By David Roberts:

So much has already been written on the WikiLeaks episode, raising a whole host of largely unanswered questions, but one of the most disturbing aspects of the saga is how the leaked US diplomatic cables have been reported by many otherwise well-respected media organizations.  

All too often the "information" contained in the cables is reported as factual, rather than portrayed as the hodgepodge of viewpoints, interpretations, speculation and second and third hand accounts - by mainly mid-ranking officials - that most of it actually is. So, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega is totally crazy, we're told, just because one US diplomat thinks that way. Argentina's Cristina Fernandez does have mental problems, while Muammar al-Gaddafi is a hypochondriac. Whatever one's opinion of these people, and there are plenty who undoubtedly would agree with the diplomats involved, they are nothing more than that: opinions.

And while not claiming to have read them all by any means, neither do the cables and reports seem to give any real insight into US policy, or at least nothing we didn't already know. They are just too numerous and incoherent, sent by so many different sources, to do that.

What the leaked reports do demonstrate is the contrast between what officials and diplomats really think and what they say in public. We all know, of course, that diplomats don't say what they think - as that's what diplomats don't do by their nature of being diplomats - but it's music to the ears to be supplied with so much evidence and real examples of such doublespeak. But whether the release of these documents is genuinely in the public interest, rather than being merely of interest to the public, is another question.

In the meantime, Washington needs to assume its own responsibility for the leaks. Not only is its diplomatic communications system obviously fallible, with apparently far too many people having access to these reports, but the leaking was clearly done by US officials, not WikiLeaks or the newspapers it reached deals with, which are merely disseminating the "information" and trying to make some sense of it all. The whole episode will not, contrary to some claims by US officials and others, change the way diplomacy is done, but it may make governments more careful about who has access to such embarrassing material. And embarrassing it is, rather than dangerous, and it's unlikely to put people's lives at risk, as some officials have tried to argue, not least because identities have been protected.

Neither should the US government take any pleasure in the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in the UK and accused of rape, as senior officials have indeed done. Assuming that the claims are not part of a Pentagon plot to bring him down, and are unrelated to the leaking, if he is extradited to Sweden the rape case should be dealt with by the courts in the appropriate manner and not be tinged or biased in any way by the leaks or Washington's dislike for the man. Convicting Assange of a crime - obviously an alleged crime at present - unrelated to the leaks should not be a source of satisfaction for anyone who feels hurt or angry with what Wikileaks has done. Assuming, that is, there really is no plot…

bnamericas 

Caribbean Blog International