More on WikiLeaks

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on November 29, 2010

Today, I listened attentively, as I try to do each day, to the BBC Newshour program. It was chock-full of reporting on the WikiLeaks controversy, and as always, it featured communications from listeners commenting on the news. I expected that a number of the listeners would express schadenfreude over the leaked American diplomatic cables, and the bind that they may have put the United States into.

Except . . . almost all of the listeners either expressed outrage that the leak took place, and that WikiLeaks published the cables. I believe that only a single commenter whose message was read on the air approved. One commenter even agreed with Rep. Peter King, who stated that WikiLeaks ought to be designated a terrorist organization (more on that in a moment). Another thought that the descriptions of foreign leaders found in the cables were funny and spot-on.

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data,” so I am not going to claim that my story represents some kind of indicator on where the political winds are blowing when it comes to WikiLeaks. Still, it is possible–dare I say, “hopeful”?–that the public reaction to the WikiLeaks controversy is going to be a lot smarter than I thought that it might be. The public may well understand that frankness and the ability to express oneself clearly can be as important in diplomacy as is the art of subtlety. The public may well understand that the actions undertaken by WikiLeaks will only serve to prevent frank and open exchanges from taking place, and that this will serve to dilute analysis, and harm the policymaking process, as will a potential newfound reluctance of foreign governments, and foreign sources to give valuable information to the United States, for fear that private conversations may become public.

Additionally, the public may well understand what Daniel Drezner points out (if not, they should). When it comes to the analyzing the substance of the leaked cables:

. . . There are no Big Lies. Indeed, Blake Hounshell’s original tweet holds: “the U.S. is remarkably consistent in what it says publicly and privately.” Assange — and his source for all of this, Bradley Manning — seem to think that these documents will expose American perfidy. Based on the initial round of reactions, they’re in for a world of disappointment. Oh, sure, there are small lies and lies of omission — Bob Gates probably didn’t mention to Dmitri Medvedev or Vladimir Putin that “Russian democracy has disappeared.” Still, I’m not entirely sure how either world politics or American interests would be improved if Gates had been that blunt in Moscow.

If this kind of official hypocrisy is really the good stuff, then there is no really good stuff. U.S. officials don’t always perfectly advocate for human rights? Not even the most naive human rights activist would believe otherwise. American diplomats are advancing U.S. commercial interests? American officials have been doing that since the beginning of the Republic. American diplomats help out their friends? Yeah, that’s called being human. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me that these leaks show other governments engaged in far more hypocritical behavior.

In addition to their being no big lies, there are also no surprises–at least, no surprises for anyone paying attention to foreign affairs. Anyone really surprised by the fact that in private, Arab leaders are just as worried about a nuclear Iran as is Israel? Anyone really surprised that Nicolas Sarkozy has been said to have an authoritarian streak, that Silvio Berlusconi is too much of a party animal for his (and his country’s) own good, that democracy is dead in Russia, and that the Chinese are sick of the antics of the North Koreans? Oh, sure, the cables are very interesting, and informative. But are they all that shocking in their content? Hardly; we all are familiar with the storylines found in them. The titillating aspect of the cables is that they confirm what many have suspected regarding the opinions that are held by American diplomats, and that many of the cables make their points in interesting and colorful language.

As for how one might respond to WikiLeaks, it is probably much too much to label it a terrorist organization, as Peter King would want to do. But using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to punish the organization certainly seems like a viable option, though I want to have more information concerning the option before fully committing to it. Of equal note is the possibility that disrupting WikiLeaks’s efforts may count as “covert action” for oversight purposes, or that perhaps being “a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons,” qualifies WikiLeaks as a “foreign power” under FISA.

  • LarryD

    It is beyond dispute that Wikileaks is an espionage organization, aimed at the US. If that’s not enough legal basis, then our laws need to be reviewed. But I think the main issues is lack of will, or timidity, both with regard to Wikileaks and a couple of NYT stories back during Bush’s administration.

    I remind people, the Pentagon Papers decision only put severe limits on Prior Restraint, prosecution after publication was noted as a still available option by the Supreme Court itself.

    And while certain foreign governments may prefer to take a hands off approach to Assage and Wikileaks, that might easily change if the US is willing to play medium hardball, and act as offended as we have a right to. Sweden is probably willing to suffer a little diplomatic huffing as the price for strutting their moral superiority, they are not going to be so sanguine about losing Most Favored Nation status or being re-categorized from Neutral Country to Hostile Country. We are the offended party here, it’s past time to act like it.

  • Anonymous

    I would fervently wish to believe that the leaks are a beautifully orchestrated disinformation campaign by our government. If it is indeed and the interior facts match the external facts with the exception of really sensitive information not being disclosed then it may well be a great intelligence coup. Sure there are some embarrassing items, it wouldn’t be believable otherwise, but so far nothing really damaging and more importantly it has exposed a number of lies put out by leftist groups regarding the Palestinians among others.

    There are references to China’s inability to control N.Korea or Chinese inability to comprehend the NK situation. Keep in mind that this revelation are based on conversations between our diplomats and Chinese diplomats and do not necessarily reflect the reality of the true Chinese perceptions and understandings.

    If this is not a disinformation campaign by our government then the laxness is security is shocking to say the least and scary in its incompetence.

  • Pingback: Wikileaks – 3 days out «

  • Pingback: WikiLeaks, Again « Ric's Rulez

  • http://twitter.com/zamoose Doug Stewart

    I think my opinion of this whole fiasco may change if this story in re: Wikileaks and Russian communiques turns out to be true:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-30/moscows-bid-to-blow-up-wikileaks-russians-play-by-different-rules/

  • Pingback: Today in EVIL: December 1, 2010 | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

Previous post:

Next post: