Summary - Anglo-US Academia (International Relations Discipline) etc - Abetting Illegitimate Use of State Power

ꕤ Summary SOURCE http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/12/18/are-us-academics-who-cite-wikileaks-blackballed/ TITLE "Are US academics who cite WikiLeaks blackballed?" SUMMARY [pursuant to my understanding of article] TOPIC Anglo-US Academia International Relations Discipline Associations & Journals ABETTING illegitimate use of state power Censorship thus:  political suppression Intellectual Dishonesty & Bias ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- IN SUMMARY [PURSUANT TO MY UNDERSTANDING] WikiLeaks -- published 2,325,961 diplomatic cables -- & US State Dept records -- cables insight into: diplomacy foreign relations issues of sovereignty Julian Assange WikiLeaks publisher WikiLeaks contends that: International Studies Quarterly (ISQ) (US Journal) {published by International Studies Association (ISA)} DO NOT accept academic submissions based on WikiLeaks material ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Anglo-American academic institutions  + prestigious associations & journals INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DISCIPLINE -- shun (blackball) wealth of WikiLeaks published diplomacy material ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Scholars -- in the thousands affected undergraduate PhD students fellows academic researchers -- employment market unsteady -- concerns re career:  self-censorship understandable Case Example #1 - Institutions: Columbia University School of International & Public Affairs (SIPA) -- groom future diplomats {New York Times} -- 2010:  institution sent students email WARNING -- warning via SIPA alumnus (graduate):   WORKING AT U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT warning against:  commenting on or posting WikiLeaks material - in social media -- e-mail stated doing so "would call into question" "ability to deal with confidential information" -- "part of most positions with the federal government" Comment if this is the warning re mere 'social media' from the educational authorities scholars are likely to take the hint otherwise   Case Example #2 - Institutions: Columbia University Graduate Class Produced:  anonymous academic paper / report, title: “WikiLeaks and Iraq Body Count: the sum of parts may not add up to the whole — a comparison of two tallies of Iraqi civilian deaths” Link | Publisher SUMMARY - ABSTRACT WikiLeaks and Iraq Body Count: the sum of parts may not add up to the whole-a comparison of two tallies of Iraqi civilian deaths. Carpenter D, Fuller T, Roberts L. PURPOSE Sensitivity analysis of commonly-cited Iraq Body Count (IBC) tally compared to WikiLeaks (Iraq) War Logs release HYPOTHESIS study began with hypothesis that of 66,000 fatalities reported in WikiLeaks (Iraq) War Logs were largely same press reports and tallies elsewhere [DISPROVED:  ONLY (46.3%) FATALITIES REPORTED] RESULTS - HYPOTHESIS DISPROVED PRESS REPORTS & OTHER TALLIES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN FATALITIES RECORDS CONTAINED IN WIKILEAKS MATERIAL Of 2,409 WikiLeaks (Iraq) War Log records 488 (23.8%) had likely matches in IBC records { ie  Iraq Body Count (IBC) } large fatality events more like to appear in both datasets eg  94.1% of greater than 20 killed likely matches (compared to single fatalities at 17.4%) skew towards records of large events in both datasets IBC previously reported only 2035 (46.3%) of 4,394 fatalities reported in WikiLeaks (Iraq) War Logs CONCLUSION passive surveillance systems may be selective in types of events detected in armed conflict Higher detection: bombing events events occurring in less violent regions result:  skewed image of mortality profile in Iraq CAUTION members of press & researchers should be hesitant to draw conclusions re nature or extent of violence from passive surveillance systems of low or unknown sensitivity http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23388622 Columbia University grad. class anonymous report -- refers to the 2010 warning e-mail -- states it would be unwise to name students that participated Case Example #3 - Individual: Cynthia McKinney former US presidential candidate Green Party -- forced to scrub any reference to WikiLeaks material -- in PhD dissertation (dissertation subject to peer review) Daniel W Drezner -- member ISA -- member ISQ web advisory board -- professor (international politics) -- argued:  diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks -- not significant & claimed academic indifference to same HOWEVER WikiLeaks published cables:     -- are relied upon by INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS     -- are basis of voluminous coverage     -- by academic disciples outside international relations     -- (fields scholars are not career dependent re govt institutions) Drezner conceded forces opposing WikiLeaks so powerful scholars would avoid WikiLeaks material for "fear of being blackballed" Blackball boycott, ostracise, veto admission, ban, shun, cast out, exclude -- Drezner argued 'other explanations' (The Washington Post) NOTE HOWEVER: SA and ISQ concerns re handling material that US government forbids ISQ has PROVISIONAL POLICY According to ISQ editor quoted by Gabriel J. Michael in Yale Law School paper: policy prohibits direct