Some conversations are meant to be private. We all have the venting sessions, the cry fests, the personal revelations – we often say things that, if we were with different people or under difference circumstances, would never be said at all. For those working in the State Department, privacy is about more than having a best friend who won’t tell the guy you like that you talk in your sleep. It is about building professional trust that allows colleagues to have intense conversations about tough issues, or life-or-death secrets.
Have you ever listened to a diplomat give a speech about sensitive international issues? They are not particularly candid. But if negotiators actually talked with each other the way they do when at a press conference, few international agreements would be reached. And just like any one of us would be upset if our chosen confidante spilled our secrets to the world, so too do diplomats have a right to be upset when their private deliberations are published to the world. The recent WikiLeaks release of classified State Department cables is a violation of the professional trust nurtured between American diplomats and their international counterparts. Further, the WikiLeaks release did not reveal any improprieties or corruption; in fact, it really had no meaningful, positive impact.
There have been instances in American history in which political leaders have done really awful things and attempted to hide them from the American public. (I hope Watergate jumps into your mind.) In those cases, reporters gaining access to classified information and revealing it to everyone serves a meaningful purpose, and indeed fosters some of the values on which this country is founded – namely, open discussion, government transparency and popular contemplation of political decisions. However, today’s leaked cables do not expose anything more than the gritty realities of international diplomatic ties.
Yes, it is amusing to hear an analogy equating Medvedev with Robin and Putin with Batman. But does that reveal questionable actions on the part of US diplomats, actions that should be condemned by public, thereby forcing a change in the way the United States interacts with other countries? No.
Then there’s the argument of government transparency – the more there is, the better. So, one could argue, making this information public is really aiding democracy by letting everyone know what governmental officials are doing and thinking. But, as argued earlier, there are some things that are best kept secret. Diplomacy requires a lot of off-the-record conversations, and violating that confidence damages the professional trust that is necessary for diplomacy to work.
Being the political junkie/news enthusiast/possible aspiring diplomat that I am, I receive State Department update emails, elucidating the myriad activities of that illustrious bureau. Recently, many of the press conferences and daily briefings sent out – either at the behest of the speaker or the insistence of reporters – have dealt with the WikiLeaks controversy. These interviews have informed some of my thinking on the issue. According to Hillary Clinton, the leaks were “an attack on America’s foreign policy interest…[and] the international community” that also threaten the well-being of allies abroad. These sentiments have been echoed by many others in the State Department.
The Secretary raises an important point. A human rights activist working in Myanmar, for example (and, to be clear, this is not drawn from the leaked cables), who covertly communicates with American diplomats to detail the conditions under the ruling junta needs to have his identity protected. There are a lot of places in the world in which dissent can lead to one’s death. These leaked cables could make it easier for repressive regimes to do just that.
The violation of professional trust, again, is a significant concern. The State Department spent the past few weeks contacting international diplomats, warning them of the release. Now, considerable resources are being spent to make reparations after the fact. American diplomatic relations do not need any additional challenges. International opinion of America fell during the second Bush’s tenure. When Obama was elected, international opinion rose slightly, but the United States would still run into difficulties winning an international popularity contest.
It is hard enough for America to negotiate human rights treaties, pass sanctions against nations such as Iran and North Korea, forge agreements on climate change or the various other goals this country would like to promulgate when the only thing we have to do is persuade others to join in the effort. You’ve all had group projects; it’s a challenge to get 3 people to work together, let alone the 192 countries of the United Nations, all with different agendas, domestic political situations and ideologies. Now throw in the fact that diplomats are hesitant to talk with American diplomats because those confidential conversations might not be all that confidential. If someone in your group told your professor you hadn’t done any work, would you want to be partners with them in the future? If your best friend posted your deepest secret on Facebook, would you still be friends? Trust is important, and a violation of trust undermines one’s ability to do one’s job.
The WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables did not serve any high ideological purpose. It did not expose any disreputable behavior of the United States’ diplomatic corps to the American people. It did not make for a more transparent government. What it did was threaten the safety of activists working in dangerous situations abroad. It did undermine the professional trust built between diplomats. And, of course, it showed that Julian Assange would make a terrible confidante.
Elise Swanson ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and English.
