When I first heard of Julian Assange I thought, the man is a traitor, putting lives and security at risk. Then the story grew, and became more complicated.
Sure, the man -- through Wikileaks -- is publishing information which governments have decided should not be published. But what sort of information is it? Is national security -- for any nation -- really at risk?
Not that it's easy to tell... The West reports only what it deems to be of interest. In its own interest, that is. And a web search is just too hard -- for a casual reader -- since the actual Wikileaks site has been closed down.
So I will do what any good blogger would do. I will write from minimal information bulked out with personal opinion.
Australians on US terror list
It seems -- from a leaked cable -- that 23 Australians are being watched by US security services. The 23 may have been recruited by anti-US terrorists. Many of the 23 are women.Ooh! Top secret! The western world is about to crumble on that news! Or is it? Really!
Terrorists attempt to recruit new terrorists. I think we could all guess that. Does that knowledge affect us? or national security? or the terrorists? Well, it may annoy terrorists to find out that 23 of their potential recruits have been spotted. Or it may please them, that others have not been spotted. It may make tourists a bit more careful, to know that the friendly and exotic stranger may, in fact, be a terrorist recruitment agent. Unless that is exactly the person that the tourist is hoping to meet.
At a personal level, none of the 23 are named. Either Wikileaks or the newspapers have decided to not publish names. So the individual 23 are not at risk of sudden public scrutiny. Though -- if they really are now terrorists -- they may be more careful of their activities. Which should suit the security agencies, if prevention is their aim.
It seems to me that the leaked cables have confirmed something that we may have already guessed, or heard as rumours. We -- the public -- now have more facts. To me, that is good. To security agencies, it should also be good: the public can now appreciate the work that is being done to protect us.
The headline in The West ("Australians on US terror list") is written to cause excitement and possibly fear. The facts... are rather boring.
Minerals from WA considered vital to US
That's a headline which I would classify as, "nice to know". Manganese mines, an undersea communication cable and an antivenom manufacturer are considered to be crucial to continuing US power and wellbeing. Isn't that nice! Especially if you own one of those items.So what is so scary, so much a threat to national security? No... I don't know, either.
The reporters (Nick Butterly and Andrew Probyn) do say, "But bizarrely, high security military installations such as Pine Gap... fail to make the long list".
Bizarrely?!?
Diplomats were asked to create a list of infrastructure which would be missed if destroyed. If I were a diplomat, I think I would read that as, stuff that's in the country, that we/US don't control, that provides goods or services vital to our/US security. Stuff that we should be aware of, that we may not be aware of.
Pine Gap? Hmmm... I think that US security agencies already know about that one. Already manage that one. Already have it in their list of US-controlled vital assets. If I were a diplomat I would think, hmm, everyone already knows about that one. We should look for what may be missing from our lists.
Bizarre? Or just journalistic hysteria.
And who cares whether the list is gathered secretly or not? Lots of people, governments, companies, all have lists. Perhaps of infrastructure that they would like to own a bit of.
When someone leaks the plans to "protect" these resources by taking them over by use of force -- then I will actually be worried.
Well, it already worries me. Perhaps an actual threat will be less worrying, if it puts the threat out in the open.
Our links with China still strong, says PM
"A leaked secret US cable showing that Kevin Rudd suggested force should be used against China..." (The West, 7 Dec 2010). Read on:Rudd actually suggested that the US should be prepared to use force, "if everything goes wrong." My estimation of Rudd has just gone up a notch! Still can't stand him, but can't stand him a little less than before.
China already has a history of invading neighbouring countries. Of using force against its own citizens. Of stifling dissent with threats and actual violence.
If China decides that force will have better results -- for China -- than peace, will China use force? I would not be surprised. Neither, it seems, would Rudd.
I only have third- or fourth-hand reports of Rudd's comments. When there are direct quotes -- again, only of the reported conversation, still not a guarantee of actual words spoken -- Rudd has said that the US should be prepared to use force. If everything goes wrong. I don't read of Rudd saying, "Invade China." What I hear is, "If China hits out, be prepared to hit back."
And that, to me, seems to be a sensible precaution.
So why all the fuss!
What we have -- whatever we may think of Assange's actions -- is an over-reaction in response. Why?Because he has caused huge embarrassment to people who believed that they had all the power.
Assange has broken all the rules of establishment secrecy. He has released information without the approval of people who have dedicated their lives to power and control. Talk about cat among the pigeons!
Talk about making the power-brokers look foolish!
And that's the real problem. Assange has made a mockery of institutionalised power. He has published information which people in power had decided to keep secret... for whatever reasons.
Assange has thumbed his nose at people in power.
Now they want to punish him. For making them look like incompetent fools.
What a bunch of incompetent fools.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment