“Good breeding consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person.” Mark Twain
News
The WikiLeaks furore is perhaps an example of what happens when an irresistible force (the assumption that the internet exists to make any information accessible to anyone, anywhere) collides with an immovable object (the assumption that western governments must have the right to restrict access to information in order to accomplish their goals).
The WikiLeaks furore is perhaps an example of what happens when an irresistible force (the assumption that the internet exists to make any information accessible to anyone, anywhere) collides with an immovable object (the assumption that western governments must have the right to restrict access to information in order to accomplish their goals).
Both sides in the dispute claim that what they are doing is right. Julian Assange writes, “I grew up in Queensland where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully… The dark days of corruption [before 1989] are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth. These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values.”
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, states, “People of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communications, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest… In almost every profession – whether it’s law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business – people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it.”
At heart this issue is relational. It is about trust and the appropriate level of disclosure to third parties about something pertaining to another person in a relationship. WikiLeaks assumes that there is an absolute value in the public knowing everything that US diplomatic or military officials write.
Yet the obligation to disclose the truth is relative to the relationship. We don’t owe truth to our enemies; it is appropriate to leave lights on when leaving our house empty, to try and fool a burglar. For diplomats there is a time for discretion, and a time for openness – and no less so for journalists. One key criterion for deciding is to ask which relationships might ultimately be improved through this disclosure, and which ones might be harmed – and how?
For whistleblowers to bring justice to a situation, they must be wise in choosing when and what to reveal. The risk is that WikiLeaks have gone overboard with the scale and content of these leaked cables, such that any wrongs they were trying to redress will be eclipsed by the wider scandal they have created.
Read on...
The Jubilee Centre published a Cambridge Paper 3 years ago on a related topic – making and breaking promises, explored from a biblical perspective. To reflect more on this please go to www.jubilee-centre.org/resources/promises_promises
Walk the talk
We regularly decide whether or not to disclose some information or an opinion about another person. To what extent is our decision based on the desire to win an argument, or to defend our reputation? We would do well to evaluate more carefully the impact which a disclosure would have on relationships, directly or indirectly, and whether the results are actually what we want.
The last word
From the Bible, Proverbs 22:11 “He who loves a pure heart and whose speech is gracious will have the king for his friend.”
Friday Five is written and sent out by Jonathan Tame of Relationships Global www.relationshipsglobal.net
I would characterise the issues differently (in addition to the characterisation in the article).
ReplyDeleteThere is clash between different levels of expected intimacy: it is inappropriate to have 100% relational proximity with everyone (whilst my wife should see me naked, this doesn’t give my wife the right or obligation to make sure that everyone else sees me naked). Understanding the appropriate levels of intimacy is crucial to developing and maintaining a healthy relationship. It could be argued that to show understanding of the differences in intimacy is to respect the relationship. I may be willing to reveal my flaws to someone on the understanding that the inherent shame in my flaws will not damage the relationship & that my honour will be protected. The protection (& assistance in restoration) of honour is a fundamental building block in a healthy relationship. The exchange of truth without an assumed obligation to protect honour is to deny the existence of relationship.
There is an issue which is consistency: Is the diplomat/organisation the same without regard to whom they are talking? My wife may say nice things to my face but I also care about whether she says nice things about me to her friends. There is a crucial distinction in diplomacy between gradual disclosure & inconsistency. The diplomat may have an ulterior motive (or additional information) which has not yet disclosed to one party. This may not be inconsistency but may be a fundamental part of allowing the relationship to develop. On the other hand to speak with two faces is a breach of relationship whether or not it is disclosed. So one question raised is how we hold others accountable for consistency whilst allowing them the right of progressive revelation.