WikiLeaks Disclosures and Diplomacy

What did the diplomatic dispatches amount to? One view is that they are proof that the US was struggling to get its way in the world, a superpower entering a long period of decline. Another is that they showed the State Department staff to be competent and professional, hardworking and committed.

Malaysia Digest

The release of US State Department diplomatic cables by a maverick website WikiLeaks since November 2010 has caused widespread embarrassment to many political leaders in countries around the world. The United States has been discomfited by the exposure of its secret communications and discussions about its friends and foes. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hit out at the concerted action as an attack not just on the US but also the international community. Some European and American politicians liken the massive disclosures to a diplomatic equivalent of the 911 attacks on New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon in 2001. It is not clear if these politicians were referring to the leaked State Department cables alone or also the earlier release by the same website of 391,000 classifies military reports on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whatever the case it is a moot question if the leaks had any substantive impact on US national security or cleared or clouded up the smoke and mirrors of US foreign policy. So what were the State Department cables all about? What are the implications for relations and intelligence exchange between nation states? The cables were dispatches from US embassies and consulates around the world, over 350 of them, ranging administrative matters to political reports and appraisals of the countries of their accreditation. There were some frank and unflattering assessments of political leaders. There were analyses, some of them of good quality, as well as comments about personalities, reports and records of meetings and summations of situations. There were essays on US-China relations or intractable problems and conflicts in the Caucasus. They highlighted the geopolitical interests and preoccupations of the US, such as nuclear proliferation and illicit drug trafficking, the supposed threat from Iran, the hard to control military situations Afghanistan and security threats in Pakistan.

The US embassy cables offered an incomparable detailed mosaic of life and politics in the early 21st century, as observed by American eyes. They also included disclosures of things that were of concern to citizens of the US and the world: human rights violations, corrupt practices and dubious financial ties between leaders of advanced countries. They spoke of corporate espionage, dirty tricks and hidden bank accounts.

What did the diplomatic dispatches amount to? One view is that they are proof that the US was struggling to get its way in the world, a superpower entering a long period of decline. Another is that they showed the State Department staff to be competent and professional, hardworking and committed. Most of the diplomatic corps were working to advance their nation’s interests and their government’s policies.

Implications for Relations

What are the implications for relations between the US and the countries reported on, and among those countries and third parties? Some leaders brushed off the embarrassing revelations, at least in public, while others went on the offensive. In some cases the US found it prudent to withdraw its ambassadors as their ability to function was compromised. In less prickly situations the offended countries registered their protests to the State Department.

Some examples from West Africa and North Africa are illustrative. Iran’s President Ahmedinejad, who was depicted in the cables as being unpopular in the Gulf region, dismissed the WikiLeaks disclosures as “psychological warfare”. He claimed that the US must have deliberately leaked its own files in a plot to discredit him. Saudi King Abdullah was reported to be discomfited by reports that he had urged the US to cut off the head of the snake, referring to the Iranian President’s defiant posture on developing a nuclear capacity.

In Tunisia and Libya there was short-term fallout. Washington pulled out its Ambassador in Tripoli because Gaddfi has been stung by comments about his attachment to his “voluptuous blonde Ukrainian nurse”. The US Ambassador in Tunis was similarly withdrawn though his unflattering reports Zein al Abdine bin Ali, the Algerian President and his son and the risks to the regime’s long term stability, proved to be prescient. Within a month of the publication of the cable Tunis was the grip of what some called the first WikiLeaks revolution in Jasmin Square. Gaddafi warned Tunisians not to be tricked by WikiLeaks which, he said, “published information written by lying ambassadors in order to create chaos”. Turkish Prime Minister reacted furiously to cables that suggested he was a corrupt closet Islamist. Mexico’s President was enraged by negative reports of his conduct of the drug war in his country.

Damage Control

Secretary Clinton visited the Middle East in January 2011 on what she described half jokingly as an “apology tour”. She had to reach out to leaders and others who had concerns abut either the general message of American confidential comments being exposed in this way or specific questions about their countries or themselves. That aspect of it had receded, she said, adding: “I have not had concerns expressed about whether any nation will not continue to work with and discuss matters of importance going forward.”

A study by IISS observed that the comparatively limited overall damage done to US diplomatic interests reflected the reality of the continuing indispensability of the US. As summed up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates,” some governments deal with because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us”. Foreign governments, the report observed, have long recognized the “leakiness” of Washington and that the administration cannot guarantee that information or views will be immune from authorized disclosure.

