WikiLeaks has created a diplomatic earthquake with the publication of some 250,000 confidential American diplomatic documents. A German diplomat described the breach of confidentiality as potentially having an impact on issues of war and peace, and life and death.
The US has reacted sharply to the unauthorised publication of the cables and accused WikiLeaks of theft; US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed regret for the embarrassment that the publication of the cables may have caused various world leaders.
US President Barack Obama personally telephoned Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to calm their sharply expressed anger over some of the allegations contained in cables from the former American ambassador in Turkey and addressed to the State Department in Washington.
What is remarkable about this diplomatic storm is not that it happened, but rather that in the age of instant communication, the growing pressure for transparency, and the unstoppable leaks, it had not happened before.
Moreover, some of the WikiLeaks cables shed light on the changing role of diplomats.
Ambassadors and senior diplomats were largely the primary source of information about the country to which they were accredited. In the age of the internet and huge news organisations with access to the highest echelons of power and ability to be ‘embedded' with the military in war, diplomats saw their privileged positions of presence in the ground and access to power erode.
Further, the evolution of international relations in the post-Second World War era moved from concern with war and peace and security issues within the framework of Cold War rivalry, to the growth of trade and commerce within the context of globalisation and economic rivalry of major economic powers.
The role of the ambassador was further modified to reflect the new realities and diplomats became the modern equivalents of travelling salesmen. Even when presidents travel abroad, the advancement of the country's economic and business interests figure prominently on the president's agenda — as was easily observable from Obama's recent trip to Asia.
Pedestrian functions
For all these reasons and other contributing factors, the mystique surrounding the role of ambassadors as privileged channels of confidential information and enlightening analysis, gradually gave way to the more pedestrian function of conveyer of reports and one of many competing sources of information.
Notwithstanding the indignation of the Obama administration and various foreign officials identified in American diplomatic cables, the content of many cables reveals little that was not already known.
Consider what US Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey reportedly wrote in February 2009 to the US State Department about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's feelings about Hamas: "Mubarak hates Hamas, and considers them the same as Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, which he sees as his own most dangerous political threat." One does not need to be an ambassador living in Egypt to formulate such an assessment and to report it to Washington.
Leaked documents also allege that Egypt urged the Americans not to leave Iraq prematurely; and that Cairo was informed by Israel before the latter mounted its latest assault on Gaza. On both counts the allegations had been made before and they could not have been unknown to the US.
Other cables reported allegations by Israeli officials that Israeli leaders informed the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) of the impending Israeli attack on Gaza. Palestinian officials denied the accusation. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, however, commented that PNA cooperation with Israel did not come as a surprise to the people of Gaza.
Other leaked cables reveal a tendency to substitute assertions for analysis: Consider the cables sent in 2004 by then US ambassador Eric Edelman in which he paints Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as a politician driven by "unbridled ambition stemming from the belief God has anointed him to lead Turkey".
Erdogan has also been characterised as an authoritarian who hates Israel; his integrity was questioned and he was accused of having accounts in Swiss banks.
The Turkish government reacted angrily; Erdogan castigated US diplomats whom he accused of slander and suggested that Turkey was considering legal action.
Some cables added details to already known events such as the collusion of US military authorities with Yemeni leaders to cover up the role of US forces in missile strikes against the Yemeni branch of Al Qaida.
A meeting between the Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and General David H. Petraeus, then the US commander in the Middle East is described in strikingly cynical detail: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh said. Yemen's deputy prime minister added lightly that "he had just ‘lied' by telling Parliament" that it was Yemeni forces that had carried out the strikes.
Another cable dated September 29, 2009 contains what might be called tabloid gossip and is entitled: A glimpse into Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's eccentricities. It describes his growing reliance on his Ukrainian nurse (a voluptuous blonde) Galyna Kolotnytska; his love for flamenco dancing, and his diminished dependence on his famous female bodyguards.
Gaddafi was also reported by the press to be upset that when he was in New York last year to attend the UN General Assembly session; he was not allowed to set up his tent in Manhattan.
There may be a silver lining in the diplomatic clouds hanging over the US State Department: diplomats will have to work harder to provide sound information and be more analytical, and to prioritise issues of substance over gossip and speculations.
Adel Safty is Distinguished Professor Adjunct at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His new book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky, and published in England by Garnet, 2009.
