Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 129

Thread: Two Faces of American Diplomacy

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Two Faces of American Diplomacy

    It's a lot to digest so take it slow.

    Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  2. #2
    On a related note, wikileaks is currently suffering from a massive DDOS attack.

    this leak is pretty amazing. 75 year-old American escaped Iran riding a horse over a freezing Turkish mountain range

  3. #3
    After all the hype, this is really disappointing and boring.

    Today we appear to have learned:
    Diplomats are rude in private
    Prince Andrew is rude in public
    Israel is worried about Iran
    Saudi Arabia is worried about Iran
    Russia is a big country with a lot of trees
    Dog bites man

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    After all the hype, this is really disappointing and boring.

    Today we appear to have learned:
    Diplomats are rude in private
    Prince Andrew is rude in public
    Israel is worried about Iran
    Saudi Arabia is worried about Iran
    Russia is a big country with a lot of trees
    Dog bites man
    I like the bit where they won't let Obama visit your country unless you agree to take in Gitmo prisoners. Hopey changey if you agree to violate human rights! It's such an American thing, ugh.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The kings of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan for starters. Ditto for the president of Yemen and the Crown Prince of the Saudis. This will definitely spook lower-level officials in those countries who don't want to be on record saying something that is contrary to their country's professed foreign policy.
    So your opinion of those guys is that they're "honest people" in the past. Funny, I didn't think you thought that.

    They say what they want, that's not going to change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Middle Eastern leaders begging us/the Israelis in private to bomb Iran is pretty bad, can't really argue with that.
    But who's shocked?
    They weren't public, that's the fracking point. How would you like all your internal work e-mails scrutinized by people you deal with externally? Candor is not arrogance, BTW.
    I don't put anything in writing that could be used against me, it's common sense. It's not news either that emails get leaked and are not a secure mode of communication.

    Nothing is new today, even the idea of leaks aren't new. This is news because of the scale of it, but all in all its rather boring and predictable.

  6. #6
    And that US diplomats are encouraged to gather any info they can find about diplomats from other countries (including things like logins, credit-card info, creepy personal stuff). Not to mention "genetic material", unspecified
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  7. #7
    Eh? I only skimmed the news summaries, but I missed that one...

  8. #8
    When America does something stupid in the future because it wasn't able to get honest views from relevant actors, I'm sure the WikiLeaks people will be very happy.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    When America does something stupid in the future because it wasn't able to get honest views from relevant actors, I'm sure the WikiLeaks people will be very happy.
    Maybe the relevant actors we want honest answers from will help us decide who the America is they will give the answers to.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    When America does something stupid in the future because it wasn't able to get honest views from relevant actors, I'm sure the WikiLeaks people will be very happy.
    Please name a single "relevant actor" who's been honest until now but won't be going forward. Not generalities, just one individual would be fine.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Please name a single "relevant actor" who's been honest until now but won't be going forward. Not generalities, just one individual would be fine.
    The political elites from the Gulf and other parts of the Middle East who now have egg on their face and will likely have to quell domestic unrest over what they said in private (and this has the potential to worsen relations between several countries in the Middle east, whose leaders are already known for having fragile egos). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they'll be less willing to offer information in private that they wouldn't want to see in print. There's absolutely no excuse to reveal information said in private unless it was criminal in nature (which it was not). If people don't think the views they share with American diplomats will stay private, they'll think twice about offering those views.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    Might be we need officials who don't show their arrogance publicly in cables. You can have the thought, just don't ever let anyone in on it.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  13. #13
    Middle Eastern leaders begging us/the Israelis in private to bomb Iran is pretty bad, can't really argue with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Might be we need officials who don't show their arrogance publicly in cables. You can have the thought, just don't ever let anyone in on it.
    They weren't public, that's the fracking point. How would you like all your internal work e-mails scrutinized by people you deal with externally? Candor is not arrogance, BTW.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The political elites from the Gulf ...
    Name please.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Name please.
    The kings of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan for starters. Ditto for the president of Yemen and the Crown Prince of the Saudis. This will definitely spook lower-level officials in those countries who don't want to be on record saying something that is contrary to their country's professed foreign policy.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Please name a single "relevant actor" who's been honest until now but won't be going forward. Not generalities, just one individual would be fine.
    Diplomats, for once. Will you give your honest opinion as a diplomat - or will you try to phrase it differently, knowing full well that it may end up in public?

    That's the problem here. For instance, our own foreign minister Westerwelle was labelled as being "incompetent", it's the honest truth, even we Germans know that - but that's not something to be carried into the public arena.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Diplomats, for once. Will you give your honest opinion as a diplomat - or will you try to phrase it differently, knowing full well that it may end up in public?
    Pre-wikileaks: Phrase it knowing full well that it may end up in public.
    Post-wikileaks: Phrase it knowing full well that it may end up in public.
    That's the problem here. For instance, our own foreign minister Westerwelle was labelled as being "incompetent", it's the honest truth, even we Germans know that - but that's not something to be carried into the public arena.
    And?

    President Obama tried to avoid having a face-to-face meeting with Gordon Brown while Brown's team desperately tried to organise one. That was leaked, over a year ago, nothing to do with Wikileaks.

    This isn't new.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    So your opinion of those guys is that they're "honest people" in the past. Funny, I didn't think you thought that.

    They say what they want, that's not going to change.
    Erm, what? They seemed to be offering pretty honest opinions in the story, ones that would bring them a lot of heat if they said them in public. They don't say those things in public for obvious reasons, and now they have even less incentive to tell us what they really think.

    It's also interesting that for all the talk of transparency, WikiLeaks provided the information first to a handful of elite Western newspapers.
    Last edited by Loki; 11-29-2010 at 02:09 PM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    When America does something stupid in the future because it wasn't able to get honest views from relevant actors, I'm sure the WikiLeaks people will be very happy.
    Spoken like a man who grew up under a totalitarian government. Moar secrecy!

  20. #20
    So diplomats shouldn't tell their superiors anything that they're not willing to see in print?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    So diplomats shouldn't tell their superiors anything that they're not willing to see in print?
    Not in an email.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Not in an email.
    Ah, they should use possibly tapped phones or only provide the information every 2 years (i.e. when they get rotated out of their position and get to visit D.C.)? And it's not like there would be any problem with only a handful of people (i.e. those who'd get called with a phone) knowing any given piece of information, right? Who needs information sharing, right?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #23
    So would you rather everything be communicated by phone? Or that our government keep no records? I'm sorry but your expectations here are patently nonsensical if not insane.

  24. #24
    What's new?

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So would you rather everything be communicated by phone? Or that our government keep no records? I'm sorry but your expectations here are patently nonsensical if not insane.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What's new?
    Did you follow the thread? It's etiquette I was talking about bean brains...not secrets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Might be we need officials who don't show their arrogance publicly in cables. You can have the thought, just don't ever let anyone in on it.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  26. #26
    I wouldn't say any of this is sensitive material. If it was, then it would be compartmentalized so that someone with a general password would not be able to get to it.

  27. #27
    Everything the local paper has printed so far is stuff the public already understood or suspected (print media being worth what it is). Except now we have slightly more concrete proof.

    Like China's politburo directing the attack on Google.

  28. #28
    Apparently one of the cables was a complaint/warning to British Government (last, Labour) that one of the ministers was a sex-pest who had been sending sexually aggressive text messages to members of staff.

    News? Well, not exactly. Not often I'd like to the Daily Fail but see this article from September 2008: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsun...l-aide-24.html

    Has anyone actually learned anything new from this yet?

  29. #29
    Seems that some of the "right-wing media" here have cottoned on to what I started saying last night. From a blog post from Benedict Brogan, Deputy Editor of the Torygraph:
    Quote Originally Posted by Benedict Brogan
    Wikileaks is embarrassing – but not serious
    The Wikileaks story is great fun. The embarrassment of others always is. But however much the Guardian, the New York Times and Julian Assange assure us that this represents a shattering blow to every assumption we hold about foreign relations, the fact remains that it’s a collection of little substance that will do nothing to reshape geo-politics. The Saudis would like someone to whack Iran? No kidding. Afghanistan is run by crooks? Really? Hillary Clinton would like to know a lot more about the diplomats she is negotiating against? You surprise me. The Russian government may have links to organised crime? Pass the smelling salts, Petunia. The Americans are secretly whacking al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen? What, you thought the Yemenis were doing it? Muammar Qaddafi has a full time, pneumatic Ukrainian ‘nurse’? Nice one. Diplomats are terrified of Pakistan’s nukes? Me too. And so on, ad infinite boredom. Perhaps something better will pop up, but nothing I’ve read since last night’s surprises.

    So the news value of this story is the embarrassment it’s causing. And embarrassment can in some cases be devastating. Countries with no tradition of openness or internet-led subversion will find it mystifying that the American government has allowed this to happen. It may at the margins damage relationships. And of course it will do nothing for the credibility of the Obama administration. Those concerned are issuing indignant statements condemning Wikileaks and its oddball boss. This rather reinforces the case of those who say Wikileaks is simply not serious. Effective diplomacy involves all the transgressions Wikileaks is exposing. Embarrassment is just the consequence of exposure. Perhaps the more sophisticated response is to stand firm, to assume a degree of worldiness from those involved in the world of diplomacy (who will for example enjoy seeing the US Secretary of State squirming about her UN spying operation, but only because theirs hasn’t been exposed as well), and to accept that occasional embarrassment is an occupational hazard in a 21st century marked by vast quantities of information circulating in all too accessible digital form.
    Anyone who thought emails were a secure means of communication, that private conversations stay private or that leaks never happen is not living in the real world or has been living under a rock for the last few decades. This is no Watergate, its tiddle-taddle and its stuff we all knew about, just on a grand scale.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Anyone who thought emails were a secure means of communication, that private conversations stay private or that leaks never happen is not living in the real world or has been living under a rock for the last few decades. This is no Watergate, its tiddle-taddle and its stuff we all knew about, just on a grand scale.
    Name the last time this many diplomatic cables were leaked. Thought so. As for your citing of a worthless newspaper editor, how about you look at what diplomats and military men (past and present) are saying.
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •