Wikileaks: Leaking secrets or freedom of speech

Lately the website Wikileaks has been in the media because of leaks that according to the White House, "[...] could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security" (Alexander Topping, Wikileaks condemned by White House over war documents, The Guardian, July 26, 2010). Before weighing the pros and cons of Wikileaks, let us first address the question of what it is?

Wikileaks?

According to Wikileaks their primary function is to protect whistleblowers, journalists, activists etc. that communicate sensitive material to the public. One famous whistleblower is Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli scientist that blowed the whistle regarding Israel's secret nuclear programme. It is people like him that Wikileaks protect. These leaks are uncontrolled, which means that the government in question cannot control their content. It means sensitive material could be revealed that again will expose agents etc. What we need to do in order to evaluate Wikileaks, is to weigh the pros of revelations with the cons of jeopardising security of virtually everyone.

Pros and cons

Obviously one of the pros of Wikileaks as a whole is the enhancement of the public debate. Imagine the leaking of operations that goes against the consciousness of the whistleblower. The opposing argument is that it is not up to any whistleblower's consciousness to decide what to be published. It is a matter of thought through actions, and protection of assets whatever they might be. The counter argument to the question regarding the (alleged) enhancement of the public debate, fluctuates around the idea that this information will not enhance the debate, because it is not about the function of the democracy, but rather the protection of the same. Many operations probably survive different administrations with different ideological orientations. In other words they have a life span longer than four or five years. The question that we really need to ask ourselves is, if it is acceptable to jeopardise the lives of our servicemen in the field because of information that may or may not enhance public debate? It is a question that needs to be asked in relation to every piece of information that will be leaked. Standards cannot be established.

The current debate

Above I have tried to address the pros and cons of Wikileaks in general. In the following I will try to address the discourse of the current debate. As mentioned above the White House says that "it could put the lives [...] at risk [...].". This is pretty vague. In fact what the White House really does is to put a flimsy cloud around Wikileaks to make it look suspicious. In other words they say that you never know whether Wikileaks put the lives at risk. The British does not fall behind discursive flick flacks. Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones described, "[...] the leak as "really serious stuff" and questioned how the documents had been obtained. "We don't know how they got that material – it may be a combination of leaking of documents, but also one strongly suspects they have hacked into systems as well. "This is a very, very big story. But if you stop to think about it for a moment, military systems have to be secure because people's lives are at stake.". First of all she is probably right that it is "serious stuff". However, notice how she criminalise Wikileaks by saying that they might have hacked into a mainframe. In other words this is not just a question of publishing confidential information. It is also about hacking which is a different kind of offence. While the White House questioned the leaks, Neville-Jones criminalise.

The sum of the discourse is something like a website that 1) jeopardise servicemen in the field, and 2) publish serious stuff that 3) is obtained through shady methods. In other words while one can have a fair debate about the effects of a publishing, to depict a (perhaps) necessary source for democratic enhancement in criminalising ways is not acceptable. It borders miscarriage of justice.

Possession goal: China's resistance towards American-Korean military drills

In this post a couple of days a go I tried to shed light on the Chinese resistance towards the American-Korean drills. The conclusion was that China resisted by omitting to condemn North Korea of its 1) sinking of the South Korean Cheonan vessel, and 2) accepting the North Korean governments utterings. In this post I will try to clarify whether Chinese actions can be qualified as either a possession goal (as the title says) or as a milieu goal according to Wolfers.

Why a possession goal?

It is obvious that China feels threatened. This is seen in its lack of response (see above) as well as drills prior to the American-Korean drill. And not to forget the Chinese response to the drill: "We firmly oppose any foreign military vessel or plane conducting activities in the Yellow Sea and China's coastal waters undermining China's security interests. Under the current circumstances, we hope relevant parties exercise calmness and restraint and refrain from activities that would escalate tension in the region.". In other words China stresses Chinese security and not the general security of the region. They are not promoting security of say Vietnam or South Korea. This is logical within neorealist (pdf) thinking assuming that China subscribes to this thinking. This is clearly a possession goal.

