For Those Outraged By The Wikileaks "Revelations": Your Alternative To Diplomacy

[WildCat]

For Those Outraged By The Wikileaks "Revelations": Your Alternative To Diplomacy

Several posters here are outraged over the fact that diplomats often say one thing officially and publicly, while saying quite the opposite privately, unofficially, in secret. And that in a free country nothing diplomats do should be a secret, all our cards should be on the table for everyone to see.

IOW, they are upset that diplomats are being diplomatic when it comes to dealing with foreign governments.

This thread is for those outraged persons to offer alternatives to diplomacy when it comes to foreign relations.

 

[Bikewer]

I said in another thread that the Wikileaks material is simply showing diplomacy, warts and all.
The normal bland public face of diplomacy conceals things that we all suspect go on, but perhaps few need or want to see....

I suspect they would not wish to see what goes on in the back offices of Congress either.

 

[nvidiot]

Don't suppose you can point to one of those people claiming outrage?

 

[WildCat]

Don't suppose you can point to one of those people claiming outrage?

I don't think forum rules allow me to, as it's "calling out" another poster. But read the wikileaks threads, you'll see them.

 

[WildCat]

I said in another thread that the Wikileaks material is simply showing diplomacy, warts and all.
The normal bland public face of diplomacy conceals things that we all suspect go on, but perhaps few need or want to see....

I suspect they would not wish to see what goes on in the back offices of Congress either.

It's not quite that. It's the idea that these documents shouldn't have been secret in the first place, they should have been available to the public prior to wikileaks releasing them.

Which, of course, would torpedo any official diplomatic efforts. Thus my question: What alternatives to diplomacy are there?

 

[Skeptic]

Are you sure, WildCat? Apart from those who blame the USA / Israel routinely for everything, nobody seems to be claiming much outrage over the "revelations". They are in effect that a diplomat in country X said in private things that are less polite than he said in public. So?

 

[Rufo]

I suppose the alternative would be simply representing the publicly known interests of your nation. That would still be diplomacy for some valid meanings of the word, although perhaps less so for others. Having your cards on the table would be a disadvantage at times, maybe even crippling negotiations, but it doesn't mean there can be no negotiations or that your automatically lose them.

However, I'm not outraged or upset about any of what I've seen so far, nor do I have a big problem with diplomacy as it is, so you probably want to talk to someone else.

I don't think forum rules allow me to, as it's "calling out" another poster. But read the wikileaks threads, you'll see them.

I'm not sure what rules you are referring to here. I see nothing about this in the membership agreement. Is it really common praxis to prevent this from happening? I've seen threads that have been close to outright callouts turning into fine discussions.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Several posters here are outraged over the fact that diplomats often say one thing officially and publicly, while saying quite the opposite privately, unofficially, in secret. And that in a free country nothing diplomats do should be a secret, all our cards should be on the table for everyone to see.

IOW, they are upset that diplomats are being diplomatic when it comes to dealing with foreign governments.

This thread is for those outraged persons to offer alternatives to diplomacy when it comes to foreign relations.

It's a straw man OP, with an odd circular defense of your refusal to actually quote anything you claim to be arguing against.

On the one hand this is an explicit "calling out" of these mysterious people, but on the other hand you are prohibited by the rules from calling them out, so you are limited to the straw man version instead of what they actually said.

Not being one of this mysterious group though I can clearly see your central assertion - that diplomats cannot criticize diplomatically - is absurd.

A nation certainly can criticize its associates - and should - without being vulgar, obscene, childish, or otherwise unnecessarily insulting. You can respectfully tell your brother he has an alcohol problem too without phrasing it in a way that just makes him angry and results in a fight instead of productive exchange.

It seems to me you champion lying - both lying to our own people and lying to our international associates. Stating one thing publicly and the opposite thing secretly means lying.

I don't consider that diplomacy. Stating you disagree in a tactful manner publicly while stating the same thing crudely in private is what I learned as diplomacy in my limited exposure to it in college.

In other words, you've made up your own definition of diplomacy, and it seems lying is the core tenet whereas the central definition in dictionaries or books on the subject is one of tact.

It also seems to me that the mystery people already answered your question in accordance with the standard definition of tactful negotiation - that in a free country citizens cannot very well rule when the government keeps everything secret from them, so what diplomats say should be public.

In sum, it seems to me your core premise is that lying is the definition of diplomacy instead of tact in negotiations, and that lying cannot be accomplished openly so therefore diplomacy requires secrecy.

That is begging the question.

 

[Dragoonster]

Diplomacy = directing diplomats to gather personal information on world leaders? (as contrary to international law)

To answer the OP, my alternative = not directing diplomats to gather personal information on world leaders.

 

[Oliver]

Thus my question: What alternatives to diplomacy are there?

All the Cables reveal is that Diplomats use diplomacy??? ... and what alternatives we have to diplomacy?????

Seriously, what are you talking about? Obviously the Cables reveal a lot more stuff then you're aware of probably thanks to your lack of foreign coverage ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think forum rules allow me to, as it's "calling out" another poster. But read the wikileaks threads, you'll see them.

I question your interpretation of at least, my posts. I don't know if I'm one of the people you had in mind.

I said the leaks demonstrated the corruption of Karzai's government was being downplayed by our government. You seemed to think that just because one could find the corroborating evidence of how corrupt Karzai's government was, that meant there was no downplaying by our government. But they have been and the leaked documents show how badly our government privately thought things were at the same time putting on a false impression that there was just the usual level of corruption, not enough to withdraw support for Karzai.

