A Wee Little Fib

Trey Smith

In May 2011, the Obama administration published an admirable document setting out the US's international strategy for cyberspace. It was subtitled "Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World", and contained a foreword signed by the president himself.

"Today," wrote Obama, "as nations and people harness the networks that are all around us, we have a choice. We can either work together to realise their potential for greater prosperity and security, or we can succumb to narrow interests and undue fears that limit progress. Cybersecurity is not an end unto itself; it is instead an obligation that our governments and societies must take on willingly, to ensure that innovation continues to flourish, drive markets, and improve lives."

Stirring stuff, eh? Obama goes on. "The digital world is no longer the province of a small elite. It is a place where the norms of responsible, just, and peaceful conduct among states and peoples have begun to take hold. It is one of the finest examples of a community self-organising, as civil society, academia, the private sector, and governments work together democratically to ensure its effective management. Most important of all, this space continues to grow, develop, and promote prosperity, security, and openness as it has since its invention. This is what sets the internet apart in the international environment, and why it is so important to protect."

I couldn't have put it better myself. But there is a small problem. At the time when he signed that stirring declaration, Obama knew something that the rest of us didn't – namely that the Stuxnet worm, which caused such havoc at the heart of Iran's uranium-enrichment process had been written, under his authorisation, by programmers in the US National Security Agency (with some assistance from software engineers working for the Israeli military).
~ from Stuxnet: The Worm That Turned Obama into a Hypocrite? by John Naughton ~

In many ways, this simply is another apt example of American exceptionalism. Our president can make a sweeping statement that belies what our nation is doing behind the scenes.

But let's be real. This isn't solely an American problem. Most nations engage in this sort of subterfuge. They say one thing to their people, the media and their fellow leaders, while often doing the precise opposite in secrecy. It's par for the course both in international and domestic governance.

If I accept this kind of hypocrisy as being "normal," why am I sharing it with you? It is more to make the point that we should never accept what our leaders say in the public sphere. It is when we view their flowery rhetoric with a healthy dose of skepticism that we won't allow them to pull the wool over our eyes again and again.