Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
Notable Critics
It is unsurprising therefore that recent years have seen the emergence of several notable critics. A mainstream example would be American filmmaker Michael Moore – whose 2004 film ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ was a harsh, if controversial critique of US Foreign policy and the ‘War on Terror’. Recent years have also allowed perennial critics of US foreign policy such as journalist John Pilger and academic Noam Chomsky to return to the fore. Chomsky’s work in particular has received renewed attention, especially after his 2003 book ‘Hegemony or Survival’ was recommended by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2006.
Their respective works may vary in terms of detail and sophistication, but there is seemingly a common goal or desire - Western accountability. Whether through accusations of imperialism or hidden agendas, claims of cruelty or unreported civilian casualties – the hope is to highlight and expose controversial aspects of Western foreign policy and demand some form of accountability. However, despite the soaring book sales of ‘Hegemony or Survival’ or the substantial box office revenue of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ – their respective success on this front is negligible.
Of course there is little doubt that such work has proved an irritation for politicians and governments. In his speech at the 2004 GOP National Convention, John McCain famously referred to Moore as a “disingenuous filmmaker” who conveyed Sadam’s Iraq as “an oasis of peace”. Such occurrences notwithstanding, it’s difficult to say that their work has had any truly tangible influence aside from providing fodder for fellow critics and cynics.
Unprecedented Leaks
However, recent months have seen the emergence of Wikileaks – an organisation with the slogan – “We Open Governments” that seems set to prove far more than a simple irritation to governments globally.
Formed in 2006, Wikileaks is an online database of sources and leaks, all provided anonymously. In its first few years it published a wide variety of leaked documents – including a list of British National Party members and reports on Police Killings in Kenya that occurred in 2008.
However it was in July this year that Wikileaks really came to widespread international attention with the publication of the Afghan War Diaries - a publication of around 75,000 classified US military logs. Subsequently, the site eclipsed even this with the publication of 400,000 confidential files known as the Iraq War logs.
The releases contained highly sensitive and highly controversial information. Notably, this included unreported killings and higher civilian death tolls in both countries – as well as accusations of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Additionally, there was information regarding the believed international support for both the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents from both Iran and Pakistan.
Divided Opinion
In the wake of these leaks, it is unsurprising that Wikileaks and its director Julian Assange have polarised opinion. Many left leaning media outlets have embraced the leaks, with the Guardian and New York Times instrumental in publishing and publicising the information. Earlier this year, Assange was listed number 23 on the New Stateman’s list of 50 people who matter – labelled as the “Wikileaks hero”.
Of course such a verdict has not been unanimous - with many government officials on both sides of the Atlantic claiming the leaks put soldier’s lives in danger. Both major leaks were condemed by the US military, with Defence Secretary Robert Gates implying the website was “morally guilty for putting lives at risk”. Similarly, UK’s foreign secretary William Hague argued that the leaks were a “propaganda gift” for terrorists.
However, despite such rhetoric, there is little doubt that Wikileaks has had a profound impact and has proved far more influential than aforementioned critics and commentators. The leaks have forced Western governments to, at the very least, pay closer attention to any accusations of cruelty or torture in occupied areas. One might suggest that Wikileaks may well have been a reason behind MI6 head Sir John Sawers feeling the need to describe torture as “illegal and abhorrent” – despite defending the need for secrecy.
It is arguable therefore that Wikileaks has had, or at least has the potential to have a profound impact on information surrounding Western foreign policy. There is little question that Wikileaks have left governments with no choice but to respond to reports, even if the response is wrath and condemnation. As such, there is little doubt that Assange and his organisation have held the West to a level of accountability that figures like Moore and Chomsky could only dream of.
However, one can only wonder that if figures like Gates and Hague are right – it may well be Wikileaks that will have to face issues of accountability.
You must log in to submit a comment.
