If Der Spiegel’s take on WikiLeaks’ document dump were to permeate down into the public’s grey matter, I might count the leaks as a good thing.
On the whole, the cables from the Middle East expose the superpower’s weaknesses. Washington has always viewed it as vital to its survival to secure its share of energy reserves, but the world power is often quickly reduced to becoming a plaything of diverse interests. And it is drawn into the animosities between Arabs and Israelis, Shiites and Sunnis, between Islamists and secularists, between despots and kings. Often enough, the lesson of the documents that have now been obtained, is that the Arab leaders use their friends in Washington to expand their own positions of power.
But, the press will get this whole thing cleaned up soon, once they’re done sensationalizing the embarrassment its done to America’s reputation and standing in the world. It’s doubtful that the public will learn anything lasting that changes how our politicians pull our strings. Unfortunately, I have to view these leaks as more damaging than helpful. They undermine our diplomatic efforts more than anything else, and I would prefer our diplomatic efforts be strengthened.
I enjoy the fly-on-the-wall aspects of the leaks, and I personally am grateful to have valuable information to help inform my worldview. But I think leaks of this type shouldn’t be done in some wholesale manner. They should be aimed at educating the public about specific areas where they are being misled. This dump was not selective. It wasn’t done to serve the public, although the public can benefit from some of the information. It appears to have been a clear effort to embarrass the United States and complicate our relations with allies and foes alike.
I can’t characterize this as a whistleblower situation, even if there are examples in such a large sample that would merit that designation if divulged by themselves. Do we need the world to know stuff like this?
Another reports that the wife of Azerbaijan leader Ilham Aliyev has had so much plastic surgery that it is possible to confuse her for one of her daughters from a distance, but that she can barely still move her face.
Did the President tell the American public that the First Lady of Azerbaijan could move her face? Where’s the whistleblowing element to this release? And don’t think it doesn’t matter.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emissaries also learn of a special “Iran observer” in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku who reports on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.
I don’t think Der Spiegel is in a position to know if that disclosure provided enough information to Iran for them to close down our “Iran observer” in Baku. And who knows whether or not our access to that source could be diminished simply because the president doesn’t like to see his wife insulted in print. Less strange things happen in foreign relations all the time. If we’re going to put stress on our foreign relationships and test our spies’ tradecraft, we ought to have something of equal or greater value to the American public to offset that. This release wasn’t discriminating in that regard, and I share the official outrage about how this was done.
Gotta say I agree. I don’t see anything (yet) that particularly surprises me. Hence I doubt most other nations will be surprised either.
But knowing that anything and everything in the future may become public in such a “public” way makes diplomacy all the more difficult.
.
A number of these guys are from the world’s best Internet security scene or as you will … former hackers. A Dutchman included.
WikiLeaks a global operation [pdf]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Message from Wikileaks to world leaders: The internet has made the entire world a small town.
The message that ordinary Americans will get is that diplomacy is just office politics written large. The same backbiting, amateur psychoanalysis, behind-the-scenes factionalism, double-dealing, and occasional candor.
The message the we should get is that this is what the folks we pay to be sophisticated diplomats are actually reporting to their information clients and bosses because that is what those clients want to hear. And that dynamic is not confined to the US diplomatic corps. If you want to know what diplomacy right now is so effed up, look at the Wikileaks documents as symptomatic of the entire diplomatic enterprise of 200-plus nations, their supposed allies, their opposition leaders, and their intelligence operations.
What traditionally was the case was that the ambassador or envoy to another nation was in fact also the chief intelligence asset in that nation. The twentieth century growth of intelligence establishments complicated that picture immensely. Leaders appointed political supporters as ambassadors because the trusted them to deal candidly with their home country and under instructions of the leader who appointed them. The rise of a professional diplomatic corps and the declining quality of political supporters during the twentieth century changed the system. So it will be important in analyzing the Wikileaks documents to separate documents from appointed ambassadors and those from career diplomats. Documents from the ambassador as chief of mission from those of folks lower down the chain of command. Documents addressed to high-level officials and those that are peer-to-peer foreign service communications. And in reading, one should separate Bush-era cables from Obama-era cables to detect nuances of any change in policy.
