WikiLeaks, So What?

I have always believed that if, by magic or some other trick — the gift of invisibility or accomplices in very high places — I could hear everything that was said in the White House, the Élysée Palace, the Chinese Communist Politburo and in high-ranking headquarters across the world where the presumed “big wigs” work in politics and diplomacy, I would be struck by the banality of 99.9 percent of what is said there.

I would be struck by the banality of the remarks but also by the ignorance displayed. “What?” I would undoubtedly exclaim. “These are the people in power who have privileged knowledge, and that’s what they talk about in the Oval Office behind closed doors?” My goodness! They do not appear to know any more about what they are talking about than you and me.

The memoir that was recently published by George W. Bush is striking not because of its revelations (“I was truly surprised that we did not find those famous Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” he says with a straight face. The best part is that he is probably not lying…), but instead because of the candor and the very down-to-earth, intuitive nature in his decision-making process. Alright, the level of culture and intellectual curiosity of this president was not the same as that of Kennedy, Roosevelt or Mitterrand. But still….

I found myself somewhat in this frame of mind when I began to read the famous leaks from WikiLeaks that have wreaked havoc in the diplomatic community around the world over the last week and made headlines in the international press.

No, I will not tell you: “There is nothing there, we already knew that.” That is partly true, but there is more to it than that. There is information there, scattered among the documents and about certain topics — North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan — that could change our assessment of this or that situation, and perhaps modify the future positions of those involved.

The hysteria of Sunni Arab dictators surrounding the issue of a nuclear program in Iran is a new piece of information. We already knew that they did not like the Shiite mullahs. But to know that they literally asked Washington to bomb the nuclear installations in Tehran is a juicy piece of information — and is also worrisome.

However, we cannot help but think that if ever the United States decided to launch a military attack on Iran or allowed Israel to do it — although there is nothing in the WikiLeaks documents that would lead us to believe that, which is significant in and of itself — the people of the Arab world would not approve of such an action. In fact, they would have the opposite reaction. This puts the regimes involved in an awkward position, because if we were to give in to their crazy “request”, they would find themselves faced with angry people in the streets voicing their disapproval and chanting “Down with the United States!” much louder than they would chant “Down with Iran!”

On the subject of hypocrisy, some were quick to denounce the United States’ own duplicity that was supposedly “unveiled” on various issues today. During the fall of 2009 in Afghanistan, where — in spite of the fact that Washington decided to hold its nose and support Hamid Karzai for a second term — the ambassador in Kabul described in great detail the widespread corruption and stolen elections. Or in December 2009 in Yemen, where a diplomatic cable revealed that President Saleh said to a high-ranking American: “Continue to bomb [the rebels], and we are going to keep saying that our airplanes are doing it.” That’s not a bad one!

However, we did not learn of any huge contradictions in the cables that would show that the United States has done or is planning on doing the opposite of the things it says it will do — whether in Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea or Taiwan.

Instead, we see minor examples of deviousness, condescension, superiority, omissions or mini-revelations of information, all of which is typical in diplomacy. We even discern that, on the whole, American foreign policy probably comes across as less authoritarian, arrogant and interventionist — and less capable of being in command of events — than it was even in the recent past.

We are now waiting for WikiLeaks — or one of its emulators — to come out with leaks that are just as juicy… from France, Russia, China or Cuba!