WikiLeaks, Diplomatic Secrets and US Foreign Policy
More likely than not if you’re reading this blog and interested in issues of foreign policy you’ve heard about the most recent WikiLeaks controversy. Regardless of one’s opinion on American foreign policy, and however one may feel about organizations like WikiLeaks, a quarter-million confidential diplomatic cables being publicly released is a pretty big deal. Judging by the reactions of our administration the “candid” nature of these cables is likely to cause all manner of problems in regard to the country’s current efforts abroad.
More than judging the moral righteousness of the recent leaks or pondering the potential dangers they present to individuals in the field, this most recent WikiLeaks scandal strikes at issues relevant to all Americans. This leak is an excellent reflection of our growing troubles with domestic privacy and the ability to speak freely. Amusingly, the fact that our government is the victim of this recent espionage has raised some interesting questions regarding the broader issue of the secure nature of communication. In a way our government seems tragically slow to catch on to the same realities of security the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis.
I understand the importance of being able to have candid communications with Washington, but on a certain level I’m surprised that leaks of this magnitude are still possible. I find it deeply disturbing that given the issues of domestic spying in recent years and the ongoing difficulties of keeping government secrets secret, our government continues to communicate internally in a fashion that could be so dangerous if exposed. It seems to me that US citizens caught on much more swiftly than did our government when it comes to issues of insecure communications. As we personally must grow more and more careful about what is said in public and through private communications like email, it gets much harder to be understanding when government gaffs like this occur.
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- May 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (9)
- March 2012 (16)
- February 2012 (20)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org





Ha! This is a good point, Imara. From what I have heard the problem is that the USG has not figured out a very good way of sharing information across agencies without compromising the security of those communications. The USG seems to faces a legitimate problem here. If agencies don’t share information, it can lead to big intelligence failures. However, the more they share, the more likely it is that some of the information will become public.