Last year, US President Barack Obama warned, “we are not as prepared as we should be” and then appointed a cyber hacker to be a “cyber czar.”
Slightly more than a year later, an Australian cyber geek, Julian Assange, put American diplomacy in crisis by releasing thousands of secret documents.
Although there have been other releases before, such as the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s that revealed official foibles in war, the current release is serious.
Assange’s activities and success raise concern over America’s defences and global vulnerability.
If the United States, with all its resources, is so vulnerable, what about little Third World countries that simply consume cyber things produced and controlled elsewhere?
It is understandable if small countries that are not cyber savvy are caught flatfooted, but not the United States.
The release of diplomatic cables makes Washington look terrible.
The release is so embarrassing that American officials are understandably furious because of the ill will the documents are likely to generate.
Apart from being a pioneer in cyberspace activities, the United States spends billions of dollars to “deter” and “prevent” what Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy termed “cyber intrusions and attacks.”
He asserted, “Cybersecurity threats represent one of the most serious national security, public safety, and economic challenges we face as a nation…. Our digital infrastructure … is a strategic national asset, and protecting it …is a national security priority.”
Showing it was ready to “quickly recover from cyber intrusions,” the United States cyber blocked access to additional documents and called for Assange’s arrest.
Assange has emerged as one of the most powerful men on earth.
He runs no government or any international organisation yet he is a source of worry because, with his cyber network, he is lethal.
The American reaction is telling. It brings out the friction between the need for countries to keep official secrets as a matter of national interests and the presumed public right to know.
By comparison, the released documents are low level cables between embassy stations and Washington and do not contain top level State Department or White House discussions.
Yet the United States has acted like a wounded bear. It does not see the irony of its obsession in pressing other countries to be so “transparent” as not to have classified information even at the cabinet level.
The implication is that only the United States needs to securitise information and still be “free” while others can be “free” only if they have no secret information.
The concern in the United States is thus not over what was released.
It is over the seeming loss of “freedom” to interact with, and access “secret” information from, host officials who feel betrayed and whose trust has been broken.
Subsequently, the released information is of value to diplomatic historians but not the existing policy makers.
Given that the disparaged officials are still active, the release of unflattering assessments and recommendations on how to “mould” them to advance American interests and short-change their countries, is likely to have the negative effect, of cutting access.
This is the reason why top American officials engaged in firefighting and damage control by calling presidents and ministers for foreign affairs to alert them on, and to plead for understanding of, the forthcoming “insults.”
Diplomacy is in crisis.
Prof Macharia teaches at USIU-Nairobi.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