In terms of political impact in the US, there will be little. Although other nations will claim damage and ask for apologies, these like the US disclaimers will be overstated because there is little evidence that US diplomatic correspondence is as secure as the US pretends (without whistleblowers). There are private peer-to-peer sharing of confidences in-country. There are foreign intelligence assets who perform better that US intelligence. And there are US citizens with access to State Department cables who are not happy with the continuation of the Bush foreign policy by the Obama administration with regard to the Middle East.
The challenge for Wikileaks is to show its impartiality by doing the same job on the UK, French, Chinese, Pakistani, Israeli, or Indian diplomatic cables. Those will be much harder for Wikileaks to get (unless US intelligence provides the leak to Assange–in which case he should be wary of disinformation).
The Wikileaks drop is not a matter of supporting, not supporting, or condemning. It is what it is. And it is a symptom of the new information environment that we are in. One in which the US is disadvantaged by its hubris and the fallout from Bush administration policies. There is no clearer demonstration of how Bush weakened America than the state of our armed forces and the series of Wikileaks.
Yup. Gotta agree with this. I’ve come to think of WikiLeaks as a parallel to the ACLU’s First Amendment absolutism. They’ll defend skinheads or pornographers as often as political dissidents, but they’re implementing a principle without regard to who benefits or doesn’t, on the basis that upholdiong the principle itself is more important than the particulars of any one case.
Similarly, WikiLeaks functions in the Internet age to sunshine secret operations, on the assumption that they shouldn’t be secret. Agree or disagree with the principle, but that’s what they do. And on balance, in 2010, IMO there’s far more being kept out of the public eye that shouldn’t be than there is legitimate need-to-know information.
So while I don’t really care about plastic surgery in Azerbaijan, I do care that our political leaders are frequently saying one thing in public and another in private, or burying the evidence of extensive war crimes (as has been documented in past releases). And it’s worth Azerbaijan gossip, or the occasional diplomatic setback, for that information to be made public. At minimum, the example of it gives leaders in many countries – not just the US – some additional pause about their ability to pull off such duplicity.
“I do care that our political leaders are frequently saying one thing in public and another in private, or burying the evidence of extensive war crimes (as has been documented in past releases).”
you mean the okey-doke.
LOL, I’m not surprised. I’m with John Cole on this one:
that actually makes it extra-funny for me, considering that every time I call my son or his mom the government’s policy is to listen in and record.
yup. They read our email, listen to our phone calls, moleste us at the airport all in the name of keeping us safe. And now the WH is in meltdown mode over this? I think we need to know what is being done in our names and I don’t particularly care how it’s done.
I like it.
Gotta disagree here. I’ll just quote Greenwald for my thoughts:
I, and Glenn, both understand the objections of undermining diplomacy. Those are reasonable. But in the end, I am a liberal, and the secrecy of the US government has gotten out of hand. I’m tired of this endless authority they think that they have, and Wikileaks with this leak included is all that we have right now to fight back to tell them “Enough!”
and I bet it would blow our minds if we ever found out just what the hell is going on in our government and embassies etc. If this is how we can find out, then so be it.
To the WH I say boo friggin hoo. You knew this was coming for months. If you are so embarrassed by what is in these cables then perhaps you shouldn’t be DOING what is so embarrassing to you. Our foreign policy is in shambles anyway so why not fix it??
duh
How much is in there about Obama though?
Boo:
I am disappointed. Is this release going to harm us any more than Tom Friedman or Kaplan’s op-ed page does? Or Dubya and his cronies did?
Both the harm and the benefit from the document dump is likely to be minimal, so I can’t get too worked up about it. I suppose the best thing that could come out of the incident is that the government becomes less sloppy with its confidential documents.
Or stops classifying everything as a state secret so that they can protect the real state secrets.
but that would make too much sense (it’s too sensible)…
Better to mobilise the 101st Airborne to kill the flea than to simply spray it… seems to be the operational motivation here.
