UN and OAS blast U.S. gov't over WikiLeaks reaction

By Richi Jennings. December 23, 2010.

Diplomats talk in diplomatic language. It's a kind of code, where they rarely say what they mean. Some translation is required. So here's my take on the recent 'Joint Statement' from the United Nations and Organization of American States about the WikiLeaks situation, in The Long View...

Here's the official line from Frank LaRue, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and Catalina Botero Marino, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.

Oh dear. Too long; didn't read? Let me help...
 

[We] see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. [We] call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments.

Translation: Yes, USA, we're looking at you. Pay attention, you're entirely doing the wrong thing.
  

1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right. ... [It] protects the right of every person ... to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is ... [important] to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. ... [It allows] citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation.

Translation: WikiLeaks provides a valuable democratic public service. Stop stifling the work it does in the public interest.

What are you, some sort of tin-pot dictatorship?
 

2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests. ... Secrecy laws should define national security precisely. ... Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm ... greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information.

Translation: These diplomatic cables were classified 'secret' and restricted from the eyes of non-U.S. citizens. Seriously? We see no justification for that at all. It seems to us that you're just embarrassed by some of the revelations.

Hello! It's called democracy -- you claim to have invented it.
 

3. Public authorities ... bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately classified information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists, media workers and civil society representatives, who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information.

Translation: Even if we were to accept that the cables should have been secret -- which we don't -- you can't persecute WikiLeaks for legitimate journalistic activities in the public interest.

Oh, and stop all this ridiculous talk of extraditing Julian Assange for supposed crimes under the Espionage Act. It's a ridiculously outdated law, written for a different time. And we don't trust your criminal justice process to be politically independent.
   

4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information ... must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.

Translation: Stop leaning on Amazon, VISA, Mastercard, PayPal, BofA, and all your other chums, in a transparent attempt to cut off WikiLeaks' air supply. It only makes you and them look foolish.

By the way -- are you listening, Sweden? -- nobody believes these on-off-on rape allegations are anything but a tactic to harass Assange. Drop it.
  

5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.

Translation: We know you're considering further Internet censorship. Cut it out!

 
Did I miss anything? Leave a comment below...
 

Â

Richi Jennings is an independent analyst/consultant, specializing in blogging, email, and security. A cross-functional IT geek since 1985, you can follow him as @richi on Twitter, pretend to be richij's friend on Facebook, or just use good old email: TLV@richij.com.

You can also read Richi's full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.