Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers — Opinio Juris
Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers
- 1 Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers
- 2 03 Dec Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers
- 3 GMOs: Frankenfoods or Future of Food?
- 4 Humans have been modifying plants for centuries. How are GMOs different?
- 5 That may sound like science fiction to many people. In fact, critics have called GMOs “Frankenfoods.” Are there potential risks to genetic modification?
- 6 How is genetic modification currently being used?
- 7 GMOs have led to increased use of Roundup, which the World Health Organization recently linked to cancer in people. There’s also concern about Duo Enlist, a new combined herbicide developed for weeds that have become resistant to Roundup. Is that a worry?
- 8 What do you say to critics who worry that regulations aren’t strong enough?
- 9 Another fear among critics is that GMO crops threaten natural diversity. Is that a reasonable concern?
- 10 Critics want foods containing GMOs to carry warning labels. What’s your view?
- 11 This is obviously a very contentious topic. Smart and committed people can disagree. What’s the one message that you would like to get across to opponents of GMOs?
03 Dec Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers
As one of WikiLeaks’ defenders, I feel obligated to respond to Roger’s post. I have two major disagreements with it. First, I think it significantly overstates the harm caused by WikiLeaks, although it would be equally erroneous to claim that WikiLeaks has caused no harm whatsoever. Second — and perhaps more important — it completely ignores the the benefits of WikiLeaks’ disclosures. Any fair assessment of what WikiLeaks has done, I believe, needs to take both the harms and the benefits into account.
I have no doubt that some diplomats may respond to WikiLeaks’ disclosures by self-censoring and by avoiding written communications. But it is difficult to believe that WikiLeaks will have any significant or lasting effect on the US’s ability to engage in diplomacy with friendly or unfriendly governments; after all, this is hardly the first time in U.S. history that diplomatic secrets have been disclosed. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, said it best a couple of days ago:
Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: ‘How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.’
Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.
So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.
Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.
There is also no question that WikiLeaks’ disclosures — particularly the first batch, which it did not redact to remove informants’ names — have the potential to put lives in danger. But it is important to acknowledge three things. First, as the government itself has admitted, there is no evidence that anyone has actually been harmed as a result of the disclosures in the six months since the first release of documents. Second, WikiLeaks has reformed its practices since the first release, as McClatchy acknowledged in the article linked to above:
Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn’t been vetted by the U.S. government.
The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain’s Guardian, Germany’s Der Spiegel and Spain’s El Pais.
“Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals,” Le Monde said.
Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.
Sunday’s release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, is facing rape charges in Sweden, to cooperate with the government on the document trove.
When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn’t work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.
Third, the US government has refused to work with WikiLeaks to limit potential danger to individuals, despite WikiLeaks’ asking for its help:
Assange said that all the documents were redacted “carefully.” “They are all reviewed, and they’re all redacted either by us or by the newspapers concerned,” he said. He added that WikiLeaks “formally asked the State Department for assistance with that. That request was formally rejected.”
The State Department has obviously made a calculated decision that working with WikiLeaks is worse than putting lives in danger. That indicates either that the US government is more worried about legitimizing WikiLeaks than it is about saving lives or — more likely — that it recognizes that the threat of harm is not actually all that significant.
This is the weakest “harm” of all. It is very difficult to take seriously the idea that, in the absence of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, ordinary Americans would know more about what their government is doing in their name and why. At no point in its history has the US government been more contemptuous of transparency. Lies about WMDs, abuse of the state-secrets privilege, black sites for torture, warrantless wiretapping, secret government spying on human-rights activists, misuse of FOIA and classification rules — the list goes on and on. Indeed, it’s safe to say that the only truly bipartisan belief in politics today is that the less Americans know, the better. Add in a media whose docility is equally unprecedented, and it is easy to see why the US needs WikiLeaks.
