The Meaning of Wikileaks

Wikileaks does it again, publishing material that was meant to be classified and protected. People have called it treasonous and recommended legal action. Others have suggested a cloak-and-dagger approach to punish the guilty. President Obama has called for agencies to review their procedures for handling sensitive material. The general consensus among those in Government and among those private citizens who oppose the action of Wikileaks is that we must stop the leaks somehow.

My opinion is that we can try sticking our finger in the cracked dike, but that will not stop all the leaks. What we need to realize is that it is a new world; it is an open world. In a flash, from anywhere in the world, I can publish a paragragh or a terabyte and make it instantly visible to the rest of the connected world. Iran and China have tried to block the more offensive addresses on the internet, but willful people longing to be free will find a way around the barriers.

Federal agencies should secure their secrets and protect the people mentioned within the secrets. However, I think the larger lesson is that we can no longer sustain large, secretive agencies. Overtime, the large federal agency will become irrelevant. The nature of the internet is to collaborate with total abandon. The rules of a nation-state are simply a hindrance to what will inevitably dominate the earth. We do not want more trade barriers or more wars; we want to be free to collaborate and compete globally.

As Thomas Friedman pointed out, there was a time when global collaboration and competition was driven only by nations. Eventually, the vehicle for global collaboration and competition was driven by the multinational corporation. Once the internet approached ubiquity, we found ourselves able to compete and collaborate globally as individuals. Some guy in a jungle on a remote continent can affect the thinking of a whole group of American suburbanites with one tweet. A talented wicker-weaver in the middle of nowhere can setup a global storefront and become a multinational corporation all by herself with little expertise or effort.

Unfortunately for some people, this is actually just controlled chaos. You can't herd cats, and you can't keep secrets easily. Now that we are all individuals playing by our own rules, we are are going to reject the rules around of others. Governments have an important role to play here to make sure that the wild west is kept on a level playing field--in other words, to protect us from the most selfish and greedy violators.

I am not defending or supporting Wikileaks here. They don't appear to be considering the ethical impact of their disclosures. As an individual, I wouldn't want my secrets revealed to the world. For instance, my SSN is a powerful number that needs to remain secret. My medical history may appear benign to my doctor, but in the hands of some people it may be enough to keep me from the job I deserve--therefore we keep it secret. I certainly don't want anyone to know what my spouse and I argue about, nor do I want to hear about your arguments. Some secrets are important.

What I am supporting is the inevitable. We can't stop the world from becoming more open. We don't want to. With more people working on a problem, the solutions become more creative and more efficient. Diseases like cancer may not be cured without openness, for example. We just need to realize that it is a different planet in 2010 than it was just 20 years ago. In 1990, if I knew a major secret I would have to go through the bureaucracy of a major publisher and it would takes weeks to get revealed if it ever was. Now I can expose it globally, for free, from the comfort of anywhere on the planet, all by myself or in collaboration with any one of the millions of individuals who would like to help me.

The war in Iraq has demonstrated that the old way of fighting wars will no longer work. The enemy will dress like a civilian, live with civilians, and not be seen when he detonates the IED. If you are dressed like a Marine and driving down the same road you always do in an unarmored Humvee, you will not have the chance to defend yourself when you are attacked. Fireteam formations and raw aggression are useless against an insurgency. The military is adapting to the new rules. Now our diplomatic and intelligence agencies will have adjust to their new rules too. One of those rules will be: support individualism and reduce or eliminate inefficient bureaucracies.

Web 2.0 and the President of the United States

Like him or hate him, you have to be at least mildly curious about the President posting on YouTube and other web 2.0 mediums. The idea that a message from the most powerful office on the planet could "go viral" and be seen by millions within minutes of recording, without the expense of live TV, is going to be huge. The President can post a video in forums that allow commenting, and generate discussion among billions of people about his video.

If you trust Obama, then you can be excited that he will be able to get his message out and counter any criticism far more effectively. If you do not trust Obama, then there may be something to fear. Someone who is good at manipulating the masses now has a method of doing so on a grander scale and perhaps more thoroughly.

The ultimate question: will this new method of communication allow a manipulator to dupe the masses, or will this lead to greater transparency and make it harder to "spin" the message? What would ahve happened if either of the Bushes used this medium, or Reagan, or Clinton? Consider how Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, The Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence could have been managed with access to Web 2.0!

Looking forward to your thoughts!

CSR? Why?

There is no doubt that capitalism has an ugly side and corporations can do great harm to communities and individuals. That always gnawed at me. I was raised on Christian ideals of charity, generosity, and the benefits of providing for needy people. I was also raised in the cold war and knew the evils of socialism and restricted markets. That is the source of my split personality.

The article that introduced me to CSR explained how Russians who were raised with communist paradigms could come to terms with capitalist principles by learning about CSR. This would allow them to seek profits while keeping the community in mind. In fact, it can be shown that including your stakeholders (employees, vendors, communities, governments, and special interests as well as your customers and shareholders) in your decisions can often make you more profitable, reduce your costs, improve your marketing efforts, and prevent many costly liabilities. According to the authors, who are American professors with extensive experience among Russian companies, this is a message that many Russians are waiting for. It is a message I had been waiting for as well.

