It looks like those with an avid interest in politics are going to be fed a continuous diet of documents from the latest WikiLeaks just released documents for the next days. The US evidently tried its darndest to stop the leaks.......to no avail.
The Guardian's News Blog, here, already has got a roundup of reactions to the released documents and what they have revealed so far. One example, from Reuters:
"Roger Cressey, a partner at Goodharbor Consulting: "This is pretty devastating. The essence of our foreign policy is our ability to talk straight and honest with our foreign counterparts and to keep those conversations out of the public domain. This massive leak puts that most basic of diplomatic requirements at risk in the future. Think of relations with Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan, governments who we need to work with us in defeating al Qaida. Their performance has been uneven in the past, for a variety of reasons, but this kind of leak will seriously hinder our ability to persuade these governments to support our counterterrorism priorities in the future."
Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to the US: "This won't restrain dips' (diplomats) candour. But people will be looking at the security of electronic communication and archives. Paper would have been impossible to steal in these quantities."
Professor Michael Cox, associate fellow, Chatham House think tank: "It's a great treasure trove for historians and students of international relations. It is a sign that in the information age, it is very difficult to keep anything secret. But as to whether it's going to cause the kind of seismic collapse of international relations that governments have been talking about, I somehow doubt. Diplomats have always said rude things about each other in private, and everyone has always known that. Governments have a tendency to try to keep as much information as possible secret or classified, whether it really needs to be or not. The really secret information, I would suggest, is still pretty safe and probably won't end up on WikiLeaks.
The Guardian's News Blog, here, already has got a roundup of reactions to the released documents and what they have revealed so far. One example, from Reuters:
"Roger Cressey, a partner at Goodharbor Consulting: "This is pretty devastating. The essence of our foreign policy is our ability to talk straight and honest with our foreign counterparts and to keep those conversations out of the public domain. This massive leak puts that most basic of diplomatic requirements at risk in the future. Think of relations with Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan, governments who we need to work with us in defeating al Qaida. Their performance has been uneven in the past, for a variety of reasons, but this kind of leak will seriously hinder our ability to persuade these governments to support our counterterrorism priorities in the future."
Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to the US: "This won't restrain dips' (diplomats) candour. But people will be looking at the security of electronic communication and archives. Paper would have been impossible to steal in these quantities."
Professor Michael Cox, associate fellow, Chatham House think tank: "It's a great treasure trove for historians and students of international relations. It is a sign that in the information age, it is very difficult to keep anything secret. But as to whether it's going to cause the kind of seismic collapse of international relations that governments have been talking about, I somehow doubt. Diplomats have always said rude things about each other in private, and everyone has always known that. Governments have a tendency to try to keep as much information as possible secret or classified, whether it really needs to be or not. The really secret information, I would suggest, is still pretty safe and probably won't end up on WikiLeaks.
Comments