American diplomacy is being tormented by the trickling taunt of WikiLeaks’ big drop Sunday of more than a quarter-million U.S. documents, threatening to “uncloak U.S. diplomacy,” as The New York Times put it. According to the Times, only about 11,000 are classified as “secret” and 9,000 contain information considered too delicate to be seen by foreign governments. The rest of them are described as records of “backroom bargaining” and “frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats” and only go back about three years.
Some of the leaks were about things we expected to be happening. Is anyone really surprised about suspected corruption in the Afghan government or that country officials are taking about Iran? We didn’t think so. Among other things leaked were cables about ridiculous he-said-she-said garbage that were only leaked to hurt feelings and jeopardize American diplomacy.
At the same time, there is a conflicting humanizing and dehumanizing element that emerges from all of this — from the personal and strange political alliances between Italy and Russia’s prime ministers to the hospitable and less-than-hospitable mannerisms of some international diplomats. Other than those who are close to Libya’s leader, do we care that he’s rarely seen without a woman he describes as his “Ukranian nurse?” Not really.
The Obama administration is upset to say the least, and rightfully so. Diplomats have been on the phone with international allies and civil enemies warning them of the scope of the leaks. Although no one can predict the future, there is a good chance that the candid views of diplomats and foreign ambassadors will reflect poorly on any good standing relationship. At a time when Obama and his administration are under a lot of heat, the last thing he needs is more people with reasons to distrust him.
Among the most irresponsible leaks is one concerning the deal to remove Pakistan’s uranium supply. Even the leak reveals Pakistan’s concern about the media’s portrayal of any nuclear materials being taken by the U.S.
While information like this is counterproductive to at least three years of intense diplomatic work by American ambassadors, who is to say where we should draw the line between information that is “leakable” and information that should be kept under wraps.
The truth is, there isn’t one. The American people cannot rely on the government to be responsible with the information it makes public. Then again, if we adopt a somewhat less opaque transfer of information, where the government doesn’t do things like auction off Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for meetings with the president, as the administration facilitated with Slovenia and other nations, then maybe the American people wouldn’t need to have to keep the red flag going into flames over America’s morality.
Although these things make American leaders look bad and gives us a grim truth about the way our government functions, it’s good to know that things aren’t as they seem. The general public should be spared the details and the media should be allowed to do its job and investigate the depth and breadth of these inner workings. Even The New York Times exercised restraint and ethical responsibility in its publishing of the cables online, leaving informants and names anonymous.
But as it stands now, WikiLeaks is in a stage of adolescent carelessness. But at the same time, it has our country on its toes, and whether we like it or not, WikiLeaks will lead to a more productive evolution of government transparency and foreign relations.
