Comments on: WikiLeaks, Front Stage/Back Stage

By: DC Week in Review: DSK and the Presumption of Guilt « Jeffrey C. Goldfarb's Deliberately Considered

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:15:28 +0000

[…] (WikiLeaks and the Politics of Gestures and Political Leadership and Hostile Visibility) and I (WikiLeaks Front Stage/Back Stage) fundamentally agree that WikiLeaks’ general release of secret diplomatic exchanges potentially […]

By: Mario Vargas Llosa, The Politics of Gesture in Peru and Beyond « Jeffrey C. Goldfarb's Deliberately Considered

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:13:39 +0000

[…] commitment to make visible all things hidden is deeply problematic, as I explored in my initial post on WikiLeaks. But this doesn’t mean that making previously secret things public is always without […]

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:06:56 +0000

On the “oh well” debate: I think it’s important to reveal that the King is wearing no cloths, when the King is acting unjustly. But kings do pretend to wear more than they have on and if it is a good king, not oh well, but hip hip hurrah is the proper response. Diplomacy is a good thing. Hip hip hurrah!

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:57:57 +0000

I don’t think “Oh well” responses are particularly helpful. While there might not be anything surprising in the released cables, we don’t know what the consequences of this may be. Attention needs to be paid to the details.

So far, the Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan has offered to resign from his post and hassaid that, “U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry briefed Kabul diplomats on “potentially cataclysmic fallout” from the whistle-blower’s revelation, the newspaper reported. Eikenberry reportedly said he was afraid that the revelations could antagonize Karzai and force him into a stand-off with Western allies.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40469846/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

By: Alias

Alias — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:46:24 +0000

“I believe WikiLeaks’ disclosures present a clear and present danger to world peace.”

Considering that the world is in a state of prolonged international conflict- Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, I do not consider the WikiLeaks data dump itself to be the true danger to world peace. If Private First Class Bradley Manning (the second lowest rank in the army officer ranks) had access to these “secret” diplomatic cables, their importance must be immediately discounted. It is likely that the diplomatic and intelligence ranks of the countries involved already knew much of the information disclosed.

The real question is how these nations will react to having their shared understandings “outed” in public. It is most likely that the diplomatic contingents will restrain any kind of rash public reaction, if only to continue the diplomatic mutual understanding of politeness and shared secrecy.

So far I have not been surprised with the information revealed:
Saudi Arabia wants Iran dead and finances Al Qaeda- Old news
China is using computer attacks to penetrate US computer security- Bah
Russia is a totalitarian plutocracy run by oligarchs and former KBG officers- Oh well

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:22:36 +0000

I wonder however how much “WikiLeaks’ disclosures present a clear and present danger to world peace.” I, like Esther, wonder how powerful the leaks really are. However, I also wonder how much longer such leaks, as they pertain to supposedly private interactions, can continue. What will be done by the US, and other countries, to prevent such leaks from occuring? There’s no doubt that it will affect US diplomacy with other countries to some degree, but what might the unintended consequences of a continued series of leaks be? Could it chill diplomacy or make it more honest? I would tend to think that they would ultimately have a chilling effect, at least in the short term. Imagine the potential awkwardness Hilary Clinton now faces on her next diplomatic trip.

Julian Assange has stated that Hilary Clinton, “…should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that.”

Yet the US is not the only country spying on the UN for sure. Which leads me to perhaps the biggest issue I have with the particular leaks in question: its rather unfair to assume that the US is the only country whose diplomacy can be duplicitous and shady. Other countries know this very well, and I think that’s one of the reasons we haven’t seen a greater fallout in the wake of the latest “dump.” Their diplomatic houses are made of glass, albeit heavily tinted glass, as well.

By: Esther

Esther — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:38:24 +0000

I wouldn’t say I’m not at all concerned about any future diplomatic efforts after the current disclosures, BUT…
I identify some seriously clashing values regarding the publication of the diplomatic cables. The media must honor its professional values of not suppressing public information and telling the truth. On the other hand, the wishes exist not to compromise national security, endanger confidential informants, and, as you explain, not endanger the effect of peaceful diplomacy. In not wanting to undermine the process of diplomacy, your loyalties are with all of us who want to live in a world without war.
However, the loyalties of the publishers are not that different. Aren’t they believers in a strong democracy in which the citizens should be informed about the way the government makes decisions in their names? Based on the WikiLeaks we learned more about how the government works, which can now be publicly debated. One problem of course is that while we end up in a strong democracy, other countries may pick up arms based on the revelations. But I doubt if the content of the WikiLeaks is that powerful.
The NYT actually made some serious compromises by redacting the text and discussing the edits with the Obama administration. It also waited several weeks with publishing the WikiLeaks.
Of course, the NYT also has to deal with a bottom line and explained the Leaks as “adding sizzle.” But, again, based on the current revelations, I seriously wonder if these burst of openness can be that damaging to the survival of diplomacy and peace. After having learned how we talk about others behind their backs — which cannot be entirely new – there’s still a time and space for diplomacy instead of weapons.