JUST WHAT DOES JULIAN ASSANGE WANT?

WikiLeaks' express enemy is 'authoritarian conspiracies', but if it takes one to know one, the ends do not justify the means

• Theo Brainin guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 December 2010



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who is understood to be in hiding in the south-east of England. As an avowed opponent on conspiratorial secrecy, does WikiLeaks practise what it preaches? Photograph: Valentin Flauraud/Reuters

Regardless of your view of the WikiLeaks data dumps, the latest tranche raises a new question: what exactly does Julian Assange want?

The previous two releases of data on Afghanistan and Iraq fitted the profile of a man holding the US to account for the unexposed consequences of its actions in war. The indiscriminate release of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables interrupts that narrative. It has no target, and no theme.

The cables themselves are a mixture of serious reports and needlessly catty gossip. Where is the public interest in reporting that Kim Jong-Il is looking "flabby"? Jon Stewart went as far as to posit that the cables had been penned by celebrity gossip-monger Perez Hilton.

Suggestions, however, that Assange did this without clear purpose are foolish. The man is now on Interpol's most wanted list, under arrest notice for alleged sexual offences, and is facing official calls for extradition, with unofficial calls for much worse. As far as incurring wrath goes, that's rather a lot for one week.

In interviews, and in articles by Assange now circulating on the web, the WikiLeaks leader is painting a picture of his underlying purpose. It is not a pretty one.

Assange writes of turning counter-terrorism on its head, to target the "authoritarian" regimes that practise it. He views such regimes as vast conspiratorial networks, communicating secretly, safe in the ignorance of their citizens. The secrecy, he reasons, is there because these regimes would face opposition if they communicated openly – and if a regime wasn't authoritarian, why on earth would it need to keep secrets?

This is a peculiar, almost circular logic. The key point in understanding Assange is that he views total secrecy as inefficient. A conspiracy can't get much done if the people within it don't know what everyone else is doing. He's right – that's exactly why the US security services began sharing more information after 9/11, a decision that left them vulnerable to WikiLeaks.

Just as counter-terrorism experts seek to disrupt communication between cells, Assange seeks to disrupt communication within his "authoritarian conspiracies". He does this by threatening them with constant leaks, forcing them into data silence, lest another Bradley Manning download the information.

To Assange, the US is an authoritarian conspiracy. His leaks are intended to mire the US government in what he sees as its own paranoid secrecy. As he said to Time this week:

"They have one of two choices: One is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavours and display them to the public. The other is to lock down internally and to balkanise and, as a result, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome."

Assange's doctrine is woefully simplistic, and actually rather hypocritical. If secret communication is so inextricably linked to authoritarianism, then why is WikiLeaks itself so secretive? Why are its sources anonymous? Why is its leader so frequently in undisclosed locations? The answer is obvious: if WikiLeaks was open, it would face effective opposition. By Assange's own metric, WikiLeaks is as much an authoritarian conspiracy as the United States government is.

Of course, we shouldn't accept such a conclusion. Rather, we should disavow Assange's perspective entirely. The US government and its allies may do objectionable things, but their security services, militaries and diplomats also carry out vital work – and crippling them wholesale is not a goal worthy of approbation. It is ludicrous to argue that there are no good reasons for a state to keep secrets. If one does take that position, it is even more ludicrous to imply that WikiLeaks, a now-powerful organisation with global reach, is exempt from the same standards.

Assange's philosophy of total transparency in the exercise of power is either incoherent or intellectually dishonest. He should present himself as what he is: an opponent of US foreign policy, who seeks to obstruct it, no matter the cost. He is no neutral truth-bearer – he just prefers one secret agenda, his own, to another.