Editorial

Announcing it will host Unesco’s World Press Freedom Day event in early May 2011 in Washington on the theme 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers, the United States Department of State made a statement that drew particular attention, especially in the wake of the WikiLeaks information saga.

The statement first points out that the new media empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. In other words, an unlimited communications marvel.

“At the same time,” continues the US Department of State, “we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age”.

Yet, the WikiLeaks disclosures, which in the words of the New York Times online amount to a mammoth cache of a quarter of a million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the last three years, offer an unprecedented look at bargaining by embassies, candid views of foreign leaders and assessments of threats. The material was obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organisations in advance.

It has been argued that, at the centre is the right of a country’s government to operate in secrecy for furthering national interests. WikiLeaks, however, holds such secrecy is illegitimate because the people have a right to know what their government is doing in their name.

The big question is whether any of these arguments is entirely feasible by itself.

Prominent American politicians claim WikiLeaks is endangering the country’s national security. Critics also point out there are regimes across the world that have committed far greater crimes of omission and commission than the US government. On the other hand, there seems to be consensus in the American media that the hundreds of thousands of cables released so far amount more to embarrassment than a threat.

Referring to the fact that some of the documents published by WikiLeaks concerns reports sent to the US State Department by the US Embassy to the Holy See and without venturing to evaluate what it defined as “the extreme seriousness” of publishing such a large amount of secret and confidential material “and its possible consequences”, the Holy See Press Office offered what may be considered as a very relevant consideration. “Naturally, these reports reflect the perceptions and opinions of the people who wrote them and cannot be considered as expressions of the Holy See itself, nor as exact quotations of the words of its officials,” the Holy See said. “Their reliability must, then, be evaluated carefully and with great prudence, bearing this circumstance in mind”.

It may be that the true importance of WikiLeaks lies not in the contents of the documents being circulated but in the technology that made this possible, which is showing itself all the more to be a potent weapon to counter official questionable stands and defend human rights.

Whichever way one looks at the issue, with its various serious and sensitive implications, it appears vital it is approached with a very good sense of balance, proportion and responsibility.

The leaked cables must be given their due weight, neither downplaying them nor blowing them out of proportion.