Governments shouldn't overreact to WikiLeaks' leaked documents
(From The Japan Times December 15 issue)

米外交公電の流出、過剰反応は禁物

Controversy surrounding WikiLeaks focuses on three issues: the motives and behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the man behind the Web site; the damage done to U.S. diplomatic interests and the embarrassment to foreign leaders; and the prospects for securing information in a wired world. A close examination suggests that the real threat posed by WikiLeaks is not what it does, but what governments may do in reaction to it.

WikiLeaks gained worldwide attention in April 2010 when it posted classified video of a 2007 U.S. military helicopter airstrike in Baghdad in which journalists and civilians were killed. Three months later, the release of 92,000 documents related to the U.S. war in Afghanistan from 2004-2009 generated more controversy. The latest document dump consists of over 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, and has provided fodder for offense and fascination for almost every nation and its leaders.

There are reports that the United States is worried about who can gain access to nuclear materials in Pakistan and that most Arab nations can rival Israel when it comes to suspicions of Iran.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are close friends and confidants. Al-Qaida still gets considerable support from Saudi Arabia and the United States has pressed China to do more to cut off North Korea's weapons trade, to cull some headlines from the mass.

Nearly 5,700 documents were exchanged between the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo and Washington. One cable identifies vulnerable locations that could affect national security, such as ports in Japan or landing points for submarine cables. Another notes that Mr. Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Association, assured the United States that he would always take Washington's side on key decisions, from high-level appointments to dealing with Iran. Another details the United States push to get Japan to lift its ban on arms exports.

There is little in the cables that anyone who pays attention to the news would not have known or suspected. The facts may be embarrassing — the leader of Yemen telling Gen. David Petraeus that the former lies to the world about who is responsible for the missile strikes against terrorists on his soil — but that big story is no secret.

The leaks add sizzle to or confirm what has been in the headlines. They do not add much to our understanding of the news. They are diplomatic reports from the field and provide no insight into how foreign policy is made. They do show that the United States has perceptive and energetic diplomats, working hard to deal with international problems. There is no indication of deception — unlike the Pentagon Papers, to which the leaks have been (wrongly) compared.

There will be repercussions, of course. Diplomats will have to be transferred as their views and assessments will be plain to the people they talked to, and relationships will be damaged. Those diplomats may be more reluctant to put details in future cables for precisely that reason. But the business of diplomacy will continue and governments will continue to work together to deal with international problems. They have no choice.

The real danger is overreacting to the leaks. The rationale behind WikiLeaks is salutary: Sunshine is the best disinfectant. As The New York Times explained in an editorial accompanying the latest batch of documents, publication of "the documents serves an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy."

Bureaucracies exist to control information. Sometimes real secrets are involved; in many cases, classification is designed to avoid embarrassment. As was made clear by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, compartmentalization can undermine security as much as protect it. A U.S. Army private is suspected of providing the files to WikiLeaks, his access made possible by a government network designed to facilitate information sharing among agencies in the aftermath of those attacks. He had been arrested and held for the earlier document release.

The United States has laws to punish leakers, but going after organizations that publish such information would be a dangerous step that could limit the public's right to be informed, the foundation of democracy. Leaks are inevitable.

ウィキリークスをめぐる主な論議は、�@創設者アサンジ氏の動機と言動、�A米外交利益を損ね、各国首脳に不愉快な思いをさせたこと、�Bネット社会における情報保護だ。ウィキリークスが何をするかよりも、政府がどう対応するかということに危険が潜んでいる。

ウィキリークスは4月、2007年に米軍ヘリがイラクの民間人を襲撃し殺害した機密映像を公開し話題となった。3ヵ月後には2004〜2009年のアフガニスタン駐留米軍などの機密文書9万2000点を公表した。最近では各国首脳の人物評を含む米外交公電約25万通を暴露している。

在日米国大使館が米政府と交わした文書約5700通のなかには、通信用海底ケーブルの陸揚げ局の地名など安全保障に関わる情報があった。また、天野IAEA事務局長が、重要な決定は米国に同調すると示唆したという文書や、米政府が日本に武器禁輸の見直しを求めた公電もあった。公開内容は、ニュースを注意深くチェックしていれば知りえる、推測できることばかりだ。

公開の影響で、外交官の配置転換や文書での詳細な記録の自粛が予想されるが、今回の公開に対し過剰反応は禁物だ。ウィキリークスは国民に有益と判断してやったことだ。

官僚制度は情報を制御するためにあり、機密情報の中には真の機密もあるが、気まずさを回避するために機密扱いされるものも多い。同時多発テロで明らかになったように、情報の細分化が安全を損ねることもある。

米国には情報漏洩者を罰する法律があるが、そのような情報を公開する組織を追及することは国民の知る権利を脅かすことになりかねない。民主主義において漏洩は不可避だ。