Why passive?

It is very obvious. China has not yet acted. They have only stressed although they did it with the already mentioned navy drill. The question is whether it will continue to be passive or if they want to use muscle. To answer this question, a brief look on the difference between the United States and China will suffice. In first of these Columbia University podcasts the lecturer (without a name) claims that the difference between China and the United States big enough to deter China from doing anything.

East Asian Nuclear War: The potential of drills

Currently a media war is taking place between the DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) and the United States. Initially the DPRK responds to what it perceives as a threat from ROK (Republic of Korea) and the United States. Instead of launching their own exercise to demonstrate potential, they launch a verbal attack including the "use of nuclear weapons". This understanding does not, however, provide the necessary insight in what is really going on. In the following post I will try to depict what is going on by using a map as starting point (see the thumbnail).

DPRK, ROK and the USA

It is commonly known that the leadership in the DPRK has felt (and feels) threatened by the USA despite current US activities in other parts of the world (especially Iraq and later Afghanistan). The current statement (see above) is clearly stressing that viewpoint. This is perhaps not wrong because of the naval exercise taking place close to North Korea, which they condemn. Much of the distress is related to the sinking of the ROK naval vessel known as the Cheonan case, which supposedly the DPRK sank. A body of international experts have concluded that DPRK is to blame for the sinking although the DPRK has not accepted the blame. One could imagine a response from the international community and notably the UN Security Council, but experts say this is not likely, because China is reluctant to go against Pyonyang.

DPRK and China versus the USA and Taiwan

The Chenonan game is not only one in town. China is a growing power in East Asia especially. Today China considers Taiwan as part of continental China. This can be observed in Chinese responses to American sale of arms to Taiwan. The above mentioned naval exercise also sends a signal to China about the strength of the American naval presence. In other words a highly advanced American army combined with a Taiwanese ditto equipped with American weapons poses a strong and dangerous opponent in a potential row over Taiwan. In other words when the Chinese does not respond to the sinking of the Cheonan vessel, it is probably not because they want to protect DPRK but rather the desire to keep the pressure on the US to disarm and leave the area so that China can become the dominant power. This is evident if one observes China's own naval exercises in the South Chinese Sea, and the row with neighbouring states such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan just to mention a few .

Neo-tribalism: A Maffesolian approach to Facebook

According to the Guardian Facebook has now 500 million users. "That makes it not only the biggest social network in the world, but also the fastest growing, able to create its own virtual currency ("Facebook credits") as it heads towards its first billion users [...]." (The Guardian, Facebook reaches 500 million users, 2010). Further The Guardian quotes  Gartner analyst Monica Basso for saying that by "[...] 2012, Facebook will become the hub for integration of social networks, as well as for social extensions of traditional websites and applications [...].".

However...

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="AJC1, Flickr"][/caption]

While Basso's prediction might be true, she misses an important point. While we might see an integration of social networks, it will only be those networks that people have an interest in. In other words the Facebookan (as we can call people of Facebook) will not be challenged but rather confirmed. To take an example. I have an interest in open source operating systems (Linux) as well as football (Manchester United). News from Facebook will fluctuate around these two topics. Information regarding say Windows or Liverpool will be scewed in favour biased in favour of the former rather than the latter. This makes sense since I have no interest in what is going on in the Windows or Liverpool world. While Manchester United and operating systems are not of grave importance for democracies, the debate regarding the core of politics is. This debate fluctuates around distribution of funds according to the Danish thinker Erik Rasmussen (in Danish).

Why is this so?

To fully understand why people turn to "like-minded" rather than people they disagree with, a quick look into sociology might provide useful insight.

