The publication of secret communications exchanged between US diplomats has created a media storm. What is WikiLeaks? Who’s behind it? And is it really the danger some claim? Simon Wilson reports.
Who is behind WikiLeaks?
The organisation is composed of a tiny and highly secretive group of anti-secrecy campaigners. They have perhaps five full-time staff, backed up by about 40 frequent helpers and a much larger number of occasional helpers, thought to number around 800. As Raffi Khatchadourian describes it in The New Yorker recently, it is “more a media insurgency” than an organisation. The driving force is undoubtedly Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian ex computer hacker. He was arrested in London this week over Swedish sexual assault allegations. Assange is a complex, highly intelligent and charismatic character who attracts devoted friends and disciples. But he is also frequently accused by ex-colleagues of arrogance bordering on megalomania.
How does WikiLeaks operate?
Due to the nature of his work, Assange has no fixed abode – nor does his website. It uses hundreds of domain names and a complex network of internet servers. Some of them are based in Sweden and Belgium, but there are 18 secondary ones around the world. “To keep our secrets safe,” says Assange, “we’ve had to spread assets, encrypt everything and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions” – a key one being Iceland. To date, WikiLeaks has survived any number of attempts by hackers – some of them individuals, and some of them certainly governments – to get its content off the web. This week, those attempts dramatically increased: WikiLeaks has been hacked from all over the world, and dumped by everyone from Amazon to PayPal. But its site is still available, supported by any number of ‘mirror’ sites.
What does WikiLeaks want?
Its original aim, it declared in 2007, was to expose “oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East”. The first ever document it posted, in December 2006, was a “secret decision”, signed by Somali rebel leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, to hire criminals to execute state officials. From then on, the site began receiving documents from whistleblowers all over the world. Its profile grew with each scoop. These included Sarah Palin’s hacked webmail account, the operating procedures at Guantanamo, the BNP’s membership list, and the Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia.
And now?
WikiLeaks focuses more on the second part of its mission statement: “We also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations.” This year it has concentrated on revealing US government secrets. Material leaked by a junior army intelligence officer, Bradley Manning, has helped – he is now in custody facing 50 years in jail. In July the site published 90,000-plus documents about the war in Afghanistan, in October some 400,000 documents relating to Iraq. And in November came its biggest coup yet – the US diplomatic cables (largely emails) that have dominated front pages for the past fortnight. Assange says his next big target is capitalism, and particularly banks. Shares in Bank of America dipped last week on strong rumours that it is the bank that WikiLeaks says it is planning to target next.
Is WikiLeaks dangerous?
Some right-wingers in the US believe Assange is de facto a terrorist, and want him assassinated. In fact, it is unclear whether he has even committed a criminal act (Swedish issues aside). Assange’s explicit aim on his website is to stop “oppressive” governments from being able to “think” by communicating internally. And he has declared that international relations will come to be viewed in two distinct phases: pre- and post-‘cablegate’. Other observers see the whole episode as little more than an embarrassing storm in a teacup for politicians.
Does WikiLeaks pose a serious threat to American or global security?
No
1. The US ‘cablegate’ revelations have been more gossipy than dangerous. Most are unsurprising for any intelligent person who reads newspapers.
2. The growing sense that WikiLeaks has switched from a morally rooted campaigning force to an unstable group with an arrogant disregard for any authority will lose it friends and influence.
3. Its revelations might be a force for good. For example, Western nations might be emboldened by the striking fervour with which several Middle Eastern states also wish to contain a nuclear Iran.
Yes
1. Secrecy is essential to diplomacy, and diplomacy is essential to peaceful relations between states. WikiLeaks is undermining the whole process. That will inevitably lead to a more dangerous world.
2. A prime example is Korea: the rising political and military tensions could easily be inflamed by the leaked knowledge that China would be content with a South Korean takeover.
3. Some fear that a US strike on Iran would plunge the Middle East into all-out war. As such the WikiLeaks cables are alarming: they arguably give the US greatly increased political cover for any attack.