The recent revelation of 250,000 messages sent by U.S. diplomats on the whistleblower site “Wikileaks” has sparked significant controversy about the tension between media’s obligation to hold the government accountable and the government’s obligation to protect American lives. The federal government has widely denounced the release, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it “an attack on the international community.” This particular release is unique, because unlike the documents pertaining to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it reveals a candid assessment by U.S. diplomats of world leaders, both ally and enemy, and international security threats. According to the BBC, only 6% of the documents were “secret” and 40% “confidential; the rest were unclassified. Should Wikileaks continue to release such documents? I believe the answer is complicated and situational, but err in the affirmative.
One thing the public may not realize is just how much of the information “revealed” by Wikileaks could already be discovered with some simple searches and educated inferences. For example, the revelation that many Arab states had urged the administration to attack Iran’s nuclear facility is only surprising until you discover it was Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates. The mistaken rendition of a German citizen and negotiations for transferring Guantanamo prisoners is no surprise either; reporters and analysts have been studying that trend for near a decade. Anti-terrorism policy in Yemen and Qatar is predictable- this is a Global War on Terror, right?- and plans for a unified Korea have been talked about publicly with South Korean officials. The really interesting stuff is just the stuff that holds American diplomats accountable- information about how and with who they make deals, and what they’re willing to compromise in order to maintain the upper hand. The international community already has a low opinion of us, and Wikileaks shows that it may be with good reason. Revelation of such S.O.P.s is critical to changing that image, and holding our diplomats accountable to democratic decision-making. The alternative is the same kind of secrecy and back room dealings that keeps a dictator in power. But a dictator isn’t much better than a dictatorial foreign policy ideology that maintains itself through deception and deceit.
