WikiLeaks, the Right to Information and global power relations

Julian Assange-April 17, 2019, 8:49 pm 

The recent arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London is notable for the bearing it has on global power realities, besides other matters of interest. It is of particular significance that the British government had gone ahead with the arrest at the behest of the US. This brings into focus the confluence of interests between the major Western powers in question in connection with issues surfaced by Asange and WikiLeaks.

It reflects badly on democratic opinion the world over that questions growing out of WikiLeaks-related issues were not discussed substantively over the past few years. It could be argued that, consequently, global awareness-raising on the WikiLeaks crisis and issues arising from it did not occur to the desired degree. If the questions at issue were debated discursively and exhaustively, perhaps, some of the current deleterious developments could have been averted. This applies in particular to the global South.

However, as matters stand, the ‘democratic West’ seems to be acting in unison to penalize the WikiLeaks founder who, at least in the view of this columnist, acted in the best interests of the Right to Information, a fundamental right. Accordingly, two of the most powerful governments of the West are acting against a most vital public need; the right to be informed about the doings of states. From this arises the question – aren’t these states acting against the interests of their citizens?

Assange was a path-breaker in the sense that he thought irrelevant state dictates with regard to divulging information to the public, which, in his view and in the view of democratic opinion anywhere, citizens are fully entitled to access. The perspective of citizens should be adopted in this context, and divulging is the right thing to do, considering that democratic governments are stringently obliged to serve the public interest.

To get back to basics – democratic governments exist to minister to the public and are funded by the public. Such governments do not exist to be of exclusive service to power elites or the political class. Their first duties are towards their citizens. Accordingly, governments are duty-bound to serve their citizens on a priority basis.

It ought to be obvious from the foregoing that it is of the first importance that governments fulfil the information needs of their citizens. Such information is wide-ranging and covers the effectiveness or otherwise with which states carry out their functions. Very importantly, citizens should be informed as to how effectively or ineffectively their moneys are used by governments.

Needless to say, a country’s defence budget too is funded by the public and the latter enjoys the right to know whether its moneys are disbursed in its best interests. This is of particular salience to the WikiLeaks issue because Assange helped unearth some of the ways in which defence funds were misused by the US security forces during their engagements in the war zones of the South, such as, Afghanistan.

The same goes for the ‘sensitive’ diplomatic despatches and ‘classified’ information relating to major Western governments, which WikiLeaks helped to bring to light. If not for these timely disclosures the misdoings of the states concerned would never have come to light. They would have been buried in the debris of history and forgotten.

Therefore, WikiLeaks and Assange served transparency in governance to a considerable extent. It stands to reason that these parties cannot be hounded by governments for working in the best interests of democratic opinion everywhere.

It is relevant to ascertain whether questionable methods were used by WikiLeaks to divulge the information in question but on this score too impartiality of perspective is needed. The larger good accruing to the people from these techniques should be seen as nullifying any negative consequences or effects.

However, there is a most intriguing silence on the part of the world community, thus far, to the punitive action taken by the West on Assange. This amounts to complicity on the part of world opinion with the relevant Western powers, principally the US and Britain. It is as if the West has stifled the world into silence.

We are compelled to take the view that even those sections of opinion that are seen as progressive are rendered tongue-less by these developments. They dare not object because their interests are tied-up with the West and are one with the West on the issue of world view and ideology.

What compounds this deafening silence is the currently apolitical nature of most Southern governments. Gone are the days when we had an ideologically identifiable Southern bloc of countries that could with relative boldness critique the West. There was, for instance, NAM that took on the West on the irregularities of the world system.

This is no longer the case because most Southern states are in harmony with the West on the question of political and economic ideology. Today, growth is considered the priority with re-distributive justice seen as hardly important. That is, the capitalist economic model holds sway over the corresponding socialist approach to material well being.

Besides, these Southern countries are dependent on the major powers of the West and their financial institutions for economic sustenance. Could we then expect these states to revolt against the West on the issue of fundamental rights?

Currently, the global South is so fragmented politically and ideologically that a united Southern voice on world questions is not possible. This allows the West to virtually reign supreme in the international political and economic order.

However, there is a coming together of the political elites of the North and South on economic issues, with the capitalist, neo-liberal path to economic advancement commanding the loyalty of these ruling classes. In the process, the material fortunes of the people are more or less ignored. The end result is the economic impoverishment of the people.

Ironically, little seems to have changed in the world system since the seeming collapse of colonialism. We continue to live in a highly Western-centric world with the West continuing to have its way on most critical issues. Small wonder that the likes of Assange are penalized for doing what is most needed to further fundamental rights.