"Let justice be done, though the world perish"
- Ferdinand I
I first heard this phrase, coined by Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Hungary and Bohemia around 1558, about a month ago, in my Contemporary Mexican Politics class, when we were discussing the pros and cons of two extremes: allowing justice to shine through no matter the consequences, or being more pragmatic when applying justice to allow more flexibility according to the circumstances. Some people believed justice couldn't be applied with freedom, that the principle should remain the same no matter the case. Others thought the circumstances were important, and sometimes you couldn't be just without negative consequences. I think this debate could be translated to the recent Wikileaks debacle. The man behind the whole ordeal, Julian Assange, is considered by some like the savior of truth, like the only man that had the guts to face the West (and more specifically, the United States) and expose their dirty little secrets. Others, and I must include myself in this last category, think of him as an arrogant megalomaniac, with delusional fantasies of fame and grandeur, and that the last thing on his mind was exposing the truth for truth itself. But what most people can agree on is that there will now be a before and after Wikileaks in diplomacy and international relations. The question is, can we say exposing the truth of what goes on in embassies around the world for all societies to see was worth ripping the thin veil of trust and security that surrounded diplomacy? Will this exposure bring forth a whirlwind of consequences unforeseen by the people that leaked the information? What will happen to the sources cited in the documents, diplomats and government workers that now have to face public punishment for giving their opinion?
Wikileaks is considered the largest leak of confidencial information in history. Over 250,000 documents, considered classified information and thus kept away from prying eyes, were exposed, creating a hurricane of opinions, criticism and praise not only on the information that was revealed, but on the promotor of all this chaos, Assange. He claims that the truth should be revealed, at any cost, and that the government of the United States (and all governments, at that) did wrong in hiding the mechanics of their foreign politics. He also states that his intentions were only to reveal the truth, with no hidden agenda but to be a dutiful messenger of society. Right. All the press, power and fame that came with these revelations were just a side dish in the whole process, not the main course. Now, with the accusations of sex crimes against him in Sweden, he's become something of a martyr, condemned by the big bad U.S. for being a good samaritan. Not only has he not undergone a trial, but he's been accused of the same felonies before, so why are there so many people rushing in his defense, crying for his release? If he's innocent, then let the law prove it. But reaching the conclusion that this is all just an act on behalf of the government of the United States to lock him up, as punishment for leaking their information, is too premature. Releasing him would not only feed his already overly-inflated ego, but would take a stab at the heart of our carefully-built judiciary system, an important pilar in modern democracy. Let him have his trail, let him present all the evidence, and then decide whether he is guilty or not.
Leaving my digression on Assange aside for a moment, let's return to the main topic and the most pressing question in all this mess: was this the right thing to do? Do we really need, like Ferdinand I thought, to let justice be done even though it makes the world disappear? Wikileaks claims people need to know the truth, no matter what. But I wonder, what the consequences of this grand charade will be. Sure, I guess we all became better citizens, much more informed than before, but does this leak pose a threat to the cited sources, to the diplomatic processes the United States was completing and will now probably fall apart, to the countries that have been exposed as hypocrites? No one really knows to what extent the consequences of the exposure will affect diplomatic relations, or will fuel conflict between countries (especially in the Middle East), or even affect economic interests.Sure, I'm all for information being available to those who seek it, but where do you draw the line? Between what every citizen should and shouldn't know? Do we allow our governments to decide for us, like they have been doing all this time, let them decide which information can be made public and which is too vital for the country's interests? Or do we support people like Assange, that expose the truth no matter the consequences or who perishes in the process?
A wise man told me a few weeks ago that the line certainly needs to be drawn, ultimately hiding information that is part of a larger process that must be completed, but everything else should be available for the world to see. Only expose what isn't part of a bigger picture, if you will. Point is, who decides what the bigger picture consists of? Who can be trusted with the enormous responsability of deciding that certain information is a part of a longer process and thus cannot be revealed at the moment?
So we're left with choosing between risking having a dictator and submitting to his judgement what we can and cannot know, and allowing people like Assange to infiltrate and publish secrets he/she deems worth of knowing. Tough call.
A wise man told me a few weeks ago that the line certainly needs to be drawn, ultimately hiding information that is part of a larger process that must be completed, but everything else should be available for the world to see. Only expose what isn't part of a bigger picture, if you will. Point is, who decides what the bigger picture consists of? Who can be trusted with the enormous responsability of deciding that certain information is a part of a longer process and thus cannot be revealed at the moment?
So we're left with choosing between risking having a dictator and submitting to his judgement what we can and cannot know, and allowing people like Assange to infiltrate and publish secrets he/she deems worth of knowing. Tough call.