And that leads me to the factor that Roger ignores: the benefits of WikiLeaks’ disclosures. All of the dangers that Roger mentions are speculative, however real they may be. By contrast, the benefits of the disclosures are both real and immediate. Here, for example, is Juan Cole on what we have learned from WikiLeaks about the Middle East:
1. The British government’s official inquiry into how it got involved in the Iraq War was deeply compromised by the government’s pledge to protect the Bush administration in the course of it.
3. Karzai’s brother, Ahmad Wali, is called a corrupt drug dealer. He is chief of the provincial council of Qandahar and said to be more powerful than the province’s governor. A US official wrote, “While we must deal with AWK as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker. End Note.”
4. The Boston Globe reports of Senator John Kerry that he urged the return of the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace: “In the meeting last February with the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Kerry said Syria should be involved simultaneously in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “needs to compromise and work the return of the Golan Heights into a formula for peace,’’ according to the summary of Kerry’s remarks.”
5. Israeli General admits that Israel’s narrow focus on its qualitative military edge often conflicts with the global interests of the United States.
6. Former US-appointed interim prime minister of Iraq in 2004-early 2005, Iyad Allawi, is Alleged to have urged a US attack on Iran. He denies the report.
7. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told the US to forget about democracy in Iraq and instead install a dictator (“the Iraqis are too tough.”) He also warned the US to stay in Iraq militarily, asserting that otherwise the Iranians would take over the country. Mubarak had vigorously opposed the US march to war against Iraq in 2002-2003.
9. Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the current Pakistani chief of staff, allegedly considered making a coup in spring, 2009, when Nawaz Sharif was leading a popular movement in the streets to demand the reinstatement of the dismissed supreme court chief justice. Kayani considered moving against President Asaf Ali Zardari in case his weakness might allow Nawaz to return to power.
Here is Salon on the ten most important revelations in the diplomatic cables:
Diplomats as spies: As part of an intelligence gathering effort, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009 ordered diplomats overseas and at the U.N. to collect personal information on foreign officials including credit card and frequent flier numbers and biometric information. Read that cable here, and the New York Times’ writeup here. While this may not be shocking to foreign policy wonks, it is certainly embarrassing for the United States and calls into question how much — and how frequently — the role of diplomat and spy has been blurred.
Secret war in Yemen: The Obama administration has secretly launched missile attacks on suspected terrorists in Yemen, with the Yemeni government taking responsibility and consistently lying about it. While the attacks have drawn relatively little public attention, dozens of civilians along with some suspected terrorists have reportedly been killed. Salon’s account of the Yemen revelation is here. The January 2010 cable describing a meeting between Yemen’s president and Gen. David Petraeus is here.
Iran and North Korea: American intelligence believes Iran has received 19 missiles from North Korea with a range up to 2,000 miles, making them the longest-range missiles in the Iranian arsenal. The Times’ story on the missiles is here. The Times says it did not publish the cable at the request of the Obama administration. It has not been posted by WikiLeaks.
Gates skeptical on Iran attack: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, in a meeting with his French counterpart in February of this year, said that “he believed a conventional strike by any nation would only delay Iranian plans by one to three years, while unifying the Iranian people to be forever embittered against the attacker.” That cable is here.
Saudis want U.S. to bomb Iran: Several Arab leaders have privately urged the U.S. to launch an attack on Iran to stall or stop its nuclear program. Most memorably, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is reported to have “told you [the U.S.] to cut off the head of the snake,” according to a Saudi diplomat . That cable is here. And here is the Guardian’s write-up.
Israel bluffing on Iran threats? The government of Israel, which has been publicly vocal about the possibility of launching airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program, was not considering such an attack, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told his Russian counterpart on a trip to Moscow in June 2009. The cable describing Lieberman’s trip to Russia is here. A story on the cable from the Israeli press is here.
Fears of uranium in Pakistan: The U.S. has since 2007 tried to get enriched uranium at a Pakistani nuclear reactor out of that country, fearing that the uranium could fall into unfriendly hands and be used to make a bomb. The effort has been unsuccessful. The Times’ story on this is here. The cable has not been published.
