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:
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
|
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:
Experts on US foreign policy include:
- Robert Naiman
- Stephen Zunes
- Gareth Porter
WIKILEAKS MATERIAL
EXPOSES
- 2 US ADMINISTRATIONS (BUSH & OBAMA)
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).]
|