This too shall pass……
It’s the result of “worse case scenario” thinking. Not everything is the worst case; somebody is pisspoor at evaluating risks. Both the severity and probability of the risk.
I’d give Assange and Manning a Nobel Peace Prize. Exposing the dark underbelly of international relations and in particular the shameful and incompetent behavior of our State Department is an invaluable service to humanity.
just wish Assange & co. had expended as much effort to expose other nations’ seedy diplomacy as they have with the USA.
God knows, we aren’t the only dirty-pool-players in this pool hall….
.
See my comment above.
WikiLeaks a global operation [pdf]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
This was just the tip of the iceberg… there still is so much more that we don’t know. But the revelation of Hilary Clinton issuing a directive authorizing the theft of credit card numbers of top U.N. officials is priceless and she should resign.
Of course, that would be Obama’s worse nightmare… an unemployed and disgruntled Hilary looking for something to do during the 2012 primary season.
Btw, does anybody know what Hilary would have done with General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon’s credit card? Perhaps she would have used it to charge for a couple of hookers from an escort service and then blackmailed him. It doesn’t seem so preposterous now, does it?
This is why the work that Wikileaks does is so important.
the other leaks, basically confirmed what we had read if you had been inquisitive. this dump is the sensitive side of international politics, and I believe hurts us as a country.
The internet has redined “free speech”. It is no longer what the New York Times or Fox tells you. On balance the world is probably a better place for that
That’s the hope, isn’t it?
We will see as Wikileaks continues issuing the documents it has received.
Their success will cause other whistleblowers to use them as a destination.
But the risk is that some nation plants disinformation through leaks to them. Then any hope of accurate information goes away.
Another aspect is that freedom of speech or lack of it is a continuum. OK wikilaeks ahs moved us along the road towards more freedom of information (whether accurate or not).
However, in the past we had a relaitvely free press that at times released stories highly embarrasing to governments within their own countries.
However over time that increasingly corporate owned media came ot a cosy relationship with governments that eventually led to the cheerleading of the Iraq war without investigation of facts by the New York Times. That was a setback and a reversal on the continuum away from freedom of information, and it could be argued basically set the scene for wikileaks or some such similar orgnaization.
The worry is of ocurse that at some point wikilakes will also reach an accomodation with governments (maybe it already has) to release what is favoured. Then again that probably only sets the foundations for another new-wikileaks organization furhter down the line. At tiems it may be one step back but the two steps forward leads us alwasy into more freedom of information. With that though comes other problems. How do we access the info and how do we know what is true or false. The propagandists are still there and there and the irony is that the discredited New York Times still gets to pick and chose what wikileaks we get to hear about and maybe in the noise the real stories are lost or more accurately nicely hidden by the governmental-corporate propaganda apparatus that still exists all around us and labelled insanely as either the free media, fourth estate or fair and balanced news organs.
More freedom of information doeasnt mean more accurate information as how you access it is still the critical point.
Government is too secretive as it is. It’s good to let some of the dirty laundry air out so that the people can see how their leaders are truly representing them around the world. While security issues are of a concern, and open government should be embraced in the free world.
but you don’t know the first thing about military intelligence, do you? it’s amusing and reminds me of why i can’t properly blog the word “naivete” on most commenting systems. heh.
keep on believin’. it makes a good pop song.
I’m no expert in military intelligence, but I probably no a little more about the intelligence community than your average blogger. I know enough to know that you can’t really know when you are compromising a source just be reading over some dispatch from an embassy if you don’t have the context.
For example, how many Iranians are currently living in Baku who have access to first-hand accounts of what goes on when the Iranian National Security Council meets? How many of those people are in a position to give sensitive intelligence to people in the State Department at the U.S. Embassy?
How long would it take to narrow down the field of potential suspects and recall them all just to be safe?
Sorry, but the editors at the New York Times don’t know what they’re doing. They might make the right call, or the wrong one, but I know enough about intelligence to tell you that they are not in a position to make the call.