Gcobani Qambela assesses: Is the recent treatment of Julian Assange and widespread political condemnation of the WikiLeaks websites a reflection of democracy in decline or the legitimate protection of a state’s security interests?
The traditional conception of the state has for many years been inextricably interlinked and intertwined with the states exercise not only of violence but also control over information and national intelligence. The post Cold War era has however seen an unprecedented shift and modification in state power both at the economic, military and intelligence echelon. Rapid increase and liberated gateways in internet, social media and digital journalism or what others have termed ‘digital democracy’ have seen new non-state actors exercise conventionally state centric powers.
WikiLeaks is one such actor/organisation. Formed in 2006 and registered as a non-profit organisation, WikiLeaks circulates largely private and classified information from unspecified informants, news leaks and a number of whistle blowers. Julian Assange who is accepted as the Director of the Organisation and Editor in Chief of WikiLeaks, has since received hostile and melancholic treatment from various political state and non-state fractures. US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton is widely quoted as asserting WikiLeaks as not only an attack on the US’s foreign policy interests, but also international society as a whole. Ima Niboro, Special Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan in Nigeria released a statement that “Wikileaks is the new travesty that international diplomacy has to deal with”.
Other’s have however hailed WikiLeaks for breaking and bridging traditional boundaries and filling the information vacuity between the state and the citizens. Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez is widely quoted and alleged to have praised the ‘bravery’ of the WikiLeaks organisation, whereas other organisations like Reporters Without Borders have also come out in support of WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks presents therefore an interesting case study of the post Cold War state security interests against the largely unregulated ‘media democracy’. This piece argues that democratically elected states still have a legitimate right to protect their security interests, and consequently the hostile response of most states to WikiLeaks can and should be justified. While the state might no longer exercise a monopoly on the intelligence of and on the country circulated, the state is still the primary protector of the citizens, militarily and otherwise, something that WikiLeaks cannot provide and hence it is still important to maintain proper diplomatic relation in the interest of peaceful conditions....
Please see original article at: http://www.researchnexus.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=wikileaks-competition-the-curious-case-of-wikileaks-and-the-innate-contradictions-of-mainstream-med.html&blogger=Gcobani+Qambela&Itemid=79
FEEDBACK IS ALWAYS WELCOME!
No comments:
Post a Comment