The end of diplomacy as we know it?
In 1996, after the conclusion of the Dayton peace talks on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the German foreign ministry felt that published accounts did not give enough credit to the German contributions to the peace accord. A decision was made to publish all 53 major diplomatic cables dispatched by the team I had led during the 21-day-negotiating process.
However, the documents were carefully edited before publication. Most references to the behaviour of individual Bosnian or Serb leaders were deleted, as were occasional complaints about differences between ourselves and, say, the US delegation led by Richard Holbrooke.
As a result, the public record of the negotiating process was presented as intended, but none of the participants found any reason to be unhappy. Mission accomplished.
Fast forward, to the WikiLeaks tsunami: Why is this so different? Why are diplomats so appalled by what the Italian foreign minister has called the 9/11 of diplomacy?
First, leaks of secret or confidential diplomatic traffic — whether via pigeon, sealed letter, classic telegram or encrypted e-mail — are as old as diplomacy itself. Leaks happen all the time: They may be caused by interagency strife within a government, by an opposition eager to bring down a government, by a government aiming to threaten or weaken an adversary, by an over-ambitious or hateful individual, or by many other motivations.
Some leaks are harmless, some lethal — and some have even led to war. But one thing is certain: Every single leak damages or destroys trust, in one way or another. And trust is the single most precious commodity in diplomacy. That is why the ongoing WikiLeaks publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables endangers the entire species. It puts the business of diplomacy at risk.
Character of a democracy
Second, most leaks tend to happen in democracies. It would be a real surprise if the next load that WikiLeaks will dump on the internet were to contain cable traffic leaked by a Chinese or Iranian government official. Autocratic regimes are less often victims of leaks from within their own government structures. This may be because of severe penalties facing a leaker, but also because of greater internal secrecy and because of the absence of effective opposition or independent media.
What about transparent government? What about freedom of information as a citizen’s right?
Yes, governments in democracies must be held accountable. But the right of the citizen to know applies primarily to the policies of his own government. Whistle-blowing in cases of governmental or business misconduct or criminal behaviour may be a legitimate ingredient of a modern society, but the right to know should not be interpreted to include information presented or discussed by foreign countries under rules of confidentiality.
Again, this is a question of trust — the very fabric of diplomacy. Once trust has evaporated, it is difficult, sometimes even impossible, to rebuild. This is why most countries have legislation protecting diplomatic documents from publication.