Is it possible to be a company that really cares about people and remains profitable? Is it possible to insist that your employees, vendors, and customers all embrace certain ethical and environmental standards without losing your competitive edge? Is it possible to gain a competitive edge by being a good employer, a community partner, and leaving a soft footprint on the planet? CSR says yes.

If more companies said yes to the principles of CSR, we would have cleaner air and water, we would have more people gainfully employed and less cut loose after years of loyalty, we would have more employees who loved and were loyal to their company, and we would have safer products. The benefits of CSR-embracing companies never end.

Best of all, we would have an answer to America-haters. People once looked up to America and spoke of us in respectful awe because our freedom and prosperity was so rare. As democracy and globalization spread, people began to see America as a greedy, oppressive profiteer. I don't think that the military actions of Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes are to blame for most of the ill-will towards America. I do not think the CIA is to blame. I think that the actions of so many corporations headquartered in America, sending American managers to foreign cultures to produce at low-cost and high-productivity and then send all of the wealth back to America is the cause for 99% of the ill-will aimed at us today.

If my generation, known as X, were to begin exporting socially-responsible policies among the multi-national corporations that we are gaining control of from the baby-boomers, then Generation Y (my kids) would get to know America as the baby-boomers did: the prosperous and high-minded nation that makes the planet better for everyone.

The authors of this article, Professors David S. Harrison and Patsy G. Lewellyn, spoke of how Russians lost that sense of purpose and working for the good of the community that they had under communism, a void that could be filled by the principles of CSR. I think that we, the western half of the Cold War, lost something too when communism fell.

America stood for democracy; we were the beacon of freedom. Now that freedom and capitalism is almost commonplace around the world, what do we stand for? Are you satisfied to be the leader against Islamic-fundamentalist terrorism (the so-called Global War on Terrorism)? Somehow, that isn't as sexy as opposing communism. What will we stand for once we have evidence of bin Laden's demise and the terrorist networks are rendered ineffective? What if the whole Muslim world decided as one to liberalize tomorrow? What would America stand for if we didn't have Terrorism to oppose?

Do we need to stand for anything? I say yes. If we are the leader, then we have more control over our destiny. Do we want to be Mexico or Canada and have people snicker when we assert ourselves? If we do not lead, then we will lose ground in the global market and will attract much less Foreign Direct Investment--in other words, there will be less money in America to go around. Are you willing to make do with less? How much less?

My vision for America is that we stand for being socially responsible and profitable. As Generation X retires and Generation Y takes the helm, let America be looked up to for her prosperity and her benevolence. I hope that 30 years from today, as I may be retired or close to it, that America will not be known as a has-been but as a must-be.

Our schools are not preparing our kids to compete with Asia and Central Europe. Our companies are losing their dominance. America is losing its bragging right as the most benevolent, free, and prosperous nation. The environment has certainly been affected by the actions of humans and may jeopardize our future health and happiness.

Maintaining the status quo is not an option. We need a change. I vote for free markets dominated by socially-responsible corporations. Do you have a better idea?

Dreams vs. Memories

I cannot stop thinking about what I read in Chapter 15 of "The World is Flat" (Release 2.0, 1996). Author Thomas Friedman is discussing "The Curse of Oil" and near the end of the section, on p. 564, he says "When you have to make things with your hands and then trade with others in order to flourish, not just dig a well in your own backyard, it inevitably broadens imagination and increases tolerance and trust." After that grabbed me, I reread an earlier section of the chapter where, starting on p.553, Friedman discusses, "Does your society have more memories than dreams or more dreams than memories?" He says that if memories are emphasized over dreams in a company or culture, and of course in an individual, "the end is near."

The need for imagination and dreams is a deep part of the American culture, and has been since our inception. The need for imagination and dreams is what brought almost everybody here (those us who came here willingly.)

Today in the American culture, among people who have been Americans for several generations, you can see a similar divide. The people who have no imagination, no dreams, and who cannot or will not trade their services in the market place are usually the trouble makers, regardless of their location, race, and creed. I have seen people come from a poor ghetto, country, or trailer-park atmosphere, dare to dream, and went on to make something of themselves. It seems all that these rags-to-middle-class-or-better people needed was the audaciousness to dream (despite the laughter and maliciousness of family and peers), and an imagination to develop their competitive advantage.

In a global context, I see the dynamic that Friedman talks about as well. The U.S. has oil, but not enough that we can rely on it for our needs. We require imagination, innovation, and elbow-grease to feed our people. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates realized that they will soon no longer be able to rely on oil profits, so they imagined an indoor ski hill in the middle of the desert, and man-made islands in the form of palm trees.

