Does the release of documents by Wikileaks impact on human rights?

The disclosure of ‘secret’ documents by Wikileaks has been hailed as a victory for democracy and for the values of openness, transparency, freedom and accountability. Indeed, a Norwegian lawmaker, Snorre Valen, has gone so far as to nominate WikiLeaks for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize because the secret-spilling website has promoted human rights, democracy and freedom of speech, by exposing “corruption, war crimes and torture” through its releases of classified documents. Valen even suggests that by disclosing nepotism and corruption in Tunisia’s presidential family, Wikileaks has “made a small contribution to bringing down” that regime.

The actions of Wikileaks raises complex questions about balancing the rights of freedom of information and expression, and the need to protect national security. It’s as important to address these questions, as it is to consider the consequences for those who ‘leak secrets’. But, let’s consider another angle, for now.

While most of us rejoice when a dictator falls or a corrupt regime is toppled, what about others who are are ‘named’ in secret communications? Are their human rights compromised when Wikileaks exposes human rights abuses perpetrated by others?

As Amnesty International points out, the risks to those who are named as informants or activists are not the same as as risk of public embarrassment or calls for accountability that public officials could (and should) face if documents expose their involvement in human rights abuses or other forms of misconduct.

The disclosure of a huge cache of diplomatic cables has alarmed human rights groups, which fear that WikiLeaks or news outlets could publish the names of local activists who have spoken with US diplomats in countries with repressive governments. While there are so far no known cases in which activists have been publicly identified in the cables, two leading groups, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First, have written to the founder of WikiLeaks to urge him to scrub any references from the documents that might allow other countries to identify the activists.

Concerns expressed by President Obama and the US military about the consequences of publishing military documents on WikiLeaks may have on the people involved in the documents, may have found credibility through a reaction allegedly issued by the Taliban. According to a report in the Hindustan Times, the Taliban in Afghanistan has threatened to punish informers who were revealed in the leaked documents, presumably by beheading them. British officials in Kabul have also expressed their concern over the consequences for those who had helped them in Afghanistan, saying that the incident may have “in the best case [compromised] informants and in the worst, [put] their lives at risk”.

The New York Times and other media report that individuals identified in previously ‘secret’ communications are being relocated, either within or outside their countries, because of fears of reprisals following the release of documents by Wikileaks.

What’s to be done? Is it possible to balance individual rights and national interest? Is it permissible to privilege the rights of one individual over those of another? Do some rights take priority over others? Should Julian Assange be vilified for compromising the safety of individuals, tried for treason for exposing ‘state secrets’ or lauded for the exposing human rights abuses? Whatever your view on these questions is, it is clear that Assange and his team have blown away the veil of secrecy that cloaks government records, created a seismic shift in the way in which the world thinks about issues of secrecy and ‘national interest’, alerted us all to the potency of information, and brought the spotlight fairly and squarely on the issue of human rights.

Jo-Anne Duggan

Leave a comment