The unsaid -- and the associated twisted logic

Abuse of Faith in Governance: Mystery of the Unasked Question (Part #10)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

The various forms of abuse of faith noted above flourish best in a context in which many things are left "unsaid". This is currently most evident in the case of the expense abuses of UK Members of Parliament -- which would be trivial were it not apparently so systematic. The extent of such abuse is clearly recognized by the considerable efforts made by some to prevent such information becoming widely available, as noted above.

The implications of the "unsaid" have been explored separately (Global Strategic Implications of the "Unsaid": from myth-making towards a "wisdom society", 2003), where "myth-making" might be appropriately understood as sustaining the kind of fantasy on which the financial bubble depended. The variety of forms of the "unsaid', the contexts for abuses of faith, was explored as an annex to that study (Varieties of the "Unsaid" in Sustaining Psycho-social Community, 2003). As with the paradox of the degree of misleadership appropriate to effective leadership, there is the paradox of the amount of non-transparency appropriate to sustaining a viable psycho-social community. Such paradoxes call for careful exploration.

The historically unprecedented disclosure in 2010 by WikiLeaks of large numbers of confidential diplomatic and other exchanges of the USA -- the Iraq War Logs and the Diplomatic cables release -- raises numerous issues. The leaks confirm suspicions long denied regarding actions at variance with both formal declarations and the values supposedly upheld (and defended) by the USA. Of relevance to the abuse of faith in governance is the logic of official reaction by the USA:

• the former US ambassador to Russia, James Collins told CNN the disclosure "will impede doing things in a normal, civilised way"
  • unfortunately the leaks make very clear that there is nothing civilised, according to acclaimed standards, about the way the US has been doing business or intends to do it
• the release was described by US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as an attack not only on the US but on the international community, placing at risk the lives of many people who have communicated with American diplomats. More specifically she indicated:
  • It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.
    • many would ask whether the actions of the US in many domains have constituted a blatant attack on the international community, most obviously through the failure to adhere to international conventions which endeavour to safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity
  • There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is notjhing brave about sabotaging peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends
    • with respect to "endangering innocent people", it is appropriate to note the above-mentioned US policy articulated by Madeleine Albright on ensuring the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, as well as the level of civilian deaths in in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the recent decision "gloves off" policy in process of implementation in Afghanistan
    • with respect to "sabotaging peaceful relations between nations", it might be asked when the US has restrained itself from doing so if destabilizing countries and regions was in its interests
    • with respect to "our common security", there is widespread recognition of the manner in which US foreign policy undermines common security -- as previously articulated by Hillary Clinton: You're either with us, or against us
• the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said it was "a criminal act" and that measures would be taken to seeks the prosecution of those involved
  • the question of course is what exactly is the criminal act, and how to distinguishe the criminality and irresponsibility exhibited by WikiLeaks from that exhibited by the US, notably in the espionage operation (authorised by Hillary Clinton) targetting the leadership of the United Nations whose inviolability is protected by international treaties to which the USA adheres; the UN is already investigating to what extent that espionage constitutes a treaty violation
  • perhaps most extraordinary in its triviality is her authorisation for the obtaining of biometric information on the UN Secretary-General (including DNA samples) -- is it planned to clone him, to design a disease to which he would be specifically vulnerable, from what sordid imaginationm does that need arise?
• a senior lawmaker, according to CNN, warns that it could lead to "a catastrophic breakdown of trust between nations."
  • the issue is of course the nature of that trust and how it is ensured -- given the behaviours (including "bullying") exhibited by the US cables, of which the security services of many other countries are presumably aware.
  • it might be asked to what extent the financial policies promoted within the US and elsewhere, leading to the financial crisis of 2008-2009, were not far more damaging to confidence in the financial system and to relations between nations

The twisted logic lies in the effort by the US to claim to defend universal values and peace in the interests of all, when in fact this is immediately reframed (even unconsciously) as doing what is best for the USA and for its own values. It is considered to be a self-evident truth that universal values are identical with the values of the US -- despite the manner in which it chooses to do business and advance its own interests at the expense of others. 

For Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake. He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak:

The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal...The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid. (Katie Connolly, Wikileaks warrant 'issued to UK', BBC News, 1 December 2010).

The journalist instrumental in a "leak" which lead to similar condemnation -- the expenses abuses of UK Members of Parliament -- Heather Brooke (WikiLeaks: the revolution has begun - and it will be digitised, The Guardian, 30 November 2010) argues:

• Leaks are not the problem; they are the symptom. They reveal a disconnect between what people want and need to know and what they actually do know.
• Politicians, see themselves as parents to a public they view as children - a public that cannot be trusted with the truth, nor with the real power that knowledge brings.
• In the past, we deferred to authority and if an official told us something would damage national security we took that as true. Now the raw data behind these claims is increasingly getting into the public domain. What we have seen from disclosures like MPs' expenses or revelations about the complicity of government in torture is that when politicians speak of a threat to "national security", often what they mean is that the security of their own position is threatened.

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]