Wikileaks: „Open covenants, openly arrived at“ or „ the 9/11 of world diplomacy."?

a very good interactive map showing the origin of the cables

While scholars agree that one of the main features of the “new diplomacy” is its openness, true to Wilson’s ideal of “Open covenants, openly arrived at”, the latest Wikileaks revelations may be going a step too far, some fear. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, for instance, called the revelations “the 9/11 of world diplomacy, for they blow-up all relations of trust between states” (my translation)

Wikileaks is a website, run by Australian citizen Julian Assange, with a reputation for publishing sensitive or classified material. In the past it has released secret US material on both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, with the goal to uncover the unethical behavior of governments.

The reason why The Guardian speaks of a “global diplomatic crisis” is today’s release of a new bulk of documents, consisting of about 250 000 US embassy cables sent from embassies around the world to Washington DC as well as directives sent from Washington to its diplomats.

The most sensitive issues disclosed include communications about Arab leaders, namely King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, urging the US to carry out air strikes on Iran to disable any nuclear aspirations, as well as directives signed by Hillary Clinton basically ordering US officials to spy on the UN leadership as well as on fellow diplomats. This raises the question if US diplomats have crossed the line from information gathering to outright espionage.

Furthermore, very frank, for some certainly offensive, evaluations of world leaders and politicians have been made public, including remarks about Putin, Berlusconi, Merkel, Karzai and Ahmadinejad.

The reactions around the world have been diverse. The US had firstly, condemned the release of the cables as irresponsible and posing a threat to national security and to the lives of diplomats abroad, secondly, tried to limit the damage by warning close allies beforehand, and thirdly, explained that those cables were not the basis for American Foreign Policy but rather private reports of encounters that were not meant to be published.

Ahmadinejad has shrugged off the release as a deliberate propaganda effort by the US to destroy the unity of Arab states and as “psychological warfare against Iran”.

European nations criticised the publication of the cables, with the German government taking a “no comment” approach and France regarding them as a threat to democracy.

The question which has to be answered now is whether the leak really constitutes a global diplomatic crisis or simply a massive embarrassment for the US.

While the concept of openness is surely desirable, publishing sensitive cables while the issues concerned are still on the table, may severely damage cooperation and trust. Diplomats and politicians are surely aware of the fact that their conversations with American diplomats will be reported back to the State Department, but finding those personal accounts online and in the news constitutes a huge breach of trust.

German Development Minister Dirk Niebel, who has been called an "unlikely choice" for his post and "is not considered an expert on development assistance" claimed that "one will have to think much harder about how open one speaks and with whom."

Personally, I consider openness in negotiation to be of paramount importance. If diplomats are unable to communicate honestly with each other due to the fear that any remark made might be found in the news, successful negotiation will be impossible. As Berridge puts it: “Successful negotiation means, by definition, that each side has to settle for less than its ideal requirements” (Berridge/2010/105). Compromises have to be made and this can only work in secret, for “certain parties [..] have [...] to be sold out.” (Berridge/2010/105)

However, so far there has been no leak of a “game-changer”. Nothing was revealed “where we believed that US policy was X and it has actually turned out to be Y”. So there is the possibility that after the first storm has blown over, diplomatic relations will return back to normal. The US will have been seriously embarrassed and will be expected to massively increase its security measure with regard to embassy cables.

To conclude, I don’t think, the leak constitutes a 9/11 for international diplomacy, because most diplomats will be aware of the frankness of cables and quite possibly, other countries express themselves in a comparable way internally. Moreover, so far the media have applied self-censorship and promised not to publish any material that will pose a threat to national or international security.
Some people will face uncomfortable questions and the US will have to keep on its toes to reassure its allies of its trustworthiness. Even openness has its limits when it comes to jeopardizing the success of sensitive negotiations: Maybe covenants should only be open after they have been arrived at.