Last night in my course on the sociology of Erving Goffman, we discussed the release of classified documents by WikiLeaks. The students generally agreed with me that the publication was inappropriate and politically problematic. I think actually only one person dissented from the consensus. Given the general political orientation of the students and faculty of the New School, this was surprising. We are far to the left of the general public opinion, to the left, in fact, of the political center of the American academic community. Our first position is to be critical of the powers that be.
Why not disclose the inner workings of the global super power? Why not “out” American and foreign diplomats for their hypocrisy? We did indeed learn a lot about the world as it is through the WikiLeak disclosures. On the one hand, Netanyahu apparently is actually for a two state solution, and on the other Arab governments are just as warlike in their approach to Iran as Israel. China is not as steadfast in its support of North Korea and not as opposed to a unified Korea through an extension of South Korean sovereignty as is usually assumed. And the Obama administration has been tough minded in coordinating international sanctions against Iran, as it has been unsteady with a series of awkward failures in closing Guantanamo Prison.
And, of course, The New York Times, yesterday justified publication, mostly in the name of the public’s right to know about the foibles of its government, and also noted today how the leaks reveal the wisdom and diplomatic success of the Obama administration.
Most of the opposition to the release is very specific. It will hurt the prospects of peace in the Middle East. It shows our hand to enemies, as it embarrasses friends. But my concern, shared with my students is that as it undermines diplomacy, it increases the prospects for diplomacy’s alternatives.
In fact, given the social theorist we have been studying, Goffman, it actually is not that unexpected that my students and I share a concern about the latest from WikiLeaks. Goffman studied social interaction. He analyzed how people present themselves in everyday life, and the ritual practices that surround their presentations. He investigated the framing of action, which makes social understanding possible, and he investigates Forms of Talk , the book we were discussing last night. Most crucially in understanding why we object to the leaks, he shows how all successful group interaction has a front and a back stage. One is no more true than the other, nor does the presence of a backstage reveal the lie of the front stage. In fact, the contamination of the front by the back can destroy successful interaction. This is true of the performances that occur in a family and between families, among groups of individuals, at school, at work, and indeed in international diplomacy. The contamination of the front by the back can lead to a breakdown in interaction. Think of our relation with our friends and opponents, on the international stage but also down the block. In order for successful interaction to occur, people have to share some things, hide others.
We did not proceed to have a political discussion about this last night. After all, it was a class with its front and back stages and not a political event. We saw the problem of staging as it illuminated a pressing topic of the day, but we actually didn’t declare and explain our political positions. There were suggestions, but not careful exploration and debate. I try to avoid that in my classes as a matter of principle. I just had a sense of where people stood, perhaps they can reply to this post to fully explain their political positions.
But at DC, I can be more forthright. I believe WikiLeaks’ disclosures present a clear and present danger to world peace. I make this bold assertion not because of any particular piece of information that may be particularly damaging, though such information surely has been released. But because the disclosures as a whole undermine the process of diplomacy as a form of interaction, when diplomacy is what stands between us and war and is a key tool to end foolish wars. As I indicated in an earlier post, I am becoming more and more convinced that military solutions to the problems of the day are impractical, not likely to yield the desired results. By weakening diplomacy, war becomes the default option. On good peacenik grounds, I am concerned.
I wouldn’t say I’m not at all concerned about any future diplomatic efforts after the current disclosures, BUT…
I identify some seriously clashing values regarding the publication of the diplomatic cables. The media must honor its professional values of not suppressing public information and telling the truth. On the other hand, the wishes exist not to compromise national security, endanger confidential informants, and, as you explain, not endanger the effect of peaceful diplomacy. In not wanting to undermine the process of diplomacy, your loyalties are with all of us who want to live in a world without war.
