Diplomacy for Dummies
Published in Bursa
(Romania) on 2 December 2010
by Cornel Codita (link to original)
For 24 hours, this event outshined everything else in the world. Nothing could compete with it — not the scary economic crisis; not the tensions between America and China; not the Islamic terrorist threat; not Iran’s nuclear power; not even the Korean conflict. Such was the impact when 250,000 real American diplomacy documents were made public on the Internet. However, all the anticipation — especially the Department of State’s lousy attempts to exaggerate WikiLeaks’ responsibility — as well as the threats, the judicial actions against Julian Asange and the cyber attacks directed at the website, did nothing but raise people’s expectations and curiosity.
What followed was the unique sound of a balloon deflating. That meant a few articles in the world’s most famous daily papers, which were given access to the database — The Guardian, El Pais, Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde — accompanied by juicy quotes about world leaders, and some sweet-and-sour jokes made by stars on political TV shows on the main global networks. Of course, “concerned” comments were also expressed by the diplomatic world, or even the politicians tagged by the so uninterestingly kind comments, made under the protection of the cables. Who gives a damn? This whole thing doesn’t change anything, anyway, at least not now.
Should the event have any kind of significant effect, socially and politically speaking, it would only be as a result of an honest public discussion concerning two major points: “What is diplomacy and how is it done today?” and “What are the things that the government of a democratic state should keep hidden from the public eye, in the context of international affairs, and how are they are being handled?” The answers to these questions have a major impact on what we call democracy, transparency and responsibility of power.
The worst part is that such a discussion is not wanted anywhere, and therefore not supported or promoted by the political elite, while in the academic communities it is considered to be irrelevant. The establishments, along with most citizens of the “old democracies,” share the strong conviction that democracy is exactly what it’s supposed to be and that a minor behavioral slip here and there from those holding the power shouldn’t significantly change things. It didn’t happen when the discussion was about the rightfulness of taking military actions against another state, starting from false premises concerning its nuclear power; it had no importance whatsoever during military abuses against prisoners that were officially encouraged or when the abuses took the worst forms of human decay, all wrapped in total hatred of the notion of fundamental freedoms and rights, in the name of which they were exerting their authority; it meant nothing when citizens were forced by their own country to restrict their democratic rights, under the pretext of the “war against terrorism,” while citizens from other states were simply robbed of any right at the slightest suspicion of participating in or supporting terrorist actions.
One of the most offensive things in the American diplomatic documents is not about the official hypocrisy or the blunt tone on the so-called “situational awareness,” but the fact that, in all its frivolity, the only thing the world sees is a major loss of resources and cheap gossip peddling, as well as the expression of character, frustrations and superiority complexes that keeps the over-privileged high diplomats awake at night. Overall, it is a pointless activity in the decision-making process, but it shows just how far pettiness and the appetite for pouring out your thoughts goes the moment the “diplomats” feel safe that their lame malice is well hidden from the eyes of their targets. Pathetic!
As a former British diplomat (a real one, I might add) said: “I have never understood why it is felt that behaviors which would be considered reprehensible in private or even commercial life — like lying, or saying one thing to one person and the opposite to another person — should be considered acceptable, or even praiseworthy, in diplomacy. Those who argue that WikiLeaks are wrong believe that we should entrust the government with sole control of what the people can and cannot know of what is done in their name. That attitude led to the ‘Dodgy dossier’ of lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The people discomfited by these leaks are people who deserve to be discomfited. Truth helps the people against rapacious elites everywhere.”
What followed was the unique sound of a balloon deflating. That meant a few articles in the world’s most famous daily papers, which were given access to the database — The Guardian, El Pais, Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde — accompanied by juicy quotes about world leaders, and some sweet-and-sour jokes made by stars on political TV shows on the main global networks. Of course, “concerned” comments were also expressed by the diplomatic world, or even the politicians tagged by the so uninterestingly kind comments, made under the protection of the cables. Who gives a damn? This whole thing doesn’t change anything, anyway, at least not now.
Should the event have any kind of significant effect, socially and politically speaking, it would only be as a result of an honest public discussion concerning two major points: “What is diplomacy and how is it done today?” and “What are the things that the government of a democratic state should keep hidden from the public eye, in the context of international affairs, and how are they are being handled?” The answers to these questions have a major impact on what we call democracy, transparency and responsibility of power.
The worst part is that such a discussion is not wanted anywhere, and therefore not supported or promoted by the political elite, while in the academic communities it is considered to be irrelevant. The establishments, along with most citizens of the “old democracies,” share the strong conviction that democracy is exactly what it’s supposed to be and that a minor behavioral slip here and there from those holding the power shouldn’t significantly change things. It didn’t happen when the discussion was about the rightfulness of taking military actions against another state, starting from false premises concerning its nuclear power; it had no importance whatsoever during military abuses against prisoners that were officially encouraged or when the abuses took the worst forms of human decay, all wrapped in total hatred of the notion of fundamental freedoms and rights, in the name of which they were exerting their authority; it meant nothing when citizens were forced by their own country to restrict their democratic rights, under the pretext of the “war against terrorism,” while citizens from other states were simply robbed of any right at the slightest suspicion of participating in or supporting terrorist actions.
One of the most offensive things in the American diplomatic documents is not about the official hypocrisy or the blunt tone on the so-called “situational awareness,” but the fact that, in all its frivolity, the only thing the world sees is a major loss of resources and cheap gossip peddling, as well as the expression of character, frustrations and superiority complexes that keeps the over-privileged high diplomats awake at night. Overall, it is a pointless activity in the decision-making process, but it shows just how far pettiness and the appetite for pouring out your thoughts goes the moment the “diplomats” feel safe that their lame malice is well hidden from the eyes of their targets. Pathetic!
As a former British diplomat (a real one, I might add) said: “I have never understood why it is felt that behaviors which would be considered reprehensible in private or even commercial life — like lying, or saying one thing to one person and the opposite to another person — should be considered acceptable, or even praiseworthy, in diplomacy. Those who argue that WikiLeaks are wrong believe that we should entrust the government with sole control of what the people can and cannot know of what is done in their name. That attitude led to the ‘Dodgy dossier’ of lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The people discomfited by these leaks are people who deserve to be discomfited. Truth helps the people against rapacious elites everywhere.”