Another day, another set of revelations …
- The cables further revealed how the nexus of business and state interests among Russia’s ruling elite had fueled suspicions in Washington that Mr. Putin, in spite of his vigorous denials, had quietly amassed a personal fortune … “a confidential cable pointedly mentioned the Swiss oil-trading company Gunvor, as being ”of particular note” … the company, the cable said, is rumored to be one of Putin’s sources of undisclosed wealth … one estimate said the company might control half of Russian oil exports, potentially bringing its owners billions of dollars in profit.
- A cable that briefed President George W. Bush before a visit to Ottawa in late 2004 shed further light on the asymmetrical relationship with Canada — a country, the embassy wrote, that was engaged in soul-searching about its decline from middle power status to that of an active observer of global affairs … it also noted that Canadian officials worried that they were being excluded from a club of English-speaking countries as a result of their refusal to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States had created a channel for sharing intelligence related to Iraq operations with Britain and Australia, but Canada was not invited to join … the Canadian government has expressed concern at multiple levels that their exclusion from a traditional four-eyes construct is punishment for Canada’s non-participation in Iraq and they fear that the Iraq-related channel may evolve into a more permanent three-eyes only structure, the cable said.
Has the world of diplomacy ever seen anything like this? An excruciating daily drip feed of private observations, commentaries, insider gossip, speculation, insinuation, indelicacies — all written by professional American diplomats about the leaders and governments of dozens of countries on whom the US depends to conduct its global affairs.
From the day the Wikileaks “embassy cables” began disgorging earlier this week, every diplomat in every embassy from every country who writes private reports will do so with the knowledge, and fear, that their work could become public. And that will change everything.
The world of diplomacy will never be the same again.
The nature of secrecy, and also of the political system tends towards non-disclosure, only disclose what you must. Just in case it gives the other party an unfair advantage.
Dividing the world into “other parties” strengthens nationalism and other grouping rather than foster open communication. There seems to me to be very little effort to review the value of security and endeavor only to be so when we must. After every security scare the tendency is to increase secrecy and so that even the quantity of knives and forks in a defense department become confidential information.
Like instructions to the front door bouncer secrecy always accounts for the lowest common denominator and to do otherwise is a complex problem. Like most complex problems it will take a revolution to fix them. So they will not happen.
In the absence of reform and reasonableness a tranche of wiki leaks occasionally is the best we can come up with, then I am all for it. Sure this will push somethings further underground but it has also manged to bring allot into the light as well.
The effect on the Cloak and dagger mob is on balance a good thing as now they realise they may need to account for their opinions not just their annual report.
So far the best surprise has been the intelligence and integrity revealed by Imran Khan in the embassy leaks. Who would have thought it? maybe there is hope for Pakistan yet.
Why are Crikey’s editorials anonymous? How is this consistent with the openness and accountability that Crikey promotes for Australian public life, including the media?
Or at least a *reason* why the editorials are anonymous.
Anyone else noticed the really gossipy tone of most of the leaked cables? Do our diplomats really need to operate at such a level? And do they get classified just so this gossipy style isn’t revealed to the public?
I say let the sunshine in, onya Wikileaks!
Agree with Gavin M and Meski, why the veil of mystery over the editorial? Because I utilise a pseudonym this looks like the pot calling the kettle black but I’m not being paid as a professional for high profile commentary.