There are lessons for New Zealand in the leak of sensitive Iraq war documents, writes Gehan Gunasekara.
It is trite to observe that information is power. Also, information is often the weapon of the weak: if truth is the first victim of war then the information supplied by whistleblowers can provide a vital antidote. These truisms were evident in the case of the sensational disclosures by the
WikiLeaks organisation, relating to the conduct of the Iraq war.
Coming on top of its earlier disclosures about the war in Afghanistan the latest disclosures have likely changed the balance of power between the United States military and the news media, as well as served up important lessons about the role of whistleblowers.
The content of the latest classified information has been disturbing. Among the revelations is the disclosure that the US forces have been turning a blind eye to the widespread and systematic use of torture and extra-judicial executions by Iraqi forces - wasn't one of the excuses for removing Saddam Hussein the fact such practices were commonplace under his regime?
Then there are the reports of the shooting, by US troops themselves, of Iraqi civilians at checkpoints. Sadly, American public opinion has moved on from Iraq so it seems improbable these abuses will be investigated or that any remedial action will be taken.
On the other hand, one of the suspected whistleblowers, Private Bradley Manning, has been arrested and could face a lifetime behind bars. Others may face a similar fate.
Here, though, is the rub. Many countries, including New Zealand, have laws that provide protection to whistleblowers who bring to light "serious wrongdoing", including corruption and illegal conduct. By any standard, war crimes fit this definition.
Usually, however, the disclosures must be made to the "appropriate authorities" in the country concerned. The latter represents a fatal flaw in the global response to whistleblowing. In the event that the national authorities are themselves involved in wrongdoing, or are simply uninterested in pursuing allegations, no international organisation exists - except WikiLeaks - to investigate the whistleblower's claims and to protect him or her from retaliation.
Whistleblowers who have found this out at great personal cost have included Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli scientist kidnapped and imprisoned after he blew the lid on his country's secret nuclear programme.
The news media is able, from time to time, to publicise stories in the public interest. It cannot, however, guarantee the protection of its sources. Neither can WikiLeaks, although the group may be free of many of the other constraints to which the media are themselves subject, such as the control exerted by powerful ownership and advertising interests.
What lessons might be drawn in New Zealand from all this? First, with the upcomng visit of US Secretary if State Hillary Clinton, it is incumbent on the Government to ask Mrs Clinton what other potentially embarrassing revelations may be on the way.
Secondly, it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to keep the activities of our hitherto super-secret SAS special forces under wraps in Afghanistan. If these activities are not entirely above board, we should not be there.
Thirdly, and most importantly, New Zealand ought to, as a small nation dedicated to the international rule of law, advocate the setting up of an international regime for whistleblowing under the auspices of the United Nations. The protection of whistleblowers should be central to any such scheme. Finally, it is instructive to note that the disclosures by WikiLeaks have met with few, if any, denials.
Clearly, they meet the tests for wrongdoing and public interest that exist under our own law. A compelling case can therefore be made that at the international level, as well as the national one, sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.
Gehan Gunasekara specialises in information and privacy law at the University of Auckland Business School.
