The disclosure of cables and other records of American embassies, revealing what high-ranking employees really thought about foreign leaders and secret intentions and “agreements” between countries, was one of the most important events of the decade. In the long term, weighing up the pros and cons, diplomacy took a step - or rather, has been given a push - forwards rather than backwards. The less falsity there is in communications between governments, the better. Truth - not just “philosophically” speaking - improves human relationships more than lies. And governments are human products, although sometimes they could be considered by-products.
It is not for nothing that the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is being “hunted” by the law, whatever the official reason. An attempt is always made to find a way of characterizing someone who reveals the inner workings of governments as “bold-faced and meddlesome”. However, it should be emphasized that, in this mega-leak, the USA was only the “unlucky party”, the “fall guy”, even though it acts in much the same way as other countries. All embassies throughout the world proceed in the manner revealed by the current “scandal”. Please, let us not be hypocritical.
The freedom to harshly criticize was encouraged by the presumption made to date - although no longer... - that the sincerity of remarks would be protected, in an absolute manner, by general and diplomatic confidentiality. Many things are going to change in diplomatic routines. If possible, let us hope that the mentality behind the routines also changes. It should also be remembered that the person who failed to maintain the required secrecy was not Julian Assange, but an intelligence analyst, a soldier named Bradley Manning, working for the Americans. Assange simply acted as a journalist who discloses information.
The strange accusation brought against Assange - of rape or sexual molestation - seems to have been “arranged”, specifically selected. In a court of law, it is especially adequate if one intends to demoralize someone, given that the word of the victim - or alleged victim - is generally sufficient in rape cases. Nobody believes a denial on the part of the accused, unless there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, which is difficult to obtain. Much to the contrary of that which occurs on hearing the victim’s testimony, especially if she weeps or seems visibly shaken. Such crimes normally occur without the presence of witnesses, a highly favorable circumstance for the prosecution. Slight localized signs of violence can be mechanically improvised prior to examination by medical experts. If, in this case, it is eventually found that such sexual crimes actually occurred - I repeat once again that they seem to me to be unlikely - I will acknowledge my mistake. It can be considered that, even if the defendant is absolved, for reasons of doubt, he is branded with demoralization for the rest of his life. It sticks to him and everything he has already done or comes to do in the future.
Obviously, there is an unfair “bad side” to dissemination of the frank opinions of American ambassadors. However, such unfairness, as I have already mentioned, lies in the exclusive nature of the disclosure. The United States of America was the only country subject to an “X-ray” of sincerity, a “truth serum”. Its entrails were exposed for public viewing. And no intestine exists, be it in the animal or governmental kingdom, which is free of unpleasant odors. If, following such “American” revelations, other countries also come to see their own frank remarks exposed, in general, such remarks are not something similar to judicial sentences that are final and binding. They are not irrefutable “scientific truths”. They are merely personal opinions expressed by ambassadors, with every right to the subjectivity inherent in all human beings. In all certainty, in the embassies of many countries, there are opinions that are highly aggressive - perhaps even with obscenities -, bringing into doubt the paternity of certain especially hated American politicians.
Another “bad” aspect of the revelations in question was that of its lack of consideration, without prior notice, for the abstract and universal value of privacy. Given that personal privacy is considered to be a fundamental human right - allowing people to say, reservedly and sincerely, what they think and feel, at home, in a bar or at the office - it is also the right of “legal entities”, in this case the State - and its extension, embassies and those who work there - to say what they think and feel. Embassies exist in order to represent a country and gather information about what is happening locally. If it were not so, what purpose would they serve? Vladimir Putin is furious at what has come to pass, but he needs to recognize that the same kind of behavior that occurred at the American embassy in Moscow also occurs at Russian embassies spread throughout the world.
By the way, I am suitably impressed by the way in which practically all the criticism or unfavorable views of foreign governments that appear in WikiLeaks coincide, to a large extent, with that which well-informed people already think worldwide. There is only frankness, not bad faith. This is a positive aspect for North-American diplomacy. I did not see any evidence of lies or deliberately false intelligence transmitted to Washington. Of course, the opinions and information in question are related to American interests; however, it could it not be otherwise, as this is only to be expected at the embassy of any country. Ambassadors are representatives of their respective countries, not a centralized world government.
Now let us have a look at the “good” side of the leak promoted by WikiLeaks.
Firstly, there has been an edifying “shake up” in the age-old untrusting world of diplomacy, with isolation and necessary hypocrisy in relationships between nations. All countries, infected, like a disease, with the already rather decadent concept of absolute sovereignty - not even slightly interested in the well being of other nations - have been and still are obliged to solely think of their own particular interests, especially in the security area. “Who will take care of us, if we are attacked? We have to protect our secrets and, even more importantly, know the secrets of our neighbors, because we do not live in a world of angels. Our spies are our guardian angels, even when, in extreme cases, they poison and kill adversaries. We kill one or two discreetly, but we save thousands of our compatriots”.
However, it is a fact that such state interests as wealth and security no longer seem to be so “particular”, given the interdependence between nations. Each new international aversion - arising from a disclosed harsh personal criticism - represents a tremendous loss, in both political and economic terms. Nations perceive, to an ever greater extent, that they are not alone. They are dependent upon other nations. There is a need to keep one’s tongue in check. The injured party could change its policy, with dire consequences, if the detrimental opinion appears in the media; if it does not appear, it is of no importance, that’s normal. An indignant Vladimir Putin already made this very clear, when he read what American diplomats thought about him.
