When a person just hears the word ‘diplomat’, he thinks of representatives of countries looking all serious and intelligent, holding giant folders containing vital documents of their own countries and sitting at a round table and discussing the economical and political future of their own countries held at hushed places around the world behind closed doors. This was how old diplomacy worked. The new diplomacy has been more inclusive and open. Earlier, NGOs and the media haven’t had a lot of representation in the diplomatic processes. Nowadays, there is a lot more involvement of NGOs in diplomatic processes. Even if they don’t always get a say in the negotiation processes, they can at least help to stir the negotiations in the direction that would benefit the public, if not the state. Moreover, the involvement of the mass media has also helped diplomacy to me more open in nature and it has helped to include the people as well, thus making it more democratic. The Internet also plays a major role in diplomacy. Since the Internet reaches every nook and corner of the world, it is possible to get every person’s opinion regarding a particular issue.
However, recent developments might have taken this “new diplomacy” a step too far. WikiLeaks, an Internet platform responsible for the leaking of sensitive documents and reveling the unethical conduct of governments, began releasing 250,000 classified United States embassy cables from the 28th of November 2010. “These documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight in to US government foreign activities.” (Wikileaks). This catapulted the US in to a worldwide diplomatic crisis.
The Guardian is one of the leading newspapers that have already released some information. One key secret that has been leaked is that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership. This is the most sensational piece of leaked information that will definitely cause uproar internationally. The rest of the leaked cables disclose details of Washington’s grave fear over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program due to the rising instability in the country, the inappropriate remarks by Prince Andrew about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country, suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government, with one cable that alleges that vice-president Zia Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash when he was stopped during a visit to the UAE, and devastating criticism of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan by US commanders. (The Guardian)
Despite of containing all the sensitive issues in world politics as well as the US military strategies to react to an imminent threat, the cables provide insulting descriptions of other leaders. Putin is described as an “alpha-dog”, Karzai is described as being “driven by paranoia”, and Angela Merkel allegedly “avoids risks and is rarely creative”. Furthermore, the cables name Saudi donors as the biggest financiers of terror groups, and provide a detailed account of an agreement between Washington and Yemen to cover up the use of US planes to bomb al-Qaida targets.
The cables also show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations’ and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.
After these cables were released and published, Washington had a field day to get in touch with the leaders of the countries mentioned in the cables. The White House also released a statement condemning their release: “Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and works of these individuals.” (The Guardian)
Thus, we can see that the inclusiveness of diplomacy is a highly questionable and debatable topic. Every diplomat from every country will act and behave differently with diplomats from other countries. It is important to understand that if diplomats cannot act freely without the fear of scrutiny by the media, it is going to be difficult for them to do their jobs, thus resulting in halting relations with other countries. Always including the public and the media in diplomacy may not necessarily be a good thing. It is important for certain aspects of diplomacy to remain secret. This secrecy at times can also help cover any unethical doings of countries away from the media glare and this could cement the relations between the two countries. However, secret diplomacy has its pros and cons as well. It is important that the diplomats try and understand when they feel it right to include the media and public and when they should hold secret talks. Therefore, to avoid any diplomatic crisis, I feel it is important that diplomats should talk freely with one another so as to understand the point of view of each and every person.
Not much has been released by Wikileaks that wasn't already known, if not by the public, then certainly within diplomatic circles. The link below will take you to a 2003 Observer article by Martin Bright and Ed Vulliamy, that shows the US was spying on the UN in 2003, while trying to gain support for the Iraq invasion. So the UN will hardly be suprised that its happening again. This is, of course, a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as the article outlines. Surely then, its perfectly reasonable that this should be exposed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.representativepress.org/SpyScandal.html