THERE’S SOMETHING of the oxymoron in the idea of open diplomacy. We’re not talking, of course, of the sub-branch of diplomacy that involves international PR and the “winning of hearts and minds”, but of that more traditional kind, the representation of interests abroad. The kind which, in the case of the US, has been holed below the waterline this week by a series of WikiLeaks exocets.
The latest leaks are in truth far less dramatic than the previous batch from the same website which involved military incident logs from the field in Afghanistan showing collusion by US troops in covering up civilian casualties. But they are certainly both embarrassing and damaging to US diplomacy.
The likelihood of publication will see future punches pulled and lead to far less candid ambassadorial assessments of their hosts around the world. And unless the US finds the means of securing the communications of its envoys and reassuring sources that they are secure, they will also find their contacts a lot less talkative than in the past.
The leaks themselves, so far some 500 released out of a quarter of a million cables between the state department and 270 foreign US missions, are more impressive for their volume than for any new insights. Mostly they confirm stories, often high-grade gossip, some libellous and embarrassing, that have already been told by journalists but are given new authority: the wish of many conservative US allies in the Arab world that, as the king of Saudi Arabia suggests, the US should “cut off the head of the snake” by taking military action against Iran’s nuclear programme; the intimate links between Pakistan’s intelligence service and the Taliban; the corruption of politics in Russia; unflattering pen pictures of Nicolas Sarkozy and other allies.
The cables have provided some genuine news. The explicit admission by the prime minister of Yemen that he had lied to his parliament about US involvement in air raids on al Qaeda bases will cause him significant problems; and there’s the embarrassment to the British royal family in the disclosure that Prince Andrew, as a British trade representative, disparaged efforts to curb business bribery to a group of businessmen. Reports from Seoul that the Chinese may be beginning to cast adrift their ally in North Korea are, however, regarded with some scepticism – a reflection of the reality that such cables have to be read carefully as straws in the wind rather than the whole picture.
WikiLeaks and the newspapers co-operating with them have also acknowledged some of the dangers of their tactics by redacting or suppressing cables that might reveal and jeopardise sources and agents. It is a tacit acknowledgment that two competing imperatives, two public interests, one in understanding what is done in our name and the second in the confidential conduct of foreign policy, are not easily or completely reconcilable. It is not the function of the news media to assist the state in protecting its secrets. On the contrary, our function is to let in the light. But we have to acknowledge its rightful interest in attempting to do so.