BY Paul Arhewe
Secrecy is a germane ingredient of international diplomacy that some analysts argue should be maintained for the safety of the public. Transparency, they posit, could sometimes be detrimental to public interest. Thus, “unveiling all secrets is not a universal and absolute good”, Steve Harvey of Colorado Confluence argued.
The above statement is justified when former American President John F. Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful end to The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 by making a secret promise to remove American missiles from Turkish soil.
Diplomacy is the chief instrument of countries’ foreign policies. This act usually requires the conducting of relationships for gains without conflict. Hence, its methods according to Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia include, inter alia, secret negotiation by accredited envoys including those conducted by political leaders.
Wikileaks set precedence recently by divulging thousands of U.S. diplomats’ memos through its website. This move has not only starred tensions among nations but it is said would go a long way to affect the base of international diplomacy. This has divulged some ugly behind the scenes manoeuvrings and conspiracies among allies and plots against foes. The organisation operated silently since 2006 when it was established not until early part of this year when their first batch cables were revealed.
Wikileaks may not be the first in exposing those clandestine dealings of envoys and their patrons, but it has upped the ante. In 1979 Iran through its revolutionary guard took hold of similar releases of cables from U.S. Embassy, though in smaller version. Never before in human history has the volume of diplomatic material and broad scope of subjects released to the public. The content of the over 250,000 cables is linked to 300 embassies dated from 1966 to 2010. Subjects covered include external political relations, internal government affairs, human rights, economic conditions, terrorism and the UN Security Council.
The organisation’s whistle-blowing operations have attracted massive supporters and at the same time it is in the bad books of many governments and their envoys who are calling for prosecution of Julian Assange the founder of Wikileaks. In support of the Whistle blower’s popularity recently a rally was staged in Melbourne where thousands of people condemned his arrest in UK in connection with sexual abuses committed in Sweden. The protesters pledge they will continue to gather in front of the British consulate every Friday until he is released. As a matter of fact, call for his nomination for Noble Peace Prize is been advocated by Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party Leader Walid Jumblatt.
The impact of these leaks on international diplomacy and foreign relations would have a far reaching effect. Firstly, the amount of information and assessment shared among countries will likely be constrained and restricted. Secondly, the leaks are likely to influence the way leading world power like U.S. relates with other countries. This may likely tell on the fortunes of present political leaders and actors at the international scene. Thirdly, if the leaks continue as Wikileaks has threatened the disclosures of internal documents of banks will have colossal repercussions on the financial industry globally.
Diplomats and peacekeeping troops abroad are likely easy prey for terrorists as these leaks have exposed their operations’ strategy and some government scheming.
Furthermore, a regime of suspicions among countries has begun to take place. After the leaks many countries were denying actions and postures attributed to them. Even as Iran says it will not react against Saudi Arabia on the revelation of its anxiety over Tehran operations nevertheless Iran would be suspicious of her neighbouring friend even if this is not overtly shown.
In her reaction to the leak, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton condemned it as an attack not only on U.S. but on all governments. She said “It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity”. Clinton went on to criticise those protagonists on the side of Wikileaks. According to her “some may mistakenly applaud those responsible...There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations”.
If affected governments are not at ease with these disclosures reaching the public, then many have asked why do they say them or execute such act at the first instance. In this stance, Tony Obiechina media officer for the Israeli Embassy in Abuja told National Mirror “It is a very good development to have the Wikileaks disclosures because it has laid bare some of those selfish decisions and actions taken by a few power mongers in government who pretend to represent the vast majority of us”. He further added that “more disclosures are needed hopefully to keep our leaders on their toes”
Public interest is usually referred to as common well-being or general welfare of all. Then, the argument that secrecy in diplomacy should be maintained to safeguard public interest has it pitfalls; some of the revealed cables by Wikileaks have shown to represent the ego and subjective interest and views of few people government. For instance, the recent released cables exposed how U.S. plan of getting a united Korea under Seoul got the consent of China. Is this move considered from the view of public interest or a subjective inclination? With the present setting in that part of Asian continent, annexing North Korea under Seoul is one easy way of promoting the birth of a bloody colossal war. A Saudi crown Prince was also revealed in the leak to have thrown a party where alcohols, drugs and prostitutes were used to service guests. One would ask if keeping this secret would be for public advantage. Nigeria was also not spared from the leaks. It is revealed that Dutch Shell BP has planted agents in all ministries and government agencies in the country. If this is true, of whose interest was it done? Is it to protect the oil conglomerate’s interest or those of Nigerians?