However, the loyalties of the publishers are not that different. Aren’t they believers in a strong democracy in which the citizens should be informed about the way the government makes decisions in their names? Based on the WikiLeaks we learned more about how the government works, which can now be publicly debated. One problem of course is that while we end up in a strong democracy, other countries may pick up arms based on the revelations. But I doubt if the content of the WikiLeaks is that powerful.
The NYT actually made some serious compromises by redacting the text and discussing the edits with the Obama administration. It also waited several weeks with publishing the WikiLeaks.
Of course, the NYT also has to deal with a bottom line and explained the Leaks as “adding sizzle.” But, again, based on the current revelations, I seriously wonder if these burst of openness can be that damaging to the survival of diplomacy and peace. After having learned how we talk about others behind their backs — which cannot be entirely new – there’s still a time and space for diplomacy instead of weapons.
I wonder however how much “WikiLeaks’ disclosures present a clear and present danger to world peace.” I, like Esther, wonder how powerful the leaks really are. However, I also wonder how much longer such leaks, as they pertain to supposedly private interactions, can continue. What will be done by the US, and other countries, to prevent such leaks from occuring? There’s no doubt that it will affect US diplomacy with other countries to some degree, but what might the unintended consequences of a continued series of leaks be? Could it chill diplomacy or make it more honest? I would tend to think that they would ultimately have a chilling effect, at least in the short term. Imagine the potential awkwardness Hilary Clinton now faces on her next diplomatic trip.
Julian Assange has stated that Hilary Clinton, “…should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033771,00.html#ixzz16tNwEwI2
Yet the US is not the only country spying on the UN for sure. Which leads me to perhaps the biggest issue I have with the particular leaks in question: its rather unfair to assume that the US is the only country whose diplomacy can be duplicitous and shady. Other countries know this very well, and I think that’s one of the reasons we haven’t seen a greater fallout in the wake of the latest “dump.” Their diplomatic houses are made of glass, albeit heavily tinted glass, as well.
“I believe WikiLeaks’ disclosures present a clear and present danger to world peace.”
Considering that the world is in a state of prolonged international conflict- Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, I do not consider the WikiLeaks data dump itself to be the true danger to world peace. If Private First Class Bradley Manning (the second lowest rank in the army officer ranks) had access to these “secret” diplomatic cables, their importance must be immediately discounted. It is likely that the diplomatic and intelligence ranks of the countries involved already knew much of the information disclosed.
The real question is how these nations will react to having their shared understandings “outed” in public. It is most likely that the diplomatic contingents will restrain any kind of rash public reaction, if only to continue the diplomatic mutual understanding of politeness and shared secrecy.
So far I have not been surprised with the information revealed:
Saudi Arabia wants Iran dead and finances Al Qaeda- Old news
China is using computer attacks to penetrate US computer security- Bah
Russia is a totalitarian plutocracy run by oligarchs and former KBG officers- Oh well
I don’t think “Oh well” responses are particularly helpful. While there might not be anything surprising in the released cables, we don’t know what the consequences of this may be. Attention needs to be paid to the details.
So far, the Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan has offered to resign from his post and hassaid that, “U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry briefed Kabul diplomats on “potentially cataclysmic fallout” from the whistle-blower’s revelation, the newspaper reported. Eikenberry reportedly said he was afraid that the revelations could antagonize Karzai and force him into a stand-off with Western allies.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40469846/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
On the “oh well” debate: I think it’s important to reveal that the King is wearing no cloths, when the King is acting unjustly. But kings do pretend to wear more than they have on and if it is a good king, not oh well, but hip hip hurrah is the proper response. Diplomacy is a good thing. Hip hip hurrah!
[…] commitment to make visible all things hidden is deeply problematic, as I explored in my initial post on WikiLeaks. But this doesn’t mean that making previously secret things public is always without […]
[…] (WikiLeaks and the Politics of Gestures and Political Leadership and Hostile Visibility) and I (WikiLeaks Front Stage/Back Stage) fundamentally agree that WikiLeaks’ general release of secret diplomatic exchanges potentially […]