I would prefer our government challenge Karzi more, not Kowtow to him. If he wants our support, he needs to change. Call his bluff and let him run to the Taliban camp if he so chooses and let's deal with it.

The US has a very long history of supporting unpopular corrupt leaders like Karzai. I don't believe that was the successful approach many people believe. It resulted in short term gain but that was overridden by long term loss.

My position is not one of outrage over the US diplomacy, it's simply a difference of opinion.

 

[Travis]

Diplomacy = directing diplomats to gather personal information on world leaders? (as contrary to international law)

To answer the OP, my alternative = not directing diplomats to gather personal information on world leaders.

You don't want your diplomats to be effective?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All the Cables reveal is that Diplomats use diplomacy??? ... and what alternatives we have to diplomacy?????

Seriously, what are you talking about? Obviously the Cables reveal a lot more stuff then you're aware of probably thanks to your lack of foreign coverage ...

There is a lot of truth in this. Our mainstream news media is analogous to McDonalds in the restaurant industry.

We do have good alternate news sources, but the mainstream public is analogous to the people who prefer McDonald's to a good restaurant.

 

[followmycaravan]

I agree with the idea that diplomats feel such a breach of privacy with their relations with the government. Throughout the years they've had relationships in which involved secrecy and private matters because maybe a lack of interest by the media or simply protective legislation. I believe it is just a short term concern and they will be adjusted to these new conditions

 

[WildCat]

It's a straw man OP, with an odd circular defense of your refusal to actually quote anything you claim to be arguing against.

How's this?

I wouldn't mind a government where every meeting is taped and transcribed, whether committees, office visits, or donor fundraisers.

I wouldn't mind a government where diplomatic cables are almost always public knowledge.

I wouldn't mind a government where the absolutely only information that wasn't completely transparent and accessible to citizens were wartime documents relating to current/impending troop movements/dispositions and similar immediate security concerns.

I'm with the right in that I don't trust the government, but I think they tend to try and destroy the helpful parts and keep the authoritarianism and corporate welfare state alive.

I'm with the left in that that I see the government as a series of expressions of the will of the citizens, in whole and in parts, but I can't decide if it's gutlessness or hypocrisy that keeps them from actually delivering on any of the hope and change that is often promised and never delivered.

I like representative democracy, but I don't feel like there's anyone in state or federal government right now that represents me or the interests of me and people like me.

I think it would help if we could shine a bright light on everything that happens in government. The citizens should know what America is saying, doing, planning, and who it's doing it with. Why? Because it's our country and we need more of a say in it than we're getting right now.

Here's one poster who thinks all diplomatic cables should be public knowledge.

Anyone in this thread agree? If so, how do you think diplomacy can work in such a scenario?

 

[WildCat]

I question your interpretation of at least, my posts. I don't know if I'm one of the people you had in mind.

I said the leaks demonstrated the corruption of Karzai's government was being downplayed by our government. You seemed to think that just because one could find the corroborating evidence of how corrupt Karzai's government was, that meant there was no downplaying by our government. But they have been and the leaked documents show how badly our government privately thought things were at the same time putting on a false impression that there was just the usual level of corruption, not enough to withdraw support for Karzai.

I would prefer our government challenge Karzi more, not Kowtow to him. If he wants our support, he needs to change. Call his bluff and let him run to the Taliban camp if he so chooses and let's deal with it.

The US has a very long history of supporting unpopular corrupt leaders like Karzai. I don't believe that was the successful approach many people believe. It resulted in short term gain but that was overridden by long term loss.

My position is not one of outrage over the US diplomacy, it's simply a difference of opinion.

So you think we should be publicly calling Karzai a drug kingpin?

How do you think this will help the situation in Afghanistan, or further our interests there?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's not quite that. It's the idea that these documents shouldn't have been secret in the first place, they should have been available to the public prior to wikileaks releasing them.

These documents shouldn't have been documents, is my take on it. Write something down, pass it through many hands, and it's not going to be a secret long. If diplomats feel the need to report this kind of thing, be it real and sensitive secrets or just the juicy gossip, they need to find a secure way to report it so leaks do not happen. Does nobody bother with code any more? Or reporting the truly sensitive stuff in person? It's the Internet Age. Once something's transmitted, it's out there forever, somewhere. How can people who are entrusted with secrecy not know that?

 

[TjW]

As I understand it, it was transmitted securely. The leak came from someone authorized to access a database violating his trust.

As to not having permanent records of the information, one my favorite movie lines is from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when Indy's dad informs him they'll have to go to Berlin to retrieve his journal.

Indy: "Can't you just remember it?"
"I wrote it down so I wouldn't have to remember it."

 

[TragicMonkey]

As I understand it, it was transmitted securely. The leak came from someone authorized to access a database violating his trust.

That's even worse. If they can't figure out who's trustworthy, then all efforts at secrecy are futile.

As to not having permanent records of the information, one my favorite movie lines is from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when Indy's dad informs him they'll have to go to Berlin to retrieve his journal.

Indy: "Can't you just remember it?"
"I wrote it down so I wouldn't have to remember it."

I didn't say make no records, just don't send them around. It's amazing how tight the security is on information when you write it down with pen on paper and keep the paper in your office. Anyone who wants to get their grubby mitts on your secrets will actually have to leave their house to do it.

 

[TjW]

Curiously, one of the often-heard complaints about the US government's performance wrt 9/11 is that they didn't share information enough, and that more intra-governmental openness could have prevented the attacks.