Voice that changed the world
Few matters currently display the division between Australia and New Zealand more than the debate about Chelsea Manning. Both countries are dealing with the same person and both have similar laws, but they came to different conclusions. Australia banned her; New Zealand is allowing her to visit.
Manning’s disclosures, via Wikileaks, of about 750,000 documents covered the practices of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables. In this cache were about 1500 related to New Zealand, and even more relating to Australia.
In terms of the macro interests of the Manning invitation, it is likely the Australians are probably trying to appease the United States to a greater degree than New Zealand is. The problem here is that no-one really knows what President Donald Trump thinks of this situation. Although he considered Manning an ‘‘ungrateful traitor’’, he has an ambiguous relationship with Wikileaks, lauding it when it broke stolen information pertaining to Hillary Clinton.
In terms of the actual merits of the case, the different conclusions between Australia and New Zealand over Manning largely turn on what is meant by the term ‘‘whistleblower’’ and who is entitled to protection.
Both countries, and most people within them, agree that no government or other entity should be entitled to secrecy when engaged in either illegal or corrupt practices. This is especially so if the person who has become aware of the violations has, and as a first – non-public – attempt, tried to bring the indiscretions to the attention of the decision-makers. In these situations, most would agree that the whistleblower should go public, and be protected for it.
Where the issue becomes much more difficult is where the whistleblower releases ‘‘public interest’’ information about the inner workings of a government or other entity that does not pertain to illegal activity or corruption, and they do not, as a first effort, try to bring the matters to the attention of decision-makers.
One has only to look at the current debate about the leaking of National leader Simon Bridges’ travel expenses to see how tense such debates can get. Although the debate about Manning is 750,000 times worse than Bridges’ travel costs, the core of the debate is similar.
The vast amount of material that Manning made available related to the public interest, not corruption or illegality. For example, the Wikileak releases about New Zealand were embarrassing for multiple governments as they showed the way internal political debates and policy goals were focused. Politically dubious perhaps, eyebrow-raising to some maybe; illegal or corrupt, unlikely.
However, history is full of examples, such as with the Pentagon Papers, in which the revelations show that governments can exist in ethically ambiguous worlds, and if the public knew, they would remove them from power.
In the case of Manning, although the vast majority of the information she released may not have given unambiguous evidence of illegality, it was not that dangerous either. That is, she, and those who helped her make public what she had stolen, screened what was made available. This meant that no information about certain topics, such as nuclear matters, troop movements, or material that could put individual soldiers at risk, was made public. Although some, such as the late John McCain, could assert that Manning’s disclosures jeopardised the safety of American soldiers or assets, this claim was never upheld. Similarly, although Manning was jailed for her actions, she was acquitted on some of the most serious charges, including the provision of information that would have been helpful to an enemy.
What she provided was a vast treasure trove that sought to wake apathetic publics everywhere from their slumber. She achieved her goal. She also helped set the precedent that others with more damaging information, such as Edward Snowden, would follow.
Without doubt, Manning changed the world, for which she paid the price via seven years in jail. The question is whether we should be giving her a platform to talk about that change, or whether the broken protocols of secrecy and privacy that governments seek should have kept the door shut.