Non co-operation could be lethal

While the debate surrounding the freedom of the media and the free flow of information in South Africa continues attracting an increasing number of participants, and is intensifying to fever pitch; the unintended side effects of the recent massive pushing of secret files on the United States War in Afghanistan into the public domain are tragically illustrating the need for certain clearing mechanisms to deal with information disputes between the media and authorities. The lack of such reliable procedures is costing people their lives as this article is being written.

Since the publication of close to 80 000 classified military documents online by WikiLeaks in July this year, there has been a rise in the assassination of Afghan civilians identified in those documents, who are now seen as collaborators with international forces in the conflict in that country, report international human rights groups.

These groups have now called on WikiLeaks to censor the published files to protect from reprisals the civilians who have worked alongside the US and other foreign forces.

According to reports, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHC), Amnesty International (AI) and three other groups have sent a series of e-mails to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, calling for the names of Afghan civilians to be removed from the published files and from any documents to be published in future.

According to an AIHC spokesperson, it has not yet received any response to its requests.

As so often happens in a controversy such as this, there does not seem to be any real angels around. A WikiLeaks spokesperson, using an assumed name to protect his identity, told Associated Press that the group had requested help from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to check the files prior to publication to ensure the lives of civilians were not put at risk. In addition, a request was put to the White House for reviews from the Security Assistance Force.

The authorities apparently reacted in the only way they know and, according to the spokesperson, the Pentagon has stated it is not interested in harm minimisation while the White House is on record that WikiLeaks had not offered to allow US government officials to check the files in advance.

It is reported that the Pentagon has demanded the whistle-blower cancel any plan to publish other classified military documents and to take down the secret files already published on the Internet. Spokesperson Colonel Dave Lapan said there had been no response from WikiLeaks to these demands.

According to other reports, the US government is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations against Assange and to limit his movements across international borders.

In the midst of this standoff between WikiLeaks as a media player, and authorities, there seems to be little concern for the civilians who are caught in the middle and in many instances paying the ultimate price in what for them is a deadly chess game. They remain the pawns in the main strategy of the two players to ensure the other one is seen to be blamed when these civilians are knocked off the board of life.

South African situation

In South Africa as yet, there has not been such a deadly situation. But there are ample reasons to mistrust the latest moves from the governing party in an attempt to smother the media and establish absolute control over the flow of information.

At the same time, there is ample evidence, as highlighted by President Jacob Zuma, that there is not always sufficient balance between freedom of the media and the right to privacy of the individual. There are instances of overstepping the line in terms of rumour and public good with, as we reported earlier on an eTV news piece of two criminals who threatened to target soccer tourists during the Fifa World Cup tournament.

While the country is presently involved in a high-profile debate about the age-old dilemma of who polices the policeman, it is unlikely that we will arrive at a solution which would fully satisfy either side.

The best 'solution' is perhaps the establishment of a truly independent institution that can act as an efficient, fearless and trusted – or equally distrusted – arbiter when clashes of interest arise.

Hopefully, for the sake of the greater public interest, consensus on such a solution can be reached – where 'consensus' at least amounts to equality of discontent. If there is a winner at the end of this debate, everyone will be a loser.