WikiLeaks

While security experts, politicians, columnists and the rest are browsing over 250,000 leaked cable messages exchanged during 2004-10 between the State Department of the US and its embassies, a renowned columnist Simon Jenkins, who writes for The Guardian, has made a startling revelation.
He says, "The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and 'representations' were invited in return. These were considered. Details of 'redactions' were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard."
The lesson: what now read is material already 'edited' by the State Department. It is therefore no surprise that the conclusion of most former diplomats and observers is that the 'leaks' reveal nothing new; all they do is to confirm what was either being speculated or being said in bits and pieces.
Courtesy 'editing', bulk of the leaks focus on US relations with Muslim states, and highlight the bad perceptions Muslim leaders have of each other and that the Arabs as a whole (except Egypt - the most populous and militarily the strongest) want the US to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities.
But Samuas Milne, another renowned columnist, says that in a recent poll conducted by the Zogby polling organisation and Maryland University, in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other pro-West Arab states, responding to "which country threatened their security" 88% said Israel, 77% the US and just 10% Iran.
The Arab governments portrayed as hostile to Iran - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE - are undemocratic US allies and depend on US support to stay in power, and so agree with the US claim that Iran poses the biggest threat to regional peace. But there is no leak about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal.
The selective release of secrets has led some commentators to believe that the leaks reflect US political agenda, and that WikiLeaks is a CIA front. That's unfair because after cyber attacks on its website, WikiLeaks sought the media's help. To forestall a rash US response, the media withheld the sensitive data.
But a key secret that escaped 'editing' was former US ambassador Anne Patterson's pleading that the US policy on Pakistan is counterproductive since it "risks destabilising the Pakistani state, alienating the civilian and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis without finally achieving the goal".
According to Craig Murray, a former British envoy, diplomats in the West view themselves as ultra-intelligent Nietzschean supermen. But with the penetration already allowed under freedom of information, the walls round policy formation and documentation are collapsing, and Nietzscheans face a tough future. Behaviours considered reprehensible in private or commercial life - like lying, or saying one thing to one person and the opposite to another - may no more be considered acceptable or praiseworthy in diplomacy; days of taking pride in their own standards of morality, the Machiavellianism morality, may be over.
Even the National Intelligence Council, that co-ordinates analysis from all US intelligence agencies, concluded in early 2009 that "Owing to the relative decline of its economic and, to a lesser extent, military power, the US will no longer have the same flexibility in choosing among as many policy options."
But according to the columnist Richard Norton-Taylor, while the job of US diplomats will become difficult for a long time to come, the real spies are likely to carry on, calmly, and hidden, as before. He is right. Given the fact that, what have come to light are the softer goofs of diplomacy, a lot will remain as bad as before.