Not so leaking WikiLeaks

If the reported preview of the second dumping of WikiLeaks, as initially reported by a clutch of handpicked Western newspapers, is any guide, it wouldn't be wide of the mark to suggest that the leakage isn't hard enough to drown the Pak-US relationship. In fact, the last one released in July which incisively focused on the war in Pakistan was more threatening, although that too did not negatively impact the country's commitment to remain a steadfast ally on international community in the war on terrorism.
The present instalment - if all that makes the news has appeared in print - touched basically three areas of interest to the people of Pakistan: King Abdullah's reported remark about President Asif Ali Zardari, security and safety of Pakistan's nuclear assets and the mysterious moves of a Lahore rickshaw driver.
Frankly, the first two are matters of considerable public debate and discussion, and the WikiLeaks doesn't impress many in Pakistan. Who doesn't know, here, that the Pakistani political leadership enjoy distinctly divided royal patronage in the oil-rich Arabian peninsula. While Nawaz Sharif is close to the hearts of Saudi's, Asif Ali Zardari has some bosom friends in the United Arab Emirates. So, if King Abdullah's comment has been correctly quoted - the emphasis is on 'correctly', because the Saudi monarch is generally demeanour - we don't know.
As for the United States' misplaced concern about Pakistan's nuclear assets, there have been discussions between the two countries, often reported by the media. Given that Pakistan has raised layers of impregnable security barriers, it never embraced American perceptions that these assets can fall into wrong hands.
The cypher to the State Department sent by Ambassador Patterson in May 2009 must be correct, but only to the extent that Pakistan refused a scheduled visit to some unidentified nuclear facility. But to claim that the refusal stemmed from the fear that if the local media got word of it there would be a public uproar, is too outlandish and better be left uncommented upon.
The world knows how safe and secure is Pakistan's nuclear programme, and those include President Obama and the US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen who around the time of this cable had, separately, conceded the absolute security of, to quote Admiral Mullen, the "crown jewels". As for the rickshaw driver's mysterious moves, we can only say sometimes even the best of brains fail to make right decisions.
Embassies do send home cables detailing their assessments, and sometime even hard information. So must be the case of American embassy's cables. Even the authenticity of the cables has been disputed by Ambassador Cameron, asserting that the "people of good faith recognise that the diplomats' internal reports do not represent a government's official policy". If at all there was something that could endanger the bilateral relationship, it could be in the area of military co-operation between the two countries, and that has been largely covered by the WikiLeaks' earlier dumping in July.
Given the close military co-operation Pakistan is rendering to the US-led Nato expedition in Afghanistan, there is nothing much in terms of 'disturbing mismatches' that if revealed now, will undermine the bilateral relationship. Paraphrased, as far as the Pak-US relationship is concerned, the presently released 94 documents have their origin in the US embassy. These are not the GHQ-Pentagon stuff, so these are expected to take the back seat.
However, that's not the case of others, especially the leaks about the United States' friends in the West. Rightly, then Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has described the second WikiLeaks dumping as the "September 11 of world diplomacy". But that too would fade away in some time. It's an age of information and nothing can be kept under the warps of secrecy for long time. Someone in the State Department, with security clearance and computer access to classified files, has let the cat out of the bag.
It can happen again, not only in the United States but everywhere else. While these leaks have no potential to destroy countries, there is every danger to individuals. It's our hope the leaks spare the individuals, as the first dumping did by withholding any information that could harm the life of an individual.