Stepping into the uncertain decade

Hopeful. Exuberant. Bullish.

It was the 31st of December 2000. There was abundant enthusiasm all around. The world economy was on a roll, with the USA leading the charge as usual. Dotcoms were bubbling all over, with mind-numbing valuations. Risk was contained neatly inside properly designed mathematical models that now governed a lot of stock market trading. Despite the LTCM debacle, rock-hard optimism about a pink future had steamrolled all objections from naysayers. Mainstream media, as usual, played along and magnified the sense of well-being and promise of prosperity.

Not a single soul - apart from the planners sitting inside Afghanistan - had an inkling that September of the first year of the fresh decade will bring havoc. That it will rewrite all rules of global diplomatic and military engagements. That it will force the 800 pound gorilla that's the US to actually flex its muscle militarily in faraway lands, in engagements that were potentially capable of bankrupting it monetarily and for a short while, even philosophically.

That's uncertainty for you. While the immediate physical pain of the horrific 9/11 incidents has subsided substantially, the learnings derived from the same poke fun at every human attempt to create some amount of predictability out of the utter chaos that's human life now. And the entire decade of the 2000s was spent with one crisis spilling into another, piling all along, and so on. Political crises completely overshadowed the various technological and economic gains made through sheer enterprise of innovative companies the world over.

Here's what really went wrong with the 2001-2010 decade :

Blackest of the Black Swans

1. Asymmetric terrorism: a whole new genre of terrorist reach and impact was created with the Al Qaeda creating missiles out of commercial passenger aircraft. American defence establishment - armed with the most sophisticated batteries of assault weapons and satellites - watched helplessly as this asymmetry engulfed their entire existence for a short period of time. It was clear to everyone that a new chapter had begun, with absolutely new levels of destruction now possible inside home territories. No nation was safe anymore. No shred of intelligence was extra anymore. No suspicion was unwarranted anymore. All this meant that the basic threads of civility that tie our modern civilisation into what it is came under attack. The impact was to be felt throughout the decade.
   
   

What WikiLeaks really means

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" - Margaret Mead, anthropologist.

An unknown individual who calls himself 'Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker' - Julian Assange - puts up a website that supposedly carries leaked versions of documents and communications on sensitive state subjects. All hell breaks loose, as the one of the states concerned is a mighty power, engaged in multiple controversial & costly wars abroad, and the leaks put a big question mark on the entire authority of the apparatus itself! Apologies in advance are offered to friendly nations worldwide by the superpower (perhaps a diplomatic-first of its kind). Red-faced bureaucrats and politicians patch up in advance on many issues likely to emerge! The website promises more and more juicy releases, nation after nation goes after the site's founder (and administrator) and finally one of them nabs him.


Welcome to the WikiLeaks controversy. Perhaps for the first time in modern history, a single individual has challenged the might and repute of the superpower that's the USA, and dragged alongwith the reputations of many others. Perhaps for the first time, world governments realise how vulnerable they are to what a single man can do to them. Perhaps for the first time ever, media and its unbridled power to create extreme transparency are under question.

This controversy raises fundamental questions which I will attempt to answer below. I feel the three questions raised are

1. Does a State have the right to do anything in the name of sovereign power? And then cover it up?
2. Can media truly exercise extreme transparency without upsetting human civil values?
3. What is the nature of truth itself? Are there permanent truths for us to hang on to?