Ever since the financial crisis erupted in 2008, there has been a call for “greater transparency” in financial services. The financial-reform law passed by the US Congress last month requires improved transparency from banks and other financial-services firms. Moreover, thanks to the hard work of Oxfam America and the Publish What You Pay coalition, the law also requires oil and mining companies — both US and foreign — that want to raise capital in the US to disclose their payments to the governments of countries in which they operate.
For many poor countries, wealth in natural resources is a curse rather than a benefit. Corrupt rulers can use the billions they receive from oil and mining corporations for personal extravagance or to buy arms for troops to crush democratic resistance movements.
Of course, transparency alone cannot prevent this, but it will show everyone how much the rulers are getting and who is funding them. One hopes this will change the attitude of corporations that enrich themselves by paying dictators for the right to extract valuable resources that belong to the whole country. Throughout the world, it is a crime to receive what one knows to be stolen goods — except, it seems, when the goods are stolen by dictators from the people they dominate.
A different form of transparency received much more attention last month. WikiLeaks, which describes itself as “an anonymous global avenue for disseminating documents the public should see,” released 92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan, including military reports on incidents and intelligence reports.
Over the past three years, WikiLeaks has published a variety of sensitive documents, ranging from the US military’s manual for operating its prison in Guantanamo Bay to evidence of corruption in Kenya and the dumping of toxic chemicals off the coast of Africa. It also published a list of Web sites that the Australian government proposed blocking, the extreme-right British National Party’s membership roll, an analysis of a major Icelandic bank’s default risk and video footage of a US helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed 12 people, including a Reuters journalist and photographer. However, posting the Afghan war reports was its most controversial move yet.
The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel were given a chance to study the documents before they were released and decided to publish some of the material. The editors argued that while the decision to publicize secret material is always difficult, these documents were of “significant public interest” and “illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not.”
US Senator John Kerry, a leading Democrat who supports the war, has said that the documents may “underscore the stakes” in the conflict and make it more urgent to “make the calibrations needed to get the policy right.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has suggested that the documents could form the basis for prosecuting war crimes committed by US forces against Afghan civilians. Others, including US President Barack Obama, have said that the documents “don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan.”
There is a clear parallel between the recent Afghanistan leaks and Daniel Ellsberg’s release in 1971 of the Pentagon Papers, which helped the US public understand how the war in Vietnam was really being conducted. On its Web site, WikiLeaks quotes the US Supreme Court ruling in that case: “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”
WikiLeaks also asserts that its leaks have already been the catalyst for “hundreds of reforms,” and that “[o]pen governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance.”
However, even some supporters of open government think WikiLeaks goes too far. Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, counts WikiLeaks among the enemies of an open society because of its failure to respect the rule of law and the rights of individuals.
Although WikiLeaks says it has withheld an additional 15,000 documents on the Afghan war in order to remove names and other means of identifying individuals who might be placed at risk, the Times of London revealed that in some cases sufficient identifying details were in the documents already released. Assange has said that he deeply regrets any harm that the released documents may cause, but has defended the release nevertheless. And the WikiLeaks Web site points out that while openness may lead to some highly visible bad consequences, what we fail to see are the consequences of not publishing and the way in which a climate of openness makes it more likely that governments and corporations will act more ethically.
However, how much openness is too much? In Latvia, an artificial-intelligence researcher in the University of Latvia’s computer science department who earlier this year leaked confidential records on the income of bank managers has been praised as a modern Robin Hood, because otherwise the public would not have known how much some people were continuing to be paid while their banks were being bailed out with public funds. Each year in Norway, the government publishes the income and wealth of almost every taxpayer. Is that too much transparency? If so, why?
In a world in which terrorists have committed atrocities and threaten to commit more, to seek complete government transparency is utopian. Sometimes it is possible to do good only in secret. Yet on the whole, a more transparent community is likely to be a better one — and the same applies to a more transparent world.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS