After nearly five years as Chief of the MONUSCO Video Unit in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I retired last month from the United Nations to devote myself to a fulltime study of the broader implications of the digital revolution the world is now experiencing. And, freed from the shackles of speaking for the United Nations, I can now express myself a bit more freely, which is exhilarating, to say the least.
I love the United Nations, but when it comes to media, the organization remains mired in the Stone Age of Print. There are far too many senior managers who do not yet understand that the Digital Revolution is a fast- moving phenomenon that will become of increasing importance,as digital technology develops in leaps and bounds. This is unfortunate, since creative and intelligent harnessing of digital technology is essential to successful promotion of developmental efforts around the world.
Over the past few weeks, there have been a few well publicized examples of this phenomenon:
The Pussy Riot Phenomenon: Regardless of what one thinks of their music ( by punk standards, it is actually pretty good ) self-described punk feminist band Pussy Riot has successfully drawn worldwide attention to some of the less attractive aspects of the Russian government under Vladimir Putin by getting themselves arrested for performing their anti-Putin " punk prayer" in the sepelchure of one of Moscow's most famous Orthodox cathedrals. The performance did not last very long, but their followers managed to document the event and the subsequent arrest, and put the video on YouTube, where it went viral. Celebrities like Yoko Ono, Madonna and Paul McCartney all wrote">Open Letters asking that the band members not be prosecuted, and the media eyes of the world were focussed on the Moscow courtroom when the judge read the verdict, pronouncing all three band members of what sounded like mediaeval charges of blasphemy,and sentencing them to two years in jail. It did not hurt that the three band members are all attractive and articulate young women, well versed in Russian avante-garde culture, and none of them showed any sign of intimidation.
By this act of artistic self-sacrifice in the tradition of the Constructivists, Dadaists and Surrealists,
Pussy Riot managed to expose the brutal and doctrinaire side of the Russian regime, and one can only salute their courage, as well as their creative savvy. Prior to this incident, the band was totally unknown, and hadn't even released a single. Now, thanks to intelligent use of digital media, Pussy Riot is a global brand which has already enjoyed a lot more than their Warholian fifteen minutes of fame. Prior to digital media, the event would have been quickly covered up, perhaps becoming an underground legend at best, but otherwise banished to the vaults of obscurity like past victims of Stalinist oppression .Given the relative success of this very political protest, one can expect to see
variations on the Pussy Riot theme elsewhere in the world in the near future.
The Julian Assange Debacle in London:
The 2012 Olympics in London were, by nearly all standards, a great success, and generated much good will for the host nation around the world. However, in the weeks that followed, the diplomatic debacle created by British Foreign Minister William Hague's bellicose threats to unilaterally revoke the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian embassy did much to dissipate this hard- earned goodwill, particularly in Latin America.
The Ecuadorians' transgression was to provide diplomatic sanctuary to the notorious digital rogue and founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange. As is well known, Mr. Assange decided to electronically publish a devastating videotape of an American helicopter cold bloodedly killing Iraqi civilians in Baghdad after the American invasion. What made the video devastating was that it was shot from the helicopter's perspective, with live sound of the callous banter between the pilot and the crew as they pulled the trigger. At the time of the massacre, the official American position was that the helicopter has reasons for firing on the civilians, but this position became completely untenable after the publication of the video, which had been the property of the Defense Department.
and there was a war of words between them and Mr Assange, who appeared to relish the limelight.
The conflict escalated, and finally Mr. Assange published a huge archive of previously classified State Department correspondence. While there were no earth-shattering revelations, there was a lot of diplomatically embarrassing scuttlebutt, as one might expect from internal correspondence on external matters. Nonetheless, there were many intriguing tidbits that continue to surface from time to time in
mainstream media, which has shown no compunction in publishing items from Wikileaks.
The State Department was, of course, predictably furious, and there were many threats regarding
some prosecution of Mr. Assange. However, Mr. Assange, being an Australian citizen not living in the United States, was not subject to normal American jurisdiction, and there has been a real debate regarding what laws he has actually broken, if any. After all, freedom of the press has been a fundamental of American democracy, and publishing leaked documents from the government has
been a tradition in the American media for a long time. Perhaps the most famous example in recent years was the leaking of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg to the New York Times, which published them in their entirety. The Pentagon Papers were an internal history and assessment of the Vietnam War which contained much that was at odds with the official narrative that had been spun by the government, and the Pentagon went after both Mr. Ellsberg and The New York Times with all the legal means available. Ultimately, The Times prevailed; the publication of the documents was considered acceptable, while Mr. Ellsberg's leaking of the documents as an employee of the Pentagon was not.
In the Assange case, there are legal similarities, but the treatment of those involved has been much harsher. Bradley Manning, a very young Army private, has been charge with leaking the documents, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. There has been a remarkable lack of transparency
in this case, and many have expressed concerns about the future of Mr. Manning, There has been no indication of any action taken against those responsible for allowing a low level member of the military such unlimited access to important classified material of this kind, which is the heart of the matter.
Thanks to digital technology, anyone can send a huge amount of material around the world in a very short period of time, so it would seem prudent to limit such access to only those with appropriate clearance. Furthermore, America's partners are dismayed that the government can be so sloppy as to allow one individual such unlimited access. and it will take time for the State Department to regain their confidence. Foreign partners will be a lot more careful in what they reveal to their American colleagues.
Meanwhile, Mr. Assange has done his best to create public support for his plight by portraying himself as a martyr to the cause of a free internet. In the process, he has had some falling outs with his former
colleagues at Wikileaks, who find him something of a glory hog, and clearly feel the focus should be
on the issue of internet freedom, and not Mr. Assange himself. This became difficult when Mr. Assange
found himself the subject of an investigation by the Swedish police on sexual assault charges stemming from two incidents during his residence in Sweden, where internet freedom is a cause celebre, and Mr. Assange something of a celebrity.
Mr. Assange's subsequent flight to England is a matter of record, as are the Swedish government's attempts to extradite him to be interrogated on the sexual assault charges. Mr. Assange claimed that the Swedes were acting on behalf of the American government, and feared that, once he was in Swedish custody, that they would extradite him to the United States to face criminal prosecution for the Wikileaks case. This argument seemed to have some validity; Mr. Assange has never been charged
with any crime in Sweden, and, upon closer inspection, the alleged sexual assaults would not be
categorized as crimes in nearly any other country in the world other than Sweden. While sexual assault is a serious matter, it is also worth noting that Sweden was on the verge of criminalizing looking at a woman as a sexual object in the 1980s. Furthermore, there have been some cases of high level Swedish tax evaders residing publicly in England without fear of extradition. And, of course, there
is the famous case of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, whom the British refused to extradite to Spain on the request of Spanish prosector Balthazar Garzon for prosecution for crimes against humanity.
So, when the British courts decided that Mr. Assange could, in fact, be extradited to Sweden, Mr.
Assange sought and received diplomatic refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. President
Correa of Ecuador explained that he had invited the Swedes to conduct their interrogation of Mr.
Assange at the embassy, and they refused. As a result, President Correa decided they had a hidden
agenda, and gave Mr. Assange political asylum. The political blunder committed by British Foreign
Secretary William Hague when he then threatened to invade the embassy to seize Mr. Assange is
a matter of record. Clearly, he had not anticipated the strong response from a united South American
community, who no longer wish to be treated liked banana republics, and who have certainly not forgotten The Falklands War.
Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Assange, the continued denials by both the Swedes and the
Brits that this is not all about Wikileaks ring pretty hollow these days. As was the case with Pussy Riot,
the powers-that-be have seriously underestimated the power of the internet, and are making things worse for themselves by trying to publicly punish representatives of the internet avant-garde for the crime of public embarrassment. As the great Marshall McLuhan presciently said," The medium is the message," and, as the authoritarian rulers deposed during the Arab Spring discovered, trying to control the internet is like trying to stop the ocean with your hands. However, as we have seen, the powers-that-be are not ready to give up their efforts.
What this means for freedom of expression and democracy in the developing world will be explored in future blogs.
A luta continua!
mainstream media, which has shown no compunction in publishing items from Wikileaks.
The State Department was, of course, predictably furious, and there were many threats regarding
some prosecution of Mr. Assange. However, Mr. Assange, being an Australian citizen not living in the United States, was not subject to normal American jurisdiction, and there has been a real debate regarding what laws he has actually broken, if any. After all, freedom of the press has been a fundamental of American democracy, and publishing leaked documents from the government has
been a tradition in the American media for a long time. Perhaps the most famous example in recent years was the leaking of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg to the New York Times, which published them in their entirety. The Pentagon Papers were an internal history and assessment of the Vietnam War which contained much that was at odds with the official narrative that had been spun by the government, and the Pentagon went after both Mr. Ellsberg and The New York Times with all the legal means available. Ultimately, The Times prevailed; the publication of the documents was considered acceptable, while Mr. Ellsberg's leaking of the documents as an employee of the Pentagon was not.
In the Assange case, there are legal similarities, but the treatment of those involved has been much harsher. Bradley Manning, a very young Army private, has been charge with leaking the documents, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. There has been a remarkable lack of transparency
in this case, and many have expressed concerns about the future of Mr. Manning, There has been no indication of any action taken against those responsible for allowing a low level member of the military such unlimited access to important classified material of this kind, which is the heart of the matter.
Thanks to digital technology, anyone can send a huge amount of material around the world in a very short period of time, so it would seem prudent to limit such access to only those with appropriate clearance. Furthermore, America's partners are dismayed that the government can be so sloppy as to allow one individual such unlimited access. and it will take time for the State Department to regain their confidence. Foreign partners will be a lot more careful in what they reveal to their American colleagues.
Meanwhile, Mr. Assange has done his best to create public support for his plight by portraying himself as a martyr to the cause of a free internet. In the process, he has had some falling outs with his former
colleagues at Wikileaks, who find him something of a glory hog, and clearly feel the focus should be
on the issue of internet freedom, and not Mr. Assange himself. This became difficult when Mr. Assange
found himself the subject of an investigation by the Swedish police on sexual assault charges stemming from two incidents during his residence in Sweden, where internet freedom is a cause celebre, and Mr. Assange something of a celebrity.
Mr. Assange's subsequent flight to England is a matter of record, as are the Swedish government's attempts to extradite him to be interrogated on the sexual assault charges. Mr. Assange claimed that the Swedes were acting on behalf of the American government, and feared that, once he was in Swedish custody, that they would extradite him to the United States to face criminal prosecution for the Wikileaks case. This argument seemed to have some validity; Mr. Assange has never been charged
with any crime in Sweden, and, upon closer inspection, the alleged sexual assaults would not be
categorized as crimes in nearly any other country in the world other than Sweden. While sexual assault is a serious matter, it is also worth noting that Sweden was on the verge of criminalizing looking at a woman as a sexual object in the 1980s. Furthermore, there have been some cases of high level Swedish tax evaders residing publicly in England without fear of extradition. And, of course, there
is the famous case of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, whom the British refused to extradite to Spain on the request of Spanish prosector Balthazar Garzon for prosecution for crimes against humanity.
So, when the British courts decided that Mr. Assange could, in fact, be extradited to Sweden, Mr.
Assange sought and received diplomatic refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. President
Correa of Ecuador explained that he had invited the Swedes to conduct their interrogation of Mr.
Assange at the embassy, and they refused. As a result, President Correa decided they had a hidden
agenda, and gave Mr. Assange political asylum. The political blunder committed by British Foreign
Secretary William Hague when he then threatened to invade the embassy to seize Mr. Assange is
a matter of record. Clearly, he had not anticipated the strong response from a united South American
community, who no longer wish to be treated liked banana republics, and who have certainly not forgotten The Falklands War.
Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Assange, the continued denials by both the Swedes and the
Brits that this is not all about Wikileaks ring pretty hollow these days. As was the case with Pussy Riot,
the powers-that-be have seriously underestimated the power of the internet, and are making things worse for themselves by trying to publicly punish representatives of the internet avant-garde for the crime of public embarrassment. As the great Marshall McLuhan presciently said," The medium is the message," and, as the authoritarian rulers deposed during the Arab Spring discovered, trying to control the internet is like trying to stop the ocean with your hands. However, as we have seen, the powers-that-be are not ready to give up their efforts.
What this means for freedom of expression and democracy in the developing world will be explored in future blogs.
A luta continua!
