By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:52:14 +0000

I don’t think that WikiLeaks should be suppressed, even when I am critical of it. There is a difference. And I also think that there is a difference between seeking to uncover duplicity and uncovering everything. The former would lead to “a more democratically, openly informed” diplomacy, as Jim and I both would want. But there is no way for deliberations to proceed between enemies, opponents and even allies without moments of confidentiality. I am convinced of this as a student of Erving Goffman, as a student of the study of social interaction. If that is so, activities such as WikiLeaks will have one of two results. It will either undermine diplomacy, or it will further deepen the level and intensity of secrecy. Targeted revelations make sense, in addressing specific injustices. I think the revelation of everything is in fact an act of nihilism.

By: jim phelps

jim phelps — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:47:58 +0000

Is it not that we are so caught up in the dynamics of the changes that Wikileaks has brought, and is bringing about, that we can’t yet see where it is all leading? Must Wikileaks be suppressed to conserve old style secret diplomacy, or must old style secret diplomacy change in order to live in a more democratically, openly informed Wikileaked world? Examples from the past (e.g., Poland, South Africa, the return of Sinai to Egypt, Zimbabwe [the recent diplomatic Wikileaks have ironically benefited Mugabe, and damaged the vulnerable Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)]) might be considered as being irrelevant now, insofar as what we need to change to is a new way of negotiating necessary current political transformations in an open, Wilkileaked world.

Comments on: Privacy and Progress

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

By: jim phelps