WikiLeaks Assaults International Diplomacy

I was surprised and disturbed by the lack of outrage over the extraordinary leaks coming out of the WikiLeaks operation. There are even indications of support or approval, including from some in the mainstream media. To me, the results of this leaking of information ranged from embarrassment and chagrin to dangerous tampering with the mechanisms of diplomacy and government.

Don't misunderstand. I would agree that the role of a whistle blower can be important. If someone has information that serious violations of human or personal rights are being endangered, or that criminal violations are occuring, the whistle blower can be an individual of integrity and nobility serving the common good. A thoughtful individual who carefully concludes that a piece of information should come to light for the good of individuals or even the country and is willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions is to be applauded.

The indiscriminate distribution of some 250,000 documents to the press is another matter altogether. Did anyone even bother to screen these documents? Did it matter, or was this just an effort to demonstrate power, vent hostility, and cause harm to governments. The whole affair seems petty, thoughtless, and malicious. The leaks are clearly designed to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. This is not heroic it is offensive and dangerous.

Consider first, at the level of embarrassment, one's own personal situation. Do you really want what you say about your Aunt Minnie after she leaves, revealed to her and those around her when she arrives back at her home? Do we not expect our private conversations to be private? Is it no longer possible to share a serious private conversation without being in danger of having our private thoughts and secrets shared with others? Remenmber how betrayed we felt when we shared a confidence with a best friend and then found that it had been shared with others? How do leaders of other countries feel when they hear their private words bandied about the press, or when they see unflattering depictions of themselves from officials they had worked with in confidence? What damage will this do to future contacts with these and other foreign officials?

The press of course believes the public has a right to know in almost every instance. There is no doubt that there are too many secrets and many things are classified that need not be. Also, too many items are kept classified beyond the period of time that would be necessary or appropriate. Some recent efforts had been made to declassify many of these documents but it has ground to a halt, partly due to the problems of the Iraq war. More needs to be done along these lines, but this does not justify the wholesale dumping of material with no concern about who it may hurt or what damage it may cause. This is irresponsibility of the worst sort, because it involves the security and well being not just of this nation but of nations across the world.

There is appropriately much emphasis today on transparency and accountablility in the conduct of government, corporations and the like. In many cases open meetings are required and it is expected that no business will be conducted behind closed doors or decisions made that have not seen the light of day. Two memorable examples of business conducted in secret include the efforts to produce a health care plan during the Clinton administration, and the conversations Vice President Dick Cheney had with oil executives early in the George W. Bush administration.

While transparency and accountability are laudable goals, can any business really be conducted fully in the light of day? How do deals actually get made? Isn't it necessary to discuss and plan what is to take place? Can decision makers really talk openly and candidly and negotiate as necessary with the world looking on? I remember that Baltimore City required open meetings, yet when the school board would meet in public session to pass and implement policies the decisions had already been made prior to these open meetings. It is difficult for me to understand how it oould ever be otherwise.

On the national level the issue becomes even more complicated. Nations have positions that they have taken on issues important to their own interests. The whole point of diplomacy, however, is to nudge countries to more moderate or cooperative positions. As seen from the recent leaks, Saudi Arabia has adopted positions that are appropriate for public consumption, yet our goal may be to have them explore serious issues and consider options that may go beyond their stated public positions. It's bizarre to think all communication can be stated publicly without providing opportunities for private negotiations.

What will happen now? Who will be willing to make statements that might move negotiations forward if they think they may be reading their words on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. These kinds of leaks will paralyze internationaal diplomacy, and retard the possiblity of productive deals getting made. Who knows for how long this disruption to international diplomacy may continue? WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, and security must be truly made secure whatever that entails within the limits of the law.