LONDON (AP) — Nearly two months after WikiLeaks outraged the U.S. government by launching the release of a massive compendium of diplomatic documents, the secret-spilling website has published 2,658 U.S. State Department cables — just over 1 percent of its trove of 251,287 documents.
Here’s a look at what the consequences of the release of the cables has been so far, and what the future could hold for WikiLeaks.
It’s lifted the veil on international relations
WikiLeaks has given the world’s public an unprecedented, behind-the-scenes look at U.S. diplomacy. Among the most eye-catching revelations were reports that Arab countries had lobbied for an attack on Iran, China had made plans for the collapse of its North Korean ally, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had ordered U.S. diplomats to gather the computer passwords, fingerprints and even DNA of their foreign counterparts.
Some of the most controversial cables dealt with a directive to harvest biometric information on a range of officials. U.S. diplomats have been forced repeatedly to deny spying on their counterparts — although none has specifically addressed the instructions to gather personal details, sensitive computer data, and even genetic material or iris scans.
Anthony Cordesman, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, cautioned that some cables were less explosive when taken in the context they were written. He noted that Arab belligerence toward Tehran has festered for years, and he suggested the rhetoric was being ratcheted up at a time of high tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.
As for the cables on scooping up fingerprints, frequent-flier numbers and other personal information, Mr. Cordesman said that “there isn’t a diplomatic service in the world that doesn’t serve its intelligence community.”
It’s shown how leaders lie
Over and over again, the cables captured world leaders lying — to each other, to their allies and to their own citizens.
Diplomacy “comes across as a scheming, duplicitous profession — which it kind of is,” said Carne Ross, a former British diplomat who resigned over the Iraq war.
Mr. Ross said the most outrageous example of double-dealing he had seen so far was the 2009 cable that caught Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh sharing a joke about how another senior official had covered up a series of U.S. attacks by lying to parliament.
But there are other examples. One of the cables has Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s longtime opposition leader-turned-prime minister, telling Western diplomats that his calls for easing sanctions against Zimbabwe are for public consumption only. Another cable cites Israeli officials, who often have insisted their controversial blockade of the Gaza Strip is targeted only at arch-foe Hamas, as freely acknowledging that the restrictions were in fact an effort to keep the Gazan economy teetering on the brink of collapse.
The cables are laced with cynicism. One quotes a former French prime minister as dismissing a fellow socialist politician as too honest for his own good. Meanwhile Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, describes his country’s apparently cordial relationship with neighboring Iran as one big charade.
“They lie to us, and we lie to them,” Sheikh Al-Thani is quoted as saying.
It’s shaken U.S. diplomacy