While I might agree that many cables being released by WikiLeaks do not add any value to the public debate on world politics, the assertion that they endanger world peace is grossly exaggerated. On the contrary, the publications reveal a cynical world view and the need for diplomacy to change itself.

Russia is highly corrupt and politicians there have links with the maffia, Sarkozy is a bit of an authoritarian guy and Merkel is a bit boring and risk-adversive … Any news to be discovered here? No. Publicly, the US diplomats have been praised for the quality of their prose. Rightfully perhaps, but on the other hand such a big and resourceful apparatus that cannot reveal many more than is already known publicly first of all raises the question of its cost-effectiveness.

Does it harm peaceful diplomacy? Little to none. Of course there will be embarrasement, but will the diplomatic ties with France be hindered because of a description of Sarkozy? No. Relations with Turkey will definitely be worsened. But this is hardly a consequence of WikiLeaks. And US relations with Iran and North-Korea are as healthy as ever. The ‘danger-to-world-peace’ claim is merely based on the false ‘what if’ idea if diplomacy never would regain its privacy anymore. But there is no basis for this idea. The WikiLeaks documents are a one-time dump, it would be impossible – and indeed indesirable – to continuously publish each and every diplomatic gossip. Seen as a one-off dump, the WikiLeaks documents become very interesting from the perspective of democratic theory.

Documents that reveal Mrs. Clinton instructing to spy on foreign UN diplomats, that reveal that the US is not pushing too much to deter the terrorist financing coming out of Saudi Arabia due to other interests, that reveal that the Spanish government is pretty much OK with illegal CIA flights, that the Dutch government doesn’t want to admit that there are nuclear weapons on its soil ARE undeniable fit to print. Citizens have a right to know about the strategic decisions their governments are making on the international level.

Unfortunately, politics continues to be very much an elite enterprise. If the WikiLeaks documents reveal anything, it is foremost the hypocrisy of the average government and the impossibility of the average citizen to do anything about it. But the world is changing and WikiLeaks is only one example of this. In line with De Tocqueville some time ago we can say that this change – to more openness, to the downfall of elitist practices – is inevitable, the only thing we can do is to bend it to something beneficial or to let it turn into a catastrophy. Public trust in politics is at an all-time low. Right now, this is internationally leading to a surge in populism. However, it might be good to seriously consider institutional alternatives that give citizens a broader influence than only to vote every 3-6 years.

OK. Perhaps WikiLeaks should have published the 1000 most important documents instaed of all 250.000. The point is that – if you see the publication as a one-off dump – this all doesn’t matter. It is the diplomatic hypocrisy that is being attacked by giving it a public image. And not without success, even the attacks on WikiLeaks and its frontman are evidence of this. In this context, to accuse WikiLeaks of being a danger to world-peace is something absurd. If WikiLeaks would have published documents on US diplomatic ‘fact engineering’ prior to the Iraq war, it might even have deterred this war of G W Bush. To dig down in an obvious point that to come to diplomatic solutions you need some secrecy is to be pretty comfortable with the status quo and not seeing through the trees the wood anymore. To deny the obvious benefits of the WikiLeaks documents against government oppression is remarkable for everybody who says to believe in democracy.