Wikileaks and numerous Human Rights groups are having a media tit-for-tat surrounding the possible security implications of revealing Afghan informant names and other identities in the "Afghan War Diary" - a vast collection of leaked U.S. defence documents. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, reacted angrily to a letter from these groups, subsequently 'accusing Amnesty of a "set-up" and questioning why the organisation had contacted him unless to offer help in redacting the names.' (The Times, 11. August, 2010)
See BBC report here
Human rights are supposed to be universal, according to the Universal Declaration. It's supposed to be clear cut in most cases, because there is now an international regime of human rights. Essentially Wikileaks and these organizations should be on the same side. But this recent spat has seen organizations such as Amnesty International come into agreement with the U.S. government. Wikileaks is arguably now the most revolutionary bastion of freedom of expression and freedom of information; but what does their 'justice' mean? Does it include national security? And why is it that it is seen as incompatible with the values of prominent human rights NGOs?
Kind of surprising perhaps, since Wikileaks won the Amnesty International 2009 Media Award.
See relevant links:
WikiLeaks wins Amnesty Media Award
This article was amended on 20. August, 2010, following insightful comments.
Human rights have always been political!
ReplyDeleteInteresting debate though, "human rights and proportionality" - balancing the rights of the individual with the security of the state.
On another (related) note, I would recommend reading "Darkness at Noon" by Arthur Koestler for more insight on the 20th century debate on the individual vs. the state.