Le Guardian et Assange (suite)

Le Guardian et Assange (suite)

A l’occasion de la parution de son livre WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's war on secrecy (en vente lundi), le rédacteur en chef du Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, publie (ce 28 janvier 2011, dans le Guardian) des extraits qui permettent d’avoir une idée bien plus précise du rôle du Guardian et des relations de ce journal avec Julian Assange, fondateur de WikiLeaks, dans l’affaire WikiLeaks/Cablegate.

L’attitude et la personnalité de Julian Assange sont présentées d’une façon assez contrastée, avec des aspects négatifs. Mais, d’une façon générale, Rusbridger reconnaît au fondateur de WikiLeaks l’immense vertu d’être un pionnier dans une opération fondamentale et qui est appelée à durer. Le passage ci-dessous, écrit aux dépens de l’évolution sans nuance ni crainte des contradictions grossières de Hillary Clinton vis-à-vis d’Internet, présente bien la considération où Rusbridger tient Assange. (A noter l’emploi que faisait Clinton en janvier 2010 du mot samizdat pour désigner Internet, d’après le mot caractérisant la presse dissidente et clandestine en URSS dans les années 1960-1980 ; c’est un mot auquel nous avons fait souvent référence pour caractériser Internet, depuis le 10 juillet 1999 sur ce site.)

«Unnoticed by most of the world, Julian Assange was developing into a most interesting and unusual pioneer in using digital technologies to challenge corrupt and authoritarian states. It's doubtful whether his name would have meant anything to Hillary Clinton at the time – or even in January 2010 when, as secretary of state, she made a rather good speech about the potential of what she termed “a new nervous system for the planet”.

»She described a vision of semi-underground digital publishing – “the samizdat of our day” that was beginning to champion transparency and challenge the autocratic, corrupt old order of the world. But she also warned that repressive governments would “target the independent thinkers who use the tools”. She had regimes like Iran in mind.

»Her words about the brave samizdat publishing future could well have applied to the rather strange, unworldly Australian hacker quietly working out methods of publishing the world's secrets in ways which were beyond any technological or legal attack.

»Little can Clinton have imagined, as she made this much praised speech, that within a year she would be back making another statement about digital whistleblowers – this time roundly attacking people who used electronic media to champion transparency. It was, she told a hastily arranged state department press conference in November 2010, “not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community.” In the intervening 11 months Assange had gone viral. He had just helped to orchestrate the biggest leak in the history of the world – only this time the embarrassment was not to a poor east African nation, but to the most powerful country on earth.»

Sur les conditions de la collaboration entre des systèmes comme WikiLeaks avec la presse papier, et sur l’avenir de ces formes d’action, Rusbridger se montre très optimiste. Il confirme dans son livre que c’est le Guardian qui a pris l’initiative de proposer la collaboration de cette pressé éditée avec WikiLeaks, garantissant ainsi un impact considérable et une certaine “respectabilité” aux fuites massives. Pour Rusbridger, ce système de coopération est appelé à durer, et le Guardian entend bien y prendre une place prépondérante. (A noter que Rusbridger semble avancer que l’inculpation aux USA d’Assange sur cette question de publication de documents confidentiels ne pourrait se faire sans que les cinq grands journaux papiers qui ont publiés ces documents soient eux-mêmes inculpés, – ce qui donnerait, comme il l’écrit, «the media case of the century»…)

«One of the lessons from the WikiLeaks project is that it has shown the possibilities of collaboration. It's difficult to think of any comparable example of news organisations working together in the way the Guardian, New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde and El País have on the WikiLeaks project. I think all five editors would like to imagine ways in which we could harness our resources again.

»The story is far from over. In the UK there was only muted criticism of the Guardian for publishing the leaks, though their restraint did not always extend to WikiLeaks itself. Most journalists could see the clear public value in the nature of the material that was published.

»It appears to have been another story in the US, where there was a more bitter and partisan argument, clouded by differing ideas of patriotism. It was astonishing to sit in London reading of reasonably mainstream American figures calling for the assassination of Assange for what he had unleashed. It was surprising to see the widespread reluctance among American journalists to support the general ideal and work of WikiLeaks. For some it simply boiled down to a reluctance to admit that Assange was a journalist.

»Whether this attitude would change were Assange ever to be prosecuted is an interesting matter for speculation. In early 2011 there were signs of increasing frustration on the part of US government authorities in scouring the world for evidence to use against him, including the subpoena of Twitter accounts. But there was also, among cooler legal heads, an appreciation that it would be virtually impossible to prosecute Assange for the act of publication of the war logs or state department cables without also putting five editors in the dock. That would be the media case of the century.

»And, of course, we have yet to hear an unmediated account from the man alleged to be the true source of the material, Bradley Manning, a 23-year-old US army private. Until then no complete story of the leak that changed the world can really be written. But this is a compelling first chapter in a story which, one suspects, is destined to run and run.»

dedefensa.org