quotations as well as data mining (use of info) policy was developed in consultation with legal counsel {see reference to Gabriel J. Michael below (or in article)} IN CASE YOU MISSED IT Anglo-American academic institutions  + prestigious associations & journals INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DISCIPLINE deliberately shun (blackball) wealth of WikiLeaks published diplomacy material therefore: -- bias towards interests of US empire -- shaper of distorted view of world -- engaged in grooming of INTERNATIONAL STUDIES grads -- for jobs in service of questionable US govt interests failure to understand intersection between geopolitical & tech developments [Assange contends] Given: intimidation of scholars censorship of academia self-censorship of scholars -- consequent gap in scholarly analysis -- therefore, WikiLeaks has brought together     journalists     researchers     experts on international law     foreign policy experts -- to produce book: The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015) Link | Verso Books Experts on US foreign policy include: Robert Naiman Stephen Zunes Gareth Porter WIKILEAKS MATERIAL EXPOSES 2 US ADMINISTRATIONS (BUSH & OBAMA) USE BRIBES & THREATS TO PREVENT U.S. FACING  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS U.S. DIPLOMATS EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN TIES WITH DICTATORS U.S. FUNDING OPPOSITION GROUPS IN SYRIA - LINK U.S. ACCEPTANCE OF ISRAEL VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Such actions indicative of American superpower -- modus operandi (manner of operating): "might makes right" -- contempt for international justice -- contempt for rule of law WikiLeaks Analysts Review: meaning of human rights in context global 'war on terror' US dealings re International Atomic Energy Agency / re Iran nuclear development International Studies Association (ISA)     prestigious publisher of:     US journal:  International Studies Quarterly (ISQ)     several other disciplinary journals    Mark Boyer ISA executive director -- denies formal policy against publishing WikiLeaks material BUT refers to journal editor discussion re implications -- of publishing material that is PROHIBITED BY U.S. GOVERNMENT Gabriel J. Michael Yale Law School author of academic paper: Who’s Afraid of WikiLeaks? Missed Opportunities in Political Science Research Link | Publisher ISQ (JOURNAL) PROVISIONAL (TEMPORARY)  POLICY Gabriel J. Michael assertion re ISQ: "... ISQ has adopted a “provisional policy” against handling manuscripts that make use of leaked documents if such use could be interpreted as mishandling “classified” material." [Crikey] ISQ provisional policy, according to ISQ editor quoted by Gabriel J. Michael in Yale Law School paper: prohibits direct quotations as well as data mining developed in consultation with legal counsel Editors are currently “in an untenable position” ISQ’s policy will remain in place pending broader action from the ISA (publisher of several titles) Blogger Comment International Studies Quarterly (ISQ) policy or 'provisional policy' effectively bans publication of WikiLeaks (& other material) that is prohibited by the US government (publication by publisher banned, ostensibly due to potentially adverse interpretations of classified materials handling) in the event of US govt legal challenge for publishing in relation to WikiLeaks material despite WikiLeaks material "cables [going] into the heart of an empire" re matters of significance that impact on individuals on a global scale If my understanding is correct: ISQ policy provisional policy amounts to adopting a course in favour of abetting intellectual dishonesty abetting political suppression compliance with US govt censorship of academia submission to US government intimidation submission to illegitimate use of state power summary continued WIKILEAKS WikiLeaks has provided the public with vital information re matters of enormous future consequence  (in terms of how states operate) material that the US empire has sought to DENY the public eg.  TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP FREE TRADE AGREEMENT     {in negotiation} wherein the US empire: "... aims to rewrite the global rules on intellectual property rights and would create spheres of trade which would be protected from judicial oversight." [Crikey] Article points out that: "... the leaked cables shed light on how states negotiate significant treaties, aiming to keep citizenship participation in politics out." and concludes that when academia bans the use of important leaked material, the public loses out. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I think it might be easier to read the article than to read my summary of the article. What was supposed to be summary / simplification of the article has turned out sort of complicated. I don't know if it's the layout or what. Anyway, I'll hopefully stand some change of remembering the material now that I've dwelled on it. Hope I've got everything straight. Something is missing, but I can't figure out what. [I've not properly proofread my summary  ... & my fingers are crossed that I understood everything.   Hypothesis (above) must have been disproved if less than half the fatalities were reported -- compared to the total fatalities in the leaked WikiLeaks material (that's how I understand it).] ꕤ