Fatah had warning of Gaza invasion? Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told an American congressional delegation that Israel had asked Egypt and Fatah, the Palestian movement that governs the West Bank, “if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas” prior to Israeli’s devastating attack on Gaza in late 2008. That revelation comes in a June 2009 cable that you can read here. Haaretz’s writeup is here.
Afghan corruption: The U.S. government deals regularly with a brother of President Hamid Karzai whom it believes to be corrupt and a drug trafficker. That’s the conclusion of a cable from October 2009 about Ahmed Wali Karzai, who has also been reported to be on the CIA payroll. This does not come as a shock, but it amounts to official recognition that a U.S. partner in Afghanistan is implicated in criminal enterprises. AFP has more on this story.
Undiplomatic name-calling: This is probably less important than the revelations above, but it is already making waves in the international press: Several of the cables have U.S. diplomats describing foreign leaders in unfriendly terms — from comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler to calling Russia’s Vladimir Putin “alpha-dog” and French President Nicolas Sarkozy “the emperor with no clothes.” The CBC has more.
Cole and Salon focus only on the recent disclosures. We should also not forget about the Guantanamo operating manual, which demonstrated that the US government was lying about not hiding detainees from the ICRC, and the video of the 2007 helicopter attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters employees, which Reuters itself could not obtain.
These revelations — and I could add countless others — did not result from the transparency of the US government. They did not result from the work of intrepid journalists working for mainstream newspapers. They resulted from WikiLeaks.
Do the benefits of WikiLeaks outweigh the potential harms? Readers will, of course, decide that for themselves. I will give the final word to Daniel Ellsberg, responding to a question about WikiLeaks and the power of “raw information in a democracy”:
I still put my hopes in it, and in democracy – our democracy. A democracy requires this information. Unauthorized disclosures are the lifeblood of a republic. That remains true. We can’t rely only on the authorized handouts from the government any more now than we could under [British King] George III. The First Amendment was a marvelous invention, one of our best contributions to human society. And it deserves to be instituted in every country. Not many have a First Amendment, we are very lucky in that….
GMOs: Frankenfoods or Future of Food?
David Zilberman, PhD, is a professor of agriculture and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He has spent much of his career studying biotechnology, pest control, the economics of innovation, climate change, and risk. Here, Dr. Zilberman shares his thoughts on one of the most controversial areas of food science today, the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
Humans have been modifying plants for centuries. How are GMOs different?
Genetic modification, or GM, is a tool scientists can use to modify a specific genome of a plant with unprecedented precision. Botanists have been developing new plant varieties for centuries by breeding them for certain traits, using rather crude techniques like irradiation to generate mutations that may lead to desired properties. Advances in genetic science now give us the ability to be much more precise, by zeroing in on a specific gene. We may insert some genes or silence others. We also have a much better idea of what the effect will be. GM is different from traditional plant breeding because it also allows us to move genes between species. We can take a gene from fish, for instance, and insert it into a plant.
That may sound like science fiction to many people. In fact, critics have called GMOs “Frankenfoods.” Are there potential risks to genetic modification?
“Frankenfoods” is a terrible word, a stigmatizing word, one that’s used only to scare people. I think the risks have been greatly exaggerated. People are afraid of GMOs for little or no reason. GM is simply a tool. Because it allows us to modify plants with far greater precision and control than before, it will be very valuable. Using GM, scientists can make crop varieties that are resistant to specific pests and thus increase crop yields. We can modify plants to produce more nutritious fruits, vegetables, or grains. We are embarking on a biotech revolution that is similar to the electricity revolution. The harnessing of electricity led to the earliest light bulbs, and eventually to lasers, computers, electric cars, smart phones. We’re at the light bulb stage with genetic modification. It’s a technology with enormous potential. As with any technology, the risks and benefits depend on how it is used.
How is genetic modification currently being used?
