WikiLeaks revelations more than 'suss'

Anthony Woodburn, Guest Columnist

Traditionally, Jamaicans have expressed satisfaction and pride in our multifaceted achievements, level of development, and influence on world views. Such proud moments have taken the form of the administrative system, critical scholarship, sports, diverse ideas, independent decision-making and independence of thought.

However, given contemporary practices in geopolitics, international relations, international trade and the need for global security, internationalisation of ideas and decision-making have been leveraged against weak and vulnerable sovereign states, including Jamaica. Among the evidence of this unfortunate leveraging is the Jamaican daily dietary supplement of the exposures of WikiLeaks secrets.

WikiLeaks' exposures may be likened to statistical interpretation. It may be interpreted as either 50 per cent empty, or 50 per cent full. Importantly, the WikiLeaks disclosures must not be seen exclusively as manipulating domestic political agendas, 'suss' and embarrassment. Instead, they have wider implications. As such, they must be considered within the context of diversity and seriousness that they deserve.

Undeniably, members of our own political and administrative systems have expressed concerns or dissatisfaction to foreign powers with the way in which things are being run in Jamaica, and, hence, the validation of these exposures.

But why has it become necessary for members of the Jamaican political and administrative systems to have complained about weaknesses in government and governance to a foreign power?

Jamaica's responsibilities

Notwithstanding sovereignty, there should be no denying the global power and influence of the United States and the United Kingdom. They may not necessarily be visible at the time of decision-making, but their visibility cannot be denied or ignored in the decision-making process. So, when things are seen to be going wrong, for one reason or another, Jamaica's administrators are confident in registering complaints to them.

But it should not have been that way. By virtue of multilateral obligations, Jamaica should always be mindful of globally accepted principles, codes, and standards in government and good governance. There should be no doubting the fact that these considerations should be our primary responsibilities.

Though contradictory and sad, it is also quite laughable that both Jamaican main political parties, while in opposition, complained to either the United States or the United Kingdom on select issues they believed were likely to derogate from the principles and practices of government and good governance. If Jamaican politicians are unable to skilfully, credibly and, without malice, articulate positions of national interests with each other, what then are the implications for good governance?

Clearly, the WikiLeaks expose indicates that Jamaica's sovereignty is seriously compromised by the very ones electors have put in placed to safeguard our Constitution and sovereignty. WikiLeaks is not just suss and scandal; it is an indictment on the capacity of our administrators to act responsibly and responsively to the needs of good governance.

The irony of the leaks

There is no doubting the fact that global powers guard their interests jealously and, as such, they suss on the finest detail in every country. Ironically, the WikiLeaks exposures, whether deliberately or not, may not always be bad for good governance. It can be interpreted as a source for reform in many areas of political and administrative life. It can also be the reason to increase the capacity of administrators to be more responsible and responsive to the dilemmas of colleagues who are having simultaneous responsibilities to a sovereign state and multilateral obligations. Additionally, it can be a source of comfort to citizens, in that, the democratic traditions on which a state had been built will be safeguarded against the wishes of despots.

In general, the leaks must not be seen as the central theme behind policymaking in international relations and international trade. They must not be used to influence immigration laws or deportation policies by developed countries. Also, they must not be used to influence decisions at the level of the United Nations Security Council, the board of the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank. They must not be used to influence to selection processes of donor organisations, grants, and other multilateral considerations. They must not be used to suppress new ideas, critical scholarship, advocacy, entrepreneurialism, and innovation. They must not be used by other countries to shape bilateral or multilateral relations. Importantly, they must not be used to discriminate unfairly against weak and vulnerable citizens.

Unfair discrimination of citizens by the United States, for example, is likely to be the logical conclusion of the relationship between the Jamaican politician who made the complaint, and the US counterpart who passed on the information via cables. Crucially, foreign powers may not always act against a 'friendly state'. However, actions against its citizens are less than desirable, and are usually justified.

Anthony Woodburn is a part-time lecturer in business research at the University College of the Caribbean and Mona School of Business, UWI. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and anthony.woodburn@gmail.com.