The Dangers of WikiLeaks

No matter how many goodies the WikiLeaks documents contain and no matter how much they increase our insight into important international matters, one has to realize that the disclosure of all this material also has dangers and disadvantages attached.

The prize for the most comical response to Cablegate goes undeniably to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the rest of the world wonders how much damage that American diplomacy incurs by the exposure of 250,000 confidential messages, the Iranian president perceives a sinister conspiracy.

Bizarre

The documents have intentionally been brought into circulation by Washington to put Iran in particular into disrepute. Julian Assange plays in cahoots with Hillary Clinton! Bizarre? Yes. But yet not completely surprising. Because the fact that Arab leaders urge behind closed doors for military action against Iran is, of course, not in line with the image of the regional relations that Ahmadinejad and his own like to convey — namely, that they and the Arab governments, in terms of the Islamic alliance, get along perfectly and that the tensions in the Middle East are completely on the account of the United States and Israel. In a fundamentalist vision of the world, contraindications have no place, and thus, only one explanation remains for the Arab indiscretions: They are put-up jobs. And the most disturbing in that is that someone like Ahmadinejad might even actually believe that himself.

Enlightening

For a better understanding of how people really think in the Middle East, the WikiLeaks-distributed documents are, of course, very enlightening. [It is] good that something — which until now, could only be attributed to anonymous sources in lobbies — is now written in black and white.

What goes for the Middle East also goes for other trouble spots, such as Pakistan and Korea: Regarding what goes on behind the scenes, very interesting things are revealed. Numerous American diplomats appear also blessed with a sharp sentience and a frank, even humorous, writing style where a characterization of the political developments in their posting is concerned, including the good and bad habits of various main characters. “My personal opinion of the State Department has gone up several notches,” the British historian Timothy Garton Ash wrote after reading the first series of documents. European diplomats — anonymously — expressed their jealousy for the boldness with which their American colleagues report to Washington.

Goodies

But no matter how many goodies the WikiLeaks documents contain and no matter how much they increase our insight into important international matters, one has to realize that the disclosure of all this material also has dangers and disadvantages attached — at least if you are afflicted with a bit more sophisticated worldview than the simple adage that everything going on behind the scenes is per definition flawed and is aimed at threatening the simple civilian.

Which is clearly the philosophy of Assange, who called the documents proof of the hypocrisy and corruptness of American diplomats and who earlier already went so far in his passion — or is it doggedness? — to reveal the technical details of a device with which soldiers can prevent the explosion of a roadside bomb, so that al-Qaida and the Taliban can now anticipate that during manufacturing.

Unhappy

James Rubin, assistant secretary of state for foreign affairs* in the Clinton government, observed in The New Republic this week that the left, where diplomacy is cherished as the number one means to settle international conflicts, should be unhappy with the disclosure of so many confidential pieces, because diplomacy will be unavoidably impacted.

Take the Middle East. Think of the largest diplomatic success in the conflict between Israel and the Arab world: the peace talks between Begin and Sadat at Camp David. That was preceded by months of diplomatic mediation. If there would have been a WikiLeaks then that had brought all related documents into publicity, the breakthrough would have probably never come, because already at an early stage, it would have been revealed what compromises both parties would probably do, and the pressure of critical public opinion would have only increased.

Affront

Finally, there is the personal affront for various celebrities. That Sarkozy is described as authoritarian and short-tempered, he will probably recover from fairly quickly — provided he is offended in the first place. But whether Putin and Erdogan will equally easily reconcile themselves with the anything-but-flattering qualifications of their way of acting is highly doubtful. Furthermore, those Russian sources who provided those American diplomats with such salient information about Iran and China will think twice before doing that again.

Not to mention that Iranian businessman who related how the sanctions against his country are circumnavigated. His name is not mentioned, but because of the many details, he seems easily traceable. Chances are small that conspiracy thinker Ahmadinejad will let this be.

*Editor’s Note: James Rubin served as assistant secretary of state for public affairs during the Clinton administration.