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
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
A large majority of Taiwanese favor strengthening national defense and oppose unification with China, according to the results of a survey by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). In the poll, 81.8 percent of respondents disagreed with Beijing’s claim that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China,” MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) told a news conference on Thursday last week, adding that about 75 percent supported the creation of a “T-Dome” air defense system. President William Lai (賴清德) referred to such a system in his Double Ten National Day address, saying it would integrate air defenses into a
RSS