A BROKEN MACHINE

I guess my first post will be a paper I wrote for an American Politics class (note: this is not (necessarily) the type of content I intend to contribute here).

There was a strict page limit (that I ignored ) and I really only got to go skin deep with it. I’m hoping that maybe posting it will spur some discussion and hopefully add to what I was intending going forth.

I didn’t list any sources, but I can gladly find them for specific queries.

Also, I apologize for the formatting.  I’m still getting my head around WordPress. . .  it’s not letting me indent and it’s not preserving tweaks made in Word.

The Impact of Wikileaks

Like the Deepwater Horizon spill and the Exxon Valdez spill that preceded it, the damage caused from the spill of classified US embassy cables by Wikileaks will be difficult to quantify for years to come.  It is certain, however, that the clout of US diplomacy and the sanctity of free speech have been significantly marred.  This paper seeks to look broadly at the most crucial of these underlying issues, as it is impossible in so few pages to accurately assess the impact Wikileaks has and will have.

What it means for US-Russian relations:
While the Cold War is over, Russia still carries strong ties to its highly nationalist past.  Tensions already existed with the news that Russian spies were currently operating within the US and its aggression against Georgia, a NATO ally.  The disclosure that NATO had developed a contingency plan to defend the Baltic states in the event of a Russian invasion of Poland further weakens whatever trust there may have once been.  While somewhat unlikely due to unavoidable international criticism, it could mean a halt to joint nuclear disarmament treaties.  More likely, it marks the end of Russian cooperation in Afghanistan (especially with the revelation that most European states believe Afghanistan is a lost cause).

What it means for US-UN relations:
While the news that the US was collecting sensitive data on members of the UN security council has come as quite a shock to the international community, it likely means little to the US’ influence in UN affairs.  The US will be censured at most.  Any other punishment risks upsetting the US and potentially threatens trade with countries that cannot afford to lose the US as a client.

What it means for the Korean Peninsula:
The news that China has mostly disavowed North Korea and abandoned it as a key ally has ramifications that are hard to predict.  It means that the risk of Chinese intervention in a possible restart to the Korean War is unlikely, which further bolsters Western interest in reunification under a South Korean-led administration.  It also means that North Korea has (I assume) worked to increase its ties with its allies, Iran and Syria.  Both are key regions to the US and conflict on the Korean Peninsula will likely mean an increase in conflict in the Middle East.

What it means for Iran:
The news that Saudi Arabia has urged the United States to attack Iran will bring Iran out of the limelight for the moment being.  If the United States should attack Iran, it will do so at the most lucrative moment.  If it seems that the US is not engaging Iran on its own accord, support for the war will dwindle rapidly.  However, the news that most of Iran’s neighbors believe it to be a threat possibly counters this argument.  However, it’s no secret that Iran’s oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz is envied by many nations in the region and abroad.

What it means for free speech:
The international condemnation of Wikileaks and the call for its censorship is nothing short of remarkable.  So rare is it in history for so many nations to band together under a single cause.  It is dangerous, however, to allow one’s self to so easily condemn what Wikileaks has done.  The members of Wikileaks are not traitors.  Their spread of information is clearly indiscriminate and seeks not to place one nation ahead of another.  In some countries where free speech is not a basic right, Wikileaks presents the first glimpse inside government — something that those people would not have been privileged to otherwise.
Wikileaks is not guilty of any existing crime.  While they are by no means a traditional news source, they inarguably operate as one.  They simply edit and present the documents that are given to them.  In this way, Wikileaks is no different than The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, or any other media outlet that has similarly reported on the leaks.  Those sources simply edit and report the information given to them by Wikileaks, and by that logic they share an equal amount of blame (should blame be placed).
That the US has already banned Wikileaks in federal buildings, and has discouraged potential State Department recruits from referencing it on social networking sites comes as a grim harbinger of things to come.  It lays certain an unsettling truth – that speech will remain free. . . so long as it doesn’t pose a legitimate threat.