The Problem with Public Displays of Integrity

Two peculiar instances of apparent about-turns caught my eye recently. In the case of Richard Goldstone and the report into Cast Lead, it is the timing that is surprising. In the case of George Monbiot's sudden penchant for nuclear energy, it is strength of the statements he's made in its defence that seems uncanny. It's almost enough to make one suspect the "other side" got to them in some way, especially knowing who those sides are.

Monbiot's trajectory began with an article hinting that nuclear power may not be so bad after all, followed by a piece in which he as an individual came out in active support of it, and now by a piece in which he denounced members of a movement to which he once belonged for not being completely coherent.

Monbiot dismisses the arguments made by John Vidal, in response to his previous article, on the basis that he doesn't provide irrefutable evidence of linkages between the phenomena that were and still are observable in the region surrounding the Tchernobyl powerplant, and the meltdown of this plant.

I'm not a scientist, but I have it on a good authority that there are many linkages between phenomena that cannot be fully explained, yet all the evidence suggests the link is there. A number of medical treatments, for instance, are prescribed on the basis that they work - but we don't know yet quite how they work.

I may have found the anti-nuclear campaigners' response to Japan tactless but Monbiot's accusations of deliberately misleading people seems a step too far.

And yet I understand why he did it. The Green movement is one that has many principles. Within its ranks are individuals who admirably hold themselves to very high ethical standards. To an extent which I think it pretty much unique. Monbiot's response to what he regarded as misrepresentation of "the facts" has reinforced this opinion.

But it's also bloody stupid. Stupid, I mean, to admit weaknesses in public, to confess to nagging doubts and open criticisms in the face of such powerful forces who tend to interpret these matters in black and white terms, for their own interests.

As if the nuclear industry or the ruling class in Israel are whiter than white in their own representations. Politicians and the media, not to mention private companies, routinely distort and manipulate information for any number of reasons. Does Monbiot feel that environmental campaigners are so well placed, or their views so dominant, that they can afford to be undermined by giving their opponents such gifts? Knowing, of course, that these opponents would never do the same for them and knowing also how, unfortunately, public debate often fails to take into account the nuances of such arguments, but rather zooms in on the headlines, the soundbites, and runs with them.

Being exposed to some of the Israeli press concerning Goldstone's qualification of the earlier report, at the time, allowed me to gain some insight into the way it was interpreted by the media and politicians there. Namely, that it was immediately seized upon as evidence that the whole report was flawed and invalid, regarding this admission as equating to a revocation of the entire report, and, in the words of Netanyahu, confining it to the "dustbin of history". However educated and refined these individuals no doubt are, the level of appreciation for nuance here is clear.

No doubt the nuclear industry & its lobbies are not far behind, driven as they are by stakeholders and profit, rather than a long-term vision for the perpetuation of the planet, as is the case for environmentalists.

This article commended Goldstone for his statement, describing him as "a man of integrity and independence... It's the easiest thing in the world to stay silent; to come out in this very public fashion is a brave act."

I agree with this. I think it is absolutely the right and correct thing to do. I admire fervently the integrity of those who admit their weaknesses and mistakes in public without being pushed. They are few and far between. But I have to ask - what is the use, when they are not greeted with reflection and willingness to compromise, but rather manipulated and taken out of context as a total victory for those being criticised?

My argument, and it is a practical one for an un-ideal world, is that such admissions should be confined to within the ranks of an organisation or movement, in such circumstances. In this way, the aims of integrity and consistency can be acheieved, and mistakes can be learned from.

But there is also a question of responsability here, not only utility. It is not just about protecting credibility and political reputations. It is also about refraining from handing such criticisms over to those who would use them to the detriment of others.