I’m trying to make sense of the Wikileaks debacle – trying to find something constructive we can learn from all of this. Here’s my best shot, so far. I have found no shortage of opinions expressed on this matter. Most surprising are the views that these disclosures are warranted because secrecy itself is wrong, or because diplomatic communication, indeed all communication, ought to be open and candid.
It is true that secrecy can create opportunities for wrongdoing. That does not make secrecy wrong. I want the agents of my legitimate government to have the latitude to act secretly, and to speak to one another discretely. There should be safeguards against wrongdoing. But, even in the absence of effective safeguards, the violation of legitimate secrecy must be justified by something more than a loathing of privacy. Our citizens are best served by a government that is able to protect our safety and interests. Sometimes that requires secrecy.
I have pledged to be open and intellectually charitable towards those with whom I disagree. I don’t see these disclosures as acts of terrorism, for example. I am open to being persuaded that this injury to our nation’s diplomatic operations is justifiable. For example, I would reach a different conclusion if the disclosures stopped or prevented some greater harm or malfeasance, such as those revealed by the Pentagon Papers. Even then, it would seem incumbent on those taking such actions to limit their harm by limiting the disclosures, and to provide some analysis of what they observed, what it means, and what must change and why. As it stands, however, the candid and colorful intramural discussion of foreign affairs doesn’t even seem wrong.
So, what can we learn? First, this situation reminds us that true candor exists only in the context of a respectful, trusting relationship. Candor is more than honesty – it is openness, transparency, a full expression of one’s beliefs. Trusting and respectful relationships are understandably rare in the world of international diplomacy, and so is candor. Second, the mere presence of candor does not speak to intent or outcomes. We can be benignly dishonest (“dinner was lovely!”), and we can sometimes be, in a very real sense “brutally honest.” The presence of candor does not diminish the potential for brutality.
Some commentators long for a world where nobody says anything that they would not be comfortable publishing on a Website. I neither envision nor desire such a world. Rather, I think it better to treat everyone with a baseline level of respect (which might include not sharing unflattering if candid observations with them), and to reserve candor for those relationships and contexts in which it is warranted