The international motto, almost unquestioned until recently, is “every man for himself!” However, as globalization has arrived in such areas as business, information, culture and travel - bringing different peoples ever closer together - , it will also end up worming its way into diplomacy, the traditional focus of secret conversations. Almost always, such conversations cannot be published, given that, if known, they would perhaps be used in an undesirable manner by other countries, all of which are potential enemies.
Instinctively, the world has come to show an ever greater aversion to “secrets”. It seems to be thought that “if something is hidden, there is likely to be something wrong”. There is a desire to know what is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps this explains the wide degree of acceptance, on the part of the public, of so-called “reality shows”, for example, “Big Brother” and the like - which I detest, even without having being able to watch an entire episode of any of them. Today, the world has become tired of “official truths”, presumed to be false. There is a yearning for the “real truth” in all sectors. And this is wholesome. The fewer untruths the better, in a world full of lies disseminated on television and radio, in the press, at the cinema, on the internet, in amorous relations and even conversations between friends. Each lie is a distortion of reality. Added together, they draw a false picture of the world in which we live. How can we vote adequately if our opinions are based on false data? Once the current shock of diplomatic unease has passed, the world will probably become a little more ethical. For reasons of apprehension rather than virtuousness.
Even if embassies henceforth take detailed precautions in order to preserve their secrets, there will always be the danger, albeit remote, of the occurrence of “leaks”. An anonymous embassy employee could - for reasons of technical fault, vanity, greed or idealism - open up a Pandora’s Box of vexatious state secrets. It is not solely the ambassador who uses embassy files and computers. For this reason, there is a need to control that which is spoken and written, as well as the actual spirit of foreign policy because “walls have ears” and the media especially loves indiscreet truths. Henceforth, the usual defamation and “conspiracies” will be less present in the world of diplomacy. Not, as I have already said, because diplomats are going to be transformed into saints, but because if secret plans are disclosed, the ambassadors themselves will have to hurriedly flee the countries, escaping from curses or bullets. And, at this point, I would like to consider another aspect - begging your pardon beforehand - that has made a great impression on me.
This “aspect” is the notion that a democratic world government - inevitably less burdened by hostile secrets, due to the fact that it is less compartmentalized - is much more appropriate for humanity than the current system of isolated “sovereignties”, closed off in small groups, hiding their intentions. The current manner of thinking is as follows: “In my yard, or should I say my country, I do and undo as I see fit. And I do not reveal what I intend to do. I use the whip or a carrot, according to whim, and nobody from outside can interfere, because the highly expansive concept of sovereignty protects me, although I am unable to protect my people from myself. By the way, why am I saying this if I am the people!?”
We currently acknowledge that the contentment or discontent of a nation lies in its fortune or misfortune in having a good or bad government. The current leaders of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Israel are obvious examples of the danger of acceptance of sovereignty without a degree of moderation. In the event that a Third World War occurs, one of the principal causes will lie in the current rigidity of the concept of sovereignty. With the practically inevitable spread of nuclear weapons, how is it possible to prevent a “crazy patriot” from provoking a conflict - perhaps radioactive - that will end up in world war? Will it be necessary to follow the usual international routine of first waiting for the predictable death of millions of soldiers and civilians and then, following defeat of the “crazy patriot”, punishing him? At the present time, he lives protected by the untouchable mantle of sovereignty.
If the planet were to receive a few legal “finishing touches” and become transformed into global democratic federation, there would be no room or climate for current rivalries of the kind that are enhanced by mistrust between states. For example, in the Brazilian federation, each state - São Paulo, Rio, Ceará, etc - does not need to spy on other states. There is no need to maintain embassies in all states that comprise the federation. It is only necessary to take care of internal security, without needing an army, air force and navy (when topographically the case). Dispensing with all this civilian and military apparatus means immense cost savings. In addition, as there is no generalized mistrust between states of the same federation, there is no information war. Any disagreements that occur between states are resolved at the National Congress. The same occurs in the case of the North-American federation. There, poor states are not in the least apprehensive about being attacked by rich neighboring states. In addition, as there are no embassies, there is no reason to be concerned about “leaks”.
Begging your pardon for the somewhat egoistic inclusion of the topic “world government”, ill-disguised advertising of an idea that is seldom given great importance, it can be concluded that, in the long term, WikiLeaks has shown more merits than defects as a result of the incident: it has “aired” rooms that have long remained closed. It is to be hoped that offended statesmen examine their consciences, conduct a sincere self-assessment and carry on with their lives, consoled by the notion that nobody is perfect. May Silvio Berlusconi continue to conduct himself, in his private life, as he always has done, and may the same thing happen in the case of others who have been criticized in the international arena.
I am not an admirer of Hillary Clinton, but there is no need for her to resign from her post solely due to the “leak” of a practice that has been employed universally. And I repeat: the American diplomats transmitted their sincere impressions, without exaggeration. They spoke according to what they observed. It would be even worse if they had lied to their own government, distorting American foreign policy.
(6-12-2010)
