Information Released by WikiLeaks: Much Ado about Nothing
Published in Le Devoir
(Canada) on 2 December 2010
by Karine Prémont (link to original)
(Canada) on 2 December 2010
by Karine Prémont (link to original)
Translated from
by Erin Summers.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
The documents that have been disseminated since the beginning of the week by WikiLeaks to five big Western newspapers and on the Internet have shaken international diplomacy. Indeed, there are plenty of unkind stories about several leaders that have made the headlines.
Representatives from the American government are trying to convince the population of the severity of the consequences that will come from the circulation of these documents. In particular, the government claims that they are an attack on the national security of the countries involved, as well as on international order itself.
Of course, it is not surprising that the Barack Obama administration is exaggerating the importance of these leaks: On the one hand, the administration wants to prevent another leak of this sort, and on the other hand, it wants to show its allies that it is not responsible for this leak. However, it is an overstatement to say that these leaks will change the foreign policy of the United States, especially concerning Iran, as some analysts would lead us to believe.
First, one must recognize that the leaked information from WikiLeaks will undoubtedly have certain immediate effects on the diplomatic relations between the United States and their allies, which will cool off. It is also possible that the security of the diplomatic sources is compromised by the various leaks released in WikiLeaks, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Pais and The New York Times. It will undoubtedly take the different embassies some time to rebuild their contact networks and create new bonds of trust.
Having said that, it is important to understand why the information divulged by WikiLeaks will not have a significant influence on American policy. First of all, it is important to remember that the creation of foreign policy is a slow and complex process that is only slightly impacted by outside influences — one only needs to think of the Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson or of the Iraq War under George W. Bush.
Even though it would sometimes be beneficial for discussions about foreign policy to be public, it is normal that they are not: No matter what the country, carrying out foreign policy requires a minimum amount of secrecy in order for it to succeed. As such, American policy on Iran was drawn up a long time ago, and it would be quite surprising — and unseemly — that the leaked information would change the nature of the current policy.
Presidential Leadership
It is often the presidential leadership style that determines what the impact of such a leak will be: The stronger the president’s leadership style, the less likely it is that outside influences will impact his position and the decision-making process. In Barack Obama’s case, it seems that he leads his decision-making team with confidence. This is evidenced by the fact that his position on Iran has not fundamentally changed since his 2008 electoral campaign: It is important to negotiate with Iran, using every diplomatic means possible, instead of relying on force. Although only time can tell us if the American president’s leadership style is really suitable, at the moment, there are few signs that Obama is leaning toward a military offensive in Iran. The leaked information, therefore, does not constitute a pretext for changing strategies and engaging in a war with Iran, as some outside observers maintain.
Paradoxal Effect
In fact, this leak — as is the case for the majority of leaks — will probably have an effect contrary to that which was sought after by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who claims to work for transparency and the responsibility of governments worldwide. Usually the consequence of information leaks is rather to strengthen the secrecy of discussions within the decision-making team and, therefore, the secrecy of the decision-making process in foreign policy.
This was the case in the Iran-Contra affair under Reagan: In order to avoid exposing the continued financial support for the Contra militants despite the ban put in place by Congress, the decision-making team was substantially reduced in size, and the decisions were made by a very limited group. The same thing was seen during Nixon’s presidency: The leaks concerning the secret bombings in Cambodia led the president and his main adviser, Henry Kissinger, to make decisions regarding foreign policy by themselves.
In general, the reinforcement of secrecy in the decision-making process is the most important and often the only consequence of information leaks concerning foreign policy of the United States. The information recently released from WikiLeaks should not be an exception.
Representatives from the American government are trying to convince the population of the severity of the consequences that will come from the circulation of these documents. In particular, the government claims that they are an attack on the national security of the countries involved, as well as on international order itself.
Of course, it is not surprising that the Barack Obama administration is exaggerating the importance of these leaks: On the one hand, the administration wants to prevent another leak of this sort, and on the other hand, it wants to show its allies that it is not responsible for this leak. However, it is an overstatement to say that these leaks will change the foreign policy of the United States, especially concerning Iran, as some analysts would lead us to believe.
First, one must recognize that the leaked information from WikiLeaks will undoubtedly have certain immediate effects on the diplomatic relations between the United States and their allies, which will cool off. It is also possible that the security of the diplomatic sources is compromised by the various leaks released in WikiLeaks, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Pais and The New York Times. It will undoubtedly take the different embassies some time to rebuild their contact networks and create new bonds of trust.
Having said that, it is important to understand why the information divulged by WikiLeaks will not have a significant influence on American policy. First of all, it is important to remember that the creation of foreign policy is a slow and complex process that is only slightly impacted by outside influences — one only needs to think of the Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson or of the Iraq War under George W. Bush.
Even though it would sometimes be beneficial for discussions about foreign policy to be public, it is normal that they are not: No matter what the country, carrying out foreign policy requires a minimum amount of secrecy in order for it to succeed. As such, American policy on Iran was drawn up a long time ago, and it would be quite surprising — and unseemly — that the leaked information would change the nature of the current policy.
Presidential Leadership
It is often the presidential leadership style that determines what the impact of such a leak will be: The stronger the president’s leadership style, the less likely it is that outside influences will impact his position and the decision-making process. In Barack Obama’s case, it seems that he leads his decision-making team with confidence. This is evidenced by the fact that his position on Iran has not fundamentally changed since his 2008 electoral campaign: It is important to negotiate with Iran, using every diplomatic means possible, instead of relying on force. Although only time can tell us if the American president’s leadership style is really suitable, at the moment, there are few signs that Obama is leaning toward a military offensive in Iran. The leaked information, therefore, does not constitute a pretext for changing strategies and engaging in a war with Iran, as some outside observers maintain.
Paradoxal Effect
In fact, this leak — as is the case for the majority of leaks — will probably have an effect contrary to that which was sought after by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who claims to work for transparency and the responsibility of governments worldwide. Usually the consequence of information leaks is rather to strengthen the secrecy of discussions within the decision-making team and, therefore, the secrecy of the decision-making process in foreign policy.
This was the case in the Iran-Contra affair under Reagan: In order to avoid exposing the continued financial support for the Contra militants despite the ban put in place by Congress, the decision-making team was substantially reduced in size, and the decisions were made by a very limited group. The same thing was seen during Nixon’s presidency: The leaks concerning the secret bombings in Cambodia led the president and his main adviser, Henry Kissinger, to make decisions regarding foreign policy by themselves.
In general, the reinforcement of secrecy in the decision-making process is the most important and often the only consequence of information leaks concerning foreign policy of the United States. The information recently released from WikiLeaks should not be an exception.