I have a love/hate relationship with WikiLeaks.
Other than finding Julian Assange, the presumed founder and spokesperson, rather creepy and someone I would not invite for a beer and game of billiards, I consider the organization’s massive assault on diplomacy deplorable.
On the other hand, who can argue when it releases a video of an Apache helicopter firing on innocent civilians in Iraq, and calls attention to military abuse? It is the release of diplomatic cables I find scary.
Looking back to 1978:
On a warm, late August night in Tehran, we were discussing the Shah’s chances of remaining in power with U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan. Within six months, the Iranian revolution would sweep over the country.
My boss was the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. We concluded that evening the Shah didn’t stand a chance. Sen. Robert Byrd asked the ambassador for a secure telephone to call President Jimmy Carter. By February, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was out.
At the time, few would have wanted that discussion between the ambassador, Sen. Byrd and two aides in the public domain. It was a sensitive dialogue, during which scenarios were developed and discarded.
After meeting with the Shah, we left the country without holding the expected news conference. There was nothing positive to be said that could support America’s long-time ally. We simply didn’t want to telegraph the obvious – that the Shah was history.
US State Department cables rarely present the complete picture. They represent snapshots in time: the thoughts of an ambassador at a given moment, the analysis of a consular official or the thinking of a visiting senator and his staff.
This is diplomacy at work, and how it has worked fairly well for hundreds of years, mostly to the benefit of mankind and sometimes the pursuit of peace. It is back-channel talk, nuanced language and the acknowledgement that secrecy has a legitimate purpose.
That is not to say that I regret that the Kyiv Post publishes such material, as it has done on several occasions. I don’t.
Having been released, such cables represent news. They make for interesting, though incomplete reading. A history written strictly using such information would not stand the test of time. Cables are subjective, though often extremely useful pieces in the historical puzzle.
Recently we had a front page story based on WikiLeaks information. It was titillating material. Apparently, a few years back the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine described the nation’s leadership as a kleptocracy, which, roughly defined, means a government of thieves.
US cables rarely show complete picture of events; they are snapshots.
That’s pretty frank talk (although reminiscent of the line from Casablanca: “I’m shocked. I’m shocked that gambling is going on here”), particularly when describing the leadership immediately after the Orange Revolution.
We’re talking about hapless President Viktor Yuschenko, argumentative Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and, later, the opportunistic Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. No one – then or now – covered themselves with glory.
During my globetrotting days, most often with the U.S. Senate leader acting as presidential emissary, there were dozens of discussions that could have led to “gotcha” moments had purloined cables made headlines. Some would have been harmful to American’s interest; others would have merely been embarrassing.
There were sensitive discussions with then-Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko over nuclear arms limitation, with Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping over normalization of relations with China, and with Panama strongman Omar Torrijos over the Panama Canal treaties. Each discussion, taken out of context, could have undermined achievement of the ultimate objective.
Regarding relationships among nations, I favor the cloak of common sense over secrecy, but believe that, at times, secrecy is not only necessary but required as nations engage one another on the diplomatic chessboard.
It is important not to link diplomacy to issues that should be unrelated. When a certain columnist suggested that U.S. diplomats boycott Ukrainian diplomatic functions because of the Tymoshenko trial, I cringed. It was, at best, naive.
This is not the time to stifle diplomatic contact. When President Carter called for a boycott of the Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I felt the same. The boycott was not – well – diplomatic.
The WikiLeaks affair has probably already had a chilling effect on the way diplomats communicate. I imagine that the State Department has already cautioned staff to report facts and analysis, but to avoid hyperbole or overly descriptive language. Inner voices are asking: “How would this look if the newspapers get a copy?”
WikiLeaks disclosures have done a lot of good, but prior to releasing information, they should consider whether the information has a constructive purpose, or whether, like an arsonist, they are merely lighting fires so that they can watch the ensuing flames.
Kyiv Post CEO Michael Willard can be reached at [email protected]