The WikiLeaks deluge of secret diplomatic traffic, however, was extraordinary. And it came about as a consequence of a deliberate policy of the State Department to distribute data more widely across government departments. Under a post-911 information sharing initiative called Net-centric diplomacy, embassy cables were routinely distributed via SPIRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network), a military operated b the US Department of Defense.

Communications that were marked SIPDIS for distribution via SIPRNt would be accessible to State Department employees as well as all members of the US military with “secret” security clearance. This meant that several million people had access to them. SPIRNet constituted an enormous bucket of information with huge potential for leaks. Recognizing this, US intelligence agencies stood aside from it and so have been peripherally affected b the latest disclosures. All it took was one disgruntled soldier or a low level analyst, based in Iraq, to spring the leak. He is said to have downloaded the cables on to rewritable CDs without being detected. Secretary Clinton has reportedly withdrawn the State Department from participation in SPIRNet.

Diplomatic Fallout

The US is not alone in sharing and exchanging assessment with other countries, particularly with allies and friends. Diplomats of friendly countries exchange notes about third parties in confidence. The online news portal Asia Sentinel published on January 20, 2011 the full cable from the US embassy in Canberra reporting an exchange of intelligence between officials of the US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and Australia’s Office of National Assessments in October, 2008. They traded assessments on a wide range of subjects from Iran to Japan and Southeast Asian countries and their leaders. The officials exchange notes about what regional officials had told them about the politics and personalities of certain countries.

These comments, published by Australian newspaper, evoked strong reactions from regional leaders concerned. Indonesian President Bambang Susilo Yudhoyono was obliged to protest and dismiss suggestions of corrupt political funding by his acolytes prior to his election. Malaysian leaders too conveyed their displeasure with Singapore officials over their private comments about Malaysian political personalities, which they said were unjustified. Singapore’s Foreign Minister (George Yeo) sought to play down the leaked cables and brushed them off as hearsay or gossip which did not form the basis of bilateral relations. In Thailand reports of comments by senior officials about the role of the monarchy in its tumultuous political events and the question of royal succession led to exchange of accusations of les majeste between political opponents.

In India the impact of the leaked cables was to compound the serial exposes of corruption which paralyzed the national parliament for weeks. In Japan the cables showed the tension between the US and Japanese governments over the relocation of a Marine air base in Okinawa and revealed how the two sides sought to promote or protect their national interests. Being the superpower it is, it is not surprising that the US employed “sharp elbows” occasionally, commented an academic analyst. The cables also showed how China exercised its influence on its neighbors through private diplomacy while making public pronouncements as measured instruments for conveying pressure.

In order to counter the WikiLeaks effect, government agencies need to strike a balance between the wider public’s need to know and the value of confidentiality of their private negotiations. Two guiding principle are suggested: first, to be open about the ground for secrecy, with clear criteria which can be defended; second, protect less but protect it better. There is a vast amount of information that governments keep secret, argued a historian. Many of the reports classified as secret could easily have appeared as news analysis pieces in newspapers. Having decided what they really need to keep secret they should make sure to keep it secret, and not upload it to a data base accessible to all and sundry.

Long Term Impact on Diplomacy

The assessment of the impact of the WikiLeaks disclosures has wound down to a more realistic one of embarrassment to parties concerned, but no real harm done to the US and its partners. The exposures of corrupt practices or crooked acts in some developing countries or illicit deals between developed countries have had lasting effect on the countries concerned, because those are common knowledge to their people. The cables have shown that American diplomats are hardworking, well informed, quite reliable in their reporting and astute in assessing the situation in their host countries. They are assiduous in compiling profiles of political leaders and key officials to assess whether they are pro or against US interests. The cables are a trove of information or observations about countries and leaders around the world.

These cables serve as examples of what most diplomatic representatives do or should do for countries of major interest to their governments. Collecting information and assessing people, places, actions and events form the staple of the tasks of diplomatic missions, beside the promotion of good relations and exchanges of communications and visits between the leaders and officials of their countries. That aspect of diplomatic work will continue. And so will the collection of intelligence by agents and representatives of intelligence agencies posted overseas.

However, if anything, the US cables have shown the need for officials and political personalities to be more discreet and circumspect in sharing views about politics and personalities of neighboring countries with diplomats from the US and indeed all countries. The disclosures would probably result in a more cautious environment for diplomats in their interactions with local contacts and sources; the latter could well begin with a disclaimer that what they said was off the record, and certainly not for passing to WikiLeaks!

*Taken from dinmerican.wordpress.com. Mushahid Ali is a Singapore Ambassador and Senior Fellow of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer.