Rupert Cornwell: Don't blame diplomats – they come out of it well

Saturday 04 December 2010 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A diplomat, an English ambassador to Venice famously declared, is "an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country". If so, then the WikiLeaks revelations suggest that the early 21st-century American practitioners of this delicate trade have done a pretty good job.

Washington is furious. It mutters about prosecuting Julian Assange. Hillary Clinton has rightly warned that US diplomats will face a much tougher task in future. America's government, less well informed about a hideously complex world, will also be a loser.

And so, in the longer run, will be the media. Secrecy will grow, security classifications will be raised, and the public will know less, not more, about what the diplomats are doing in its name. Which will be a pity – because, for the most part, they are as serious and skilled a bunch as you could wish to find.

The State Department has been accused of not fighting its corner and of losing morale after being repeatedly steamrollered by the infinitely better funded Pentagon. You wouldn't notice from reading the cables.

Only a fraction of the 250,000 cables in WikiLeaks's hands have yet been released. But the diplomats' behaviour has been highly professional and their attempts to solve problems sincere. And the judgements on events and people – some so titillating to read – are usually on the money.

Remember, too, that diplomats facilitate and execute their governments' policy. Rarely do they make that policy. You can argue that the US should get out of Afghanistan, or that Washington shouldn't prop up authoritarian regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, and that no one should have illusions about Putin's Russia.

The cables show that they weren't peddling those illusions. Rather, they were trying to alert their political masters about the dangers. If it had been left to the State Department, the disastrous 2003 Iraq war would not have happened.

Some of the leaks may actually have strengthened the US hand. If anything, the fear of Iran throughout the Arab world, now public knowledge, may help the US as it presses for ever tougher sanctions against Tehran. And if unvarnished US views of Silvio Berlusconi hasten his exit, few will shed tears. Even so, it's very hard to argue that the public interest has on balance been served by these disclosures – let alone the interests of the US.

However, the damage is not the fault of America's diplomatic service. What needs overhaul is an insane government network for classified information that permits a disturbed 22-year-old army private to have access to his government's most sensitive international dealings.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in