Editorial published in Zamane / January 2010
By Suleiman Bencheikh
since November 28 last, the website founded by Australian Julian Assange distilled each day dozens of diplomatic documents "leaker" of the U.S. State Department. In total, almost 250,000 documents, sometimes compromising, which should be revealed to the public. Seem to miss qualifiers to describe the impact of international indiscretions Wikileaks. The famous New York Times is not pull his punches in its pages stating that "the revelations of Wikileaks could change the world. " The British historian Timothy Garton Ash himself has used a formula that has been around the world: Wikileaks leaks would thus " historian's dream and nightmare of diplomat." For him "there is a public interest in how the world works and what is it doing in our name. There is also a public interest that foreign policy is conducted confidentially. And these two interests are conflicting. "
In fact, beyond anecdotes, more or less tasty and mini scoops that populate the minutes of U.S. diplomats, the fallout from revelations of Wikileaks is still far from fully understood. But already, these leaks mark a break point in the quieting of at least three microcosms. Diplomats, journalists and historians are indeed all returned to their household gods, in the wake of the revolutionary idealism of Julian Assange, today the symbol of a frantic quest for truth and transparency. The diplomats, initially, can that being small and reviewing the fundamentals of their world dark and hushed. Their sources, now unmasked and suspicious, need reassurance before giving way to new confidence and new emotional. Global diplomacy, based on soft power, namely the power of indirect influence, is thus undermined by leaks from Wikileaks: the whispers of the diplomatic salons have covered the official voice, the hypocrisy that all foreign policy based has been brought to light, finally, large and small schemes were stale. The diplomat, usually draped in a language to decode or immured in a "silent reserve", appeared stark naked, stripped of regalia that is its strength: confidentiality, nuance and power.
His power, of course, is now challenged by the striking power of the Internet. The well-oiled locks of world diplomacy have indeed jumped under the blows of the Web. This parallel world that everyone thought virtual, is not only a tool in the hands of new cyber revolutionaries, but also the bottomless pit where the scrolls are stored in the future. Thus the historian is it primarily concerned with the effect Wikileaks. He who sometimes had to wait more than 20 years to declassify a document vital to his work, is faced with a mass of information that previously he would not even dreamed of. As the journalist twenty years before him, and the historian finds himself propelled into the Internet era. The wealth of historical information has replaced the lack of sources. relationship to historical records it is bound upside down: the beginning of Twenty-first century, manuscripts gave way to dusty documents scanned, the historian should not only be a bookworm, but also have the Internet, recognizing the contributions and limits of the "digital civilization" able to find in a corner of the web document will derive his theories credible. For over a century with the advent of the industrial revolution, history is accelerating. Today, the historian himself, though a follower of analytical detachment necessarily saving, is caught in the spiral, with the risk of being stripped of his power, that of writing our history.
This will does not become historians? These muteront-they journalists? Or perhaps the reverse? Here arises another question, that is precisely the role of journalists. They are also condemned to follow the rat race of the world, to abandon the field (where, ultimately, everything happens) for their computer screen? Most major newspapers around the world have in fact had no choice but to to start the process of Wikileaks, a destination they do not know yet. In the end, perhaps Julian Assange happen it by the box in prison, without doubt he will even set up a martyr. But what is certain is that the diplomats will run seven times before speaking their language, historians will run more than ever after time, reporters and rewrite history ... for better or for worse. Certainly, the world has changed!
0 comments:
Post a Comment