I wonder about Russia. They are desperate to fix their economic problems, crumbling infrastructure, and demographic problems. They have oil, natural gas, coal, iron, diamonds, gold, and a plethora of other resources to sell. Luckily, those resources are not enough to run the worlds largest nation, because Russia has the cultural tendency to run rough-shod over its people and suppress imagination. However, non-renewable commodities are currently the primary fuel of their economic engine, and without those resources they would not be a blip on any economic radar.

When you read about Russia suppressing freedom and violating asset ownership it usually has to do with harvesting natural resources--but not always. There is also the problem of the Russian Mafia, which many people say is unavoidable at some point of doing business in Russia. The smaller municipalities have had a tendency to allow western companies to bring in imagination, technology, and capital, and then allow a local company to take over the operation. We all have seen the former KGB officer who somehow ingested a poisonous level of a radioactive substance, and the journalists who were critical of the Kremlin and somehow ran into freak, fatal accidents.

I see two Russia's. In both, the memory is long. However, in one Russia the memory is of the horrors of the Soviet Union and the Czars, which inspires a larger set of dreams for the future. In the other Russia, the memories are of "the good old days" of the Soviet Union when everybody pulled together, hard decisions were made for you, the problems were swept under the rug, and the politicians had absolute power. Here, imagination is dead. Which one rules Russia? Which one is in the hearts of the majority of Russians? Have all the Russians with dreams and the capacity for imagination left already? It would be a shame if the "Brain Drain" not only sucked out knowledge and experience, but drained away dreams, imaginations, hopes, and aspirations of a culture.

I am left wondering how we can inspire nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to dream, rather than remembering what Abdul did to Ali in 1322 A.D. I am left wondering how to replace or prop up dreams that have left the American poor, Russia, and elsewhere. And I wonder if the next generation of terrorists will come from imagination-challenged nations like France and Russia (or the American trailer-park and inner-cities), rather than Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Globalization 3.0 and Iraq

One of my favorite books, one which I occasionally re-read, is “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert M. Pirsig. In this book, the narrator writes directly to the reader in what he calls a “Chautauqua”. In this style, he explains a concept or event to you informally, like one-on-one with your favorite teacher or your father. This is similar to the style of writing in “Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About”, and it leads to a very engaging read, one in which the reader can relax, trust, and lose themselves in the text. I think I shall borrow from this style.

And, dear reader, it is this style that I will use to introduce Thomas L. Friedman’s book to you, and then use it as a springboard to launch myself onto my own electronic soapbox. Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat”, is so chock full of ideas, wisdom, lists, and stories that I could blog on it for years.

Friedman breaks the history of globalization down into 3 upgrades. Globalization 1.0 lasted from 1492 until 1800. In this era, the world’s economy was driven by nations. You did not trade, or even travel, internationally without the initiative of a national government. In the 1800’s, through 2000, the era of Globalization 2.0 meant that multinational companies became the primary agent of change. International trade was primarily initiated by multinational companies. The national government became less necessary for ideas, products, and services to compete globally. We now find ourselves in Globalization3.0, and it is the individual who has become the source of power on a global level. I no longer need the benefit, initiative, consent, or protection of my government to compete on a global scale. I no longer need my multinational corporation’s marketing, manufacturing, operations, and capital. All I need is a good idea and the Internet and I can compete as effectively, or at times more effectively, as a multinational corporation or government institution.

So while thinking about this, I started thinking about Al Qaeda. Below is what I wrote for an online class I am taking called “Cross-Cultural Risk Analysis”:

Since we are in Globalization 3.0, it really isn't about nations anymore when it comes to trade, so why wage war at the national level? The reason so many Americans, Brits, and other allies have died in Iraq and Afghanistan is because Al Qaeda is fighting on an individual and small group level, while we still wage war on a national level. Al Qaeda knows where to find us, what we will be doing, and how we will react because we do so on a trained, uniform basis. Moreover, they constantly evolve their tactics and weapons while we continue to walk in a column of twos and drive unarmored hummers down main street. There are Navy Seal and Green Beret teams who are having some success (how much success is classified, but National Geographic and Discovery have been allowed a couple of stories) who are not waging war "like Americans". They drive different vehicles. They use different weapons. They use different tactics. They grow out their beards, wear different uniforms, and generally approach military life from a different perspective. Most importantly, they work in smaller but more empowered units. In this manner, it appears that they are inhibiting many attacks and gathering more intelligence than a standard infantry unit would. Therefore, I think we will be forced to redefine "peace" in the coming years, as we are redefining war today. When the 18th century American colonists sniped at formations of British soldiers from behind trees and rocks, it changed warfare forever. Al Qaeda, Hammas, Timothy McVeigh, John Muhammad & Malvo, and others are now demonstrating what war will be in the future: disassociated individuals in small, concealed groups that can and will attack without warning. Though nations with Mickey-D's may be less likely to strike, any Mickey-D's employee or customer could be a threat. Which is all the more reason to lock down nuclear programs in nations full of disassociated people.

Larry Slobodzian Sedit qui timuit ne non succederet