GM has been used chiefly to make plants resistant to certain pests or herbicides. We have genetically modified varieties of cotton, for instance, that are resistant to insects that can otherwise threaten the plant. Much of the corn and soybean crop grown in the U.S. has been genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup, used to control weeds. Farmers can spray to manage weeds without harming the crop plants. Those are just two examples. But the potential for GMOs is huge. Plants can be modified to be drought resistant or to withstand more intense heat, which could be crucial with global climate change. In the future, scientists may be able to engineer plants to produce specific medicines. We already have a genetically modified variant of rice, called Golden Rice, which is engineered to produce large amounts of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is a big problem in poorer countries. It causes half a million cases of blindness. Studies show that a serving of Golden Rice can provide a significant amount of the daily requirement of vitamin A. But because of opposition to GMOs, the development of Golden Rice has been slowed and it has yet to be adopted anywhere in the world. And there are consequences to that. Our research shows that the failure to plant Golden Rice in India cost an estimated 1.4 million life years over the course of a decade. Opposition has also slowed research and development into other potentially beneficial GMOs.
Herbicide-resistant GMO varieties were created so that farmers can use more herbicides without harming food crops. Roundup has been used for years and multiple studies have shown it to be safe. If there is new evidence of health risks, we need to know about them, of course. But everything has risks and benefits, and any risks of Roundup have to be weighed against the benefits. By helping farmers control weeds more efficiently, the new GMO varieties help keep the prices of corn and soybeans down. Worldwide, GMOs have kept food prices down and allowed farmers to grow more food on less land. Low prices of these crops mean that poor people can afford protein from, say, chicken in their diets. By making plants more resistant to pests, GMOs also reduce the risk of major infestations that can destroy crops. Obviously, it’s important to make sure that the food we grow is safe, and that herbicides and pesticides don’t harm the environment. But we have an enormous number of regulations in place to do just that. You asked me if I worry. I do worry that opponents of GMOs use concern about Roundup to say we should ban all GMOs.
What do you say to critics who worry that regulations aren’t strong enough?
If anything, I worry that they are too complex and onerous. Efficient and effective regulation is essential. But too much regulation can stifle innovation. And in some countries, it can lead to corruption. At the moment, regulations regarding GMOs discourage small companies from entering the market, so it is dominated by big players like Monsanto. And the regulations discourage the kinds of innovation that could make food more affordable and provide much greater variety of healthy foods to the world’s poorer populations. If the regulations were less burdensome, we could produce far more fruits, vegetables, and grains.
Another fear among critics is that GMO crops threaten natural diversity. Is that a reasonable concern?
In fact, genetic modification can be an agent of biodiversity. It allows us to create many different varieties of plants, specifically engineered to thrive in particular environments. Global warming is likely to cause disruptions in farming as weather patterns change, for example. Genetic modification allows us to adapt quickly and specifically. The opposition to GMOs has made it much harder to develop new varieties. In that sense, it has actually resulted in less diversity in agriculture.
Critics want foods containing GMOs to carry warning labels. What’s your view?
I’m not against labels that tell people what foods contain and warn about known dangers. But what are we warning people about? There is no evidence that GMOs pose any dangers at all. Putting a warning label on a food suggests that there is a danger. It just adds to the fear that critics have generated. The people who stand to benefit most from this new technology are poor people. GMOs will help make food more affordable for them and improve their environment by using less land for agriculture. We should look to the science. And that evidence shows that GMOs are safe and can offer us enormous benefits, especially with the growing human population and the threat of global climate change.
This is obviously a very contentious topic. Smart and committed people can disagree. What’s the one message that you would like to get across to opponents of GMOs?
Genetic modification is a scientific tool. Its application holds out enormous promise. Of course, there are good applications of any new technology, and bad applications. If something created using GM turns out not to have value or to have risks that outweigh the benefits, then it shouldn’t be used. But we need to evaluate the risks and benefits scientifically. I’m convinced that this new technology, used wisely, will help us feed a growing human population, protect the environment, and address the challenge of global climate change.