate transparency rather than confess their stupidity. When people feel alienated from control over the information they have on hand, they will advocate privacy and encryption, rather than seek refuge in the mass of the crowd.

XENOPHON

4:46 AM ET

December 9, 2010

Profiteering?

AGX: "Today, we see another political contest over information with anarchists like Assange profiteering with stolen information."

Can you substantiate your allegation of profiteering?