WIKILEAKS FALLOUT: DIPLOMATS ARE NOT SPIES -- Putting a Diplomat's Work in Perspective
The mega data dump of State Department cables that Wikileaks has unloaded into the cybersphere constitutes a great voyeuristic view into the rarefied work of diplomats. While many observers justifiably heap kudos on our Foreign Service officers for their fine reporting and analysis, most readers are viewing the cables both out of context and with no foundation for comprehending how diplomats go about their business.
Let's take one of the most inflammatory messages: REPORTING AND COLLECTION NEEDS: THE UNITED NATIONS. This cable has drawn sharp criticism from the UN community, who see it as an instruction for U.S. diplomats to spy on UN personnel. This is not the case. Every year, the intelligence community puts together a wish list of information they would like to obtain for a host of reasons. It's their own data dump shopping list. They throw the kitchen sink, and more, into these annual bureaucratic exercises. It's a classic case of work by committee.
Our Foreign Service personnel in the field review the list to get an idea of what Washington wants to know. Generally, Foreign Service officers (FSOs) focus on the major regional and security policy issues, e.g., "Afghanistan," "Iraq," "Arms Control," "Terrorism," etc. to know their reporting priorities. Such requests as obtaining "biometric" information is not normally something an FSO will go after. It's not his or her job as an overt official. The key thing here is the cable's statement: "coordinating with other Country Team members to encourage relevant reporting through their own or State Department channels." I, for one, never sought out biometric or other such instrusive information. Nor can I recall any fellow FSOs who did so. We all knew that that was left to the spies, which we were not. I would have refused an order from a superior to go out and intrusively spy on foreign officials. But I never got such orders either.
The general public needs to understand three essential elements about a diplomat's mission: 1) to keep Washington and other American embassies informed about their country or issue(s); 2)to meet and talk with a wide range of people in order to know what's going on, but also to promote U.S. interests, be they political, commercial, humanitarian, what have you; and 3) this must all be done in confidentiality and trust.
I found myself as a 28-year old junior diplomat at a small embassy serving as Charge d'Affaires in place of the ambassador, who left for consultations in Washington. As soon as he departed, border clashes broke out between our host country and its larger neighbor. The host country foreign ministry called me in to ask that we help try to resolve the tensions. What made it interesting was that host country was normally hostile to us. This required delicate diplomacy, starting with reporting the approach to Washington and seeking instructions. My reporting included a candid assessment of the host government's interests and intentions. Had this reporting been blown wide open for the whole world to see, our delicate efforts to help defuse what threatened to become outright war would have met with utter failure. The result might have been escalating conflict with resultant regional instability and loss of lives on both sides. But, our good offices did help defuse the conflict and won us some welcome trust within what was normally an unfriendly host government.
As, again, Charge d'Affaires years later in Cambodia during the UN-sponsored peace negotiations and national reconciliation efforts in the early '90s, a violent coup d'etat was launched by disgruntled military units led by an ambitious member of the royal family. We discovered quickly that a U.S. ally was double dealing and fanning the coup. It was through our quiet but assertive diplomacy with the UN and other countries that we managed to defuse the crisis and put the wayward ally back in their place. Had our reporting and the State Department's instructions been "open to the light of day," all of this discreet and sensitive diplomacy would have gotten nowhere. The violence would have grown and the peace negotiations might have gone down the tubes.
I was privileged to have been among a handful of officials to have read the transcripts of President George H.W. Bush's conversations with Gorbachev, Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher very soon after he consulted them on fast-moving German unification as East Germany was folding. The conversations were detailed and frank. What might have been the course of events had Wikileaks been around to publish the transcripts for the world to see?
Diplomats must be pragmatists who are constantly seeking constructive approaches to resolve thorny issues. To do this, they must earn the trust of the people they deal with. One does not earn trust either by carrying out espionage or by divulging to everyone under the sun the contents of his or her discussions or analyses. A reading of the Wikileaks cables underscores this. The FSOs are shown to be both discreet and pragmatically constructive. They are also damn good writers!