Post-WikiLeaks: El Salvador
Published in Diario CoLatino
(El Salvador) on 16 December 2010
by Cesar Ramirez Caralvá (link to original)
(El Salvador) on 16 December 2010
by Cesar Ramirez Caralvá (link to original)
Translated from
by Chris Sagona.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Whatever the WikiLeaks revelations may be, they'll only be significant if they become the impetus for legal proceedings. Otherwise it's all routine information and insight that might impact social discussion, but that doesn't mean any significant change in relations between the U.S. and El Salvador.
As stated in a previous article, the nation needs a profound change in character to be projected to the rest of the world, with demonstrable democratic principles and objectives in striving for peace. But it also essentially needs a new multicultural and multiethnic image based on our history, with inclusive values and precise strategies for cooperation, security, sovereignty, etc.
If WikiLeaks had published these documents in the decades of the Cold War or in the ‘80s, surely the course of events would have been different. It would have accelerated legal proceedings, met 10 or 15 years later, unfortunately too late to save thousands of innocent lives.
In keeping with that, if there were to have been evidence of illegal activity involving drug trafficking, corruption or other crimes, investigations or security should have gotten to the bottom of it. Otherwise it would only end up as decorative paperwork on officials' desktops. Perhaps there could have been crucial information that could save innocent lives.
Some aspects of the WikiLeaks information help us understand diplomacy: How do representatives of nations conduct themselves? Embassy reports are full of formal and informal discussion, subjective evaluations and assessments, some with great contempt for Latin America, with offensive opinions about dignitaries and representatives who receive foreign embassies.
A few years ago, in a corporate proceeding, a senior executive, who was acting as a spy attending opponents' events, had been told to be very polite in social encounters, to carefully question and to listen to sensitive issues and note the weaknesses and strengths of the opponents. This is common in corporate business; now WikiLeaks notes very similar actions, but with the difference that these are not executives of large corporations.
There is a new post-WikiLeaks phenomenon: the democratization of reports confirming already existing unofficial versions and suspicions. But with this comes confirmation of many open secrets about our nation. In fact, many reports about the nation are in the public domain already, except for not already being known as the opinion of foreign officials.
Some actions described in WikiLeaks reports are very similar to those used by Talleyrand (Napoleon Bonaparte's Foreign Affairs Minister) skillfully managing hidden power.
WikiLeaks opens up a new informational and diplomatic history, democratizing world public opinion.
As stated in a previous article, the nation needs a profound change in character to be projected to the rest of the world, with demonstrable democratic principles and objectives in striving for peace. But it also essentially needs a new multicultural and multiethnic image based on our history, with inclusive values and precise strategies for cooperation, security, sovereignty, etc.
If WikiLeaks had published these documents in the decades of the Cold War or in the ‘80s, surely the course of events would have been different. It would have accelerated legal proceedings, met 10 or 15 years later, unfortunately too late to save thousands of innocent lives.
In keeping with that, if there were to have been evidence of illegal activity involving drug trafficking, corruption or other crimes, investigations or security should have gotten to the bottom of it. Otherwise it would only end up as decorative paperwork on officials' desktops. Perhaps there could have been crucial information that could save innocent lives.
Some aspects of the WikiLeaks information help us understand diplomacy: How do representatives of nations conduct themselves? Embassy reports are full of formal and informal discussion, subjective evaluations and assessments, some with great contempt for Latin America, with offensive opinions about dignitaries and representatives who receive foreign embassies.
A few years ago, in a corporate proceeding, a senior executive, who was acting as a spy attending opponents' events, had been told to be very polite in social encounters, to carefully question and to listen to sensitive issues and note the weaknesses and strengths of the opponents. This is common in corporate business; now WikiLeaks notes very similar actions, but with the difference that these are not executives of large corporations.
There is a new post-WikiLeaks phenomenon: the democratization of reports confirming already existing unofficial versions and suspicions. But with this comes confirmation of many open secrets about our nation. In fact, many reports about the nation are in the public domain already, except for not already being known as the opinion of foreign officials.
Some actions described in WikiLeaks reports are very similar to those used by Talleyrand (Napoleon Bonaparte's Foreign Affairs Minister) skillfully managing hidden power.
WikiLeaks opens up a new informational and diplomatic history, democratizing world public opinion.