"In short, we only exist because the other, my close relation, or the Other, the social, gives me my existence. I am as I am because the other recognizes me as such. Such an assertion might seem shocking, but is this not, empirically, how, from the smallest to the largest, societies function. Such an ‘effect of structure’ is well described by Marie Douglas, in her book How Institutions Think, (Douglas 1992, p. 12). It enables us to understand that whoever does not submit to such recognition is rejected, stigmatized, or marginalized. Their exclusion is due to the fact that they don’t have ‘the smell of the clan,’ or don’t want to acquire it." (Maffesoli, 2001: 2344).

What Maffesoli really says is that we exist, because we are confirmed by other people. The confirmation is a key assumption of his. However, it does make sense. Imagine that you are not confirmed but instead stigmatised and / or marginalised. This is why I would never feel home among Liverpool fans or Windows users. They would stigmatise me since "I do not smell like them" assuming a particular Liverpool smell.

And the consequence

A fruitful debate is among people that do not agree. Hopefully and under ideal circumstances if both debaters have good arguments, they would reach a middleground. However if they never meet, they will not be able to achieve this middleground. Rather they would be able to be suspicious against the other part they never meet. This can be seen among majority and minority ethnic groups. In other words it (can) lead(s) to tensions as well as conflicts regarding the distribution of funds. Back to Facebook. Congratulations with your half a billion users. However, this does not lend credence to better social contacts among different groups with different opinions. Rather it will just provide an approving platform for users.

Football: Petrodollars and empty pockets

Most football fans have come across the fight between the Green & Gold movement and the American businessman, Malcolm Glazer. Most (if not all) United fans supports the Green & Gold movement, while say Manchester City fans utter exclamations of joy, when their indebted rivals struggle against their unwanted boss. As I will argue in the following post, perhaps they should not be as joyful and instead join ranks with their rivals as has been suggested in the case with Liverpool.

Sales and fans

One could claim that everything is up for sale in the West. Everything from amusement parks such as Legoland to old and established football clubs. Manchester United is not the only one that lost its independence. As already mentioned Liverpool and Manchester City joins in. The same can be said about the London club Chelsea as well as others. To understand the difference in mood towards the new ownership, let us explore the potential benefits the different clubs have experienced.

The joyful

Chelsea: The extremely wealthy Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich, bought Chelsea in 2003. With his takeover he gave the club financial aid that made it possible to buy players that really made a difference. Since his takeover Chelsea has won the Premier League three times and is currently the holder of the trophy. Before Abramovich Chelsea had never won the former 12 seasons in the  Premier League. In other words the average Chelsea fan can feel satisfied about the performance on the pitch. Further Abramovic covers Chelsea with interest free loans according to Soccerlens.com. Further Chelsea can brag about a debt of zero percent Forbes reports.

Manchester City: Manchester City is owned by Sheik Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, which has used his financial wealth to support the club. According to Andy Hinchcliffe, former City Player, "The level of investment is stratospheric. A lot of people are a bit bewildered at the moment and it might take a couple of days for it to sink in. I hope they stick with Mark Hughes, because on the football side things are moving in the right direction." (Daily Telegraph, Manchester City fans cheer takeover by Abu Dhabi United Group, 2008). The Daily Telegraph reports in the same article that the general secretary of the Manchester City supporters club is excited although more moderate. Among the things that makes him smile, he stresses the deep pockets.

The regretful

Liverpool: Liverpool is like Manchester United owned by Americans. Like the latter they too suffer, although not as grave, from financial distress. According to Forbes the debt of Liverpool is even bigger than that of Manchester United relatively speaking. The success on the pitch is not something to brag about either. Just like City, Liverpool has never won the Premier League. They did win the Champions League though.

Manchester United: This club is still regarded one, if not the most successful club in the world. Forbes values it to around $1.8 billion with a debt fluctuating around 60 %. They have won the Premier League more than any other club in England as is currently vice-champions. Extremely loyalty seems to be a trademark of the club, since the manager, Sir Alex Ferguson has stayed with club in the same position for more than 20 years. Esteemed players like Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes and Gary Neville have become institutions in the club with more league matches that any other. Until Malcolm Glazer's takeover United seemed like a true story of success. However, Glazer managed to by the club with borrowed money and transfer that debt to the club. As an example United announced that after the Glazer takeover, the annual profit fell with £12.3 million (The Scotsman, Manchester United profits fall by £12.3m, 2006).

A couple of concluding words

Obviously both Chelsea and Manchester City have fans that enjoy status quo, while the same cannot be said about Liverpool and Manchester United. While the former has every reasons to be happy, they might begin to think of the future. Both clubs are financed with petrodollars, and by people that do not have football as their primary business. Imagine that the financial situation of today changes in favour of green technology. If the internal financial situation of both Chelsea and City are not sustainable by itself, the club will collapse. The City fan secretary general stressed stability. The pre-Glazer situation in Manchester United was an example of a club with a stable economy, which by the way was why Glazer in the first place bought the club. In an article in the Guardian in 2010 the paper describes the financial situation of Malcolm Glazer as bad, and that he gets his profits from his sportsteams rather than his normal business activities. Despite the disregard the different fangroups have among eachother, perhaps they should join ranks and fight against business magnates that either simply enjoys a sport so much that they want to buy or use it as a moneybag!

'It is democratic', a Danish Tour de France commentator exclaimed

The Danish commentator, Jørgen Leth, exclaimed "It is democratic" when Alexander Vinokurov (great cyclist and a hard worker) fetched water for the man in yellow, Alberto Contador. This is a typical misconception which needs to be addressed in order to fully understand what democracy is. Let us again return to Robert A. Dahl's four criteria regarding democratic process. He says, 1) everyone should have the ability to participate, to vote, to be enlightened about what is going on, and to have influence on the agenda (Dahl, 1989: 113f). Notice the absence of the "water bearer". It is not one of Dahl's criteria.

What is democracy

Democracy is not something you just define, and then you have one definition. There are many different definitions. Minimalist thinkers would argue that voting is all there is needed, while maximalist thinkers such as Dahl stresses other things such as enlightenment. Before I return to a critique of the contemporary usage of the term, democracy, a further elaboration on the term itself is needed.

Democracy is according to Dahl equal rights of participation and voting. This means that everyone defined suitable for participation, can do it (Dahl, 1989: 109). Malnes and Midgaard quotes Aristotle for saying that "It is typical for democracy that the right to vote and to be elected are not dependent on property [...]." (2004: 47). They do quote that it is possible to set a property demand although it is set low (ibid.). The property demand can be translated into properties not related to estates etc. but to your mental capacities. It is not uncommon to deny mentally ill persons the right to vote and to be elected. There is really nothing new here. However, Dahl becomes maximalist when he talks about enlightenment and control of the agenda.

Enlightenment

This is, as already mentioned in another post, about the citizen's possibility of validation. To be able to do such a society needs multiple outlets of information (newspapers, TV-stations etc.) (ibid.). Validation is in other words the citizen's attempt 1) understand what is going on, and 2) to facilitate reaction when election is up, or 3) to resist any proposal. The political scientist, David Easton, describes this very well in his model of the political system. Here the system needs feedback when it proposes a proposal (Easton, 1965: 111). This feedback is typically provided by the electorate. However, to get the good feedback, the system needs an enlightened electorate. Otherwise, one could fear that they would just nod to anything the politicians say.

Control of the agenda

The control of the agenda is something a bit different from enlightenment. Here the electorate has the control of what is debated. In other words the politicians are not completely capable of doing everything on their own. The electorate must have the possibility of pushing forth topics that they believe should be dealt with (Dahl, 1989: 109). This is where populism steps in. I will deal with that in a future post.

In other words and a critique

Democracy is either (put it boldly) a minimalist society where only voting defines the regime or a maximalist definition. There is good arguments for using both. However, the argument I would like to stress here, which is in favour of the latter definition, is that decisions without thinking can be quite blunt. They can have devastating effects for society. Imagine if we all reacted emotionally. Would we be able to have scientific progress? Perhaps no but on the other hand, it is not the scope of this post to explore emotions in democracy.

So what about Jørgen Leth and his remark? There is nothing wrong with it and there is everything wrong with hit. He reduces democracy to something about equality among people, which is not untrue but yet again, it is not the complete maximalist understanding. As real democrats we need to have a greater ambition than just make people vote. This is part of our European heritage from the Age of Enlightenment. People must be educated in order to be able to respond to the complexities of this planet.

EU and Corruption: What about Denmark?

According to Transparency International, Denmark was the least corrupt country in the world in 2008. Something every citizen in Denmark can be proud of. This can explain why there is great confidence in the Danish bureaucracy. It can also explain why for example Italians have little confidence in their own government (see World Value Survey, 2005). Transparency International gave Italy only 4.8 points on a scale ranging from 0 to ten where the former is completely corrupt and the latter is completely clean. Denmark has a score of 9.3. Transparency International measures corruption through the so called CPI or Corruption Perceptions Index. Basically it measures, "[...] the perceived levels of public-sector corruption in a given country and is a composite index, drawing on different expert and business surveys. The 2008 CPI scores 180 countries (the same number as the 2007 CPI) on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to ten (highly clean)."

The situation in the EU

Before addressing the core of this problem, let us first turn our attention upon the situation regarding corruption in the EU. As already mentioned Denmark is the "cleanest" country in the EU while Bulgaria is the "dirtiest" with a score on only 3.6 according to Transparency International. First let us take a look at the clean countries.

The clean countries

• Denmark (9,3)


• Sweden (9,3)


• Finland (9,0)


• The Netherlands (8,9)


• Austria (8,1)

Votes in the European Parliament: 86
Votes in the Council of the European Union: 54

The dirty countries

• Bulgaria (3,6)


• Romania (3,8)


• Poland and Lithuania (4,6)


• Greece (4,7)


• Italy (4,8)

Votes in the European Parliament: 207
Votes in the Council of the European Union: 103

In other words the "clean" countries have less than half the votes that the "dirty" countries have, while it is almost the same in the Council.

Theoretical implications

The European Union is governed through the parliament (EP) and the Council with the Commission as the executive power. The focus will be on the former two. Of the 736 seats in the EP 28 % is controlled by the dirty countries while the clean countries only control 12 % of the seats. In the Council the "dirty" country control 30 % of the votes while the "clean" countries control only 16 % of the votes. In other words the if there existed a clean coalition they would by definition be a minority opposed to the dirty coalition as well as the middle ground which I have not enclosed in this article. The alignment in both the parliament as well as the Council is not created along corruption lines. Rather around different topics. This is where it gets problematic. Assume that there is a vote about the CAP or Common Agricultural Policy. Especially Poland and France have a great interest in this arrangement while the president of the Danish Agricultural Council has stated opposition (Danish) towards CAP. Together Poland and France (France has a CPI score of 6,9) can muster 123 MEP's and 56 votes in the Council. In other words corruption (can) play(s) a role in the decision making process in the EU. Or put boldly - corrupt countries have a say in the cleanest country in the world.

Implications for Denmark

While Denmark will continue to be the cleanest country despite the European issues, it is important to remember that many of the laws (in fact more than half the laws approved in Denmark) originates from the EU system. Boldly said, corrupt politicians have a say in more than half the laws the Danish parliament approves (until now I will leave this as is but return to the matter in my next article).

'Perfect for San Tropez'

Today I watched the first 10 minutes of a Channel 4 TV show called Gok's Fashion Fix, which is about fashion (probably since I did not watch it all) and about how to get "fashionate" without being a big spender. This type of TV programme has million different shapes. The issue at stake here is not the quality of the programme, but the dullness it exhibits. It is like an adult's lullaby.

Hello world!

Welcome to Blog.com.

This is your first post, produced automatically by Blog.com. You should edit or delete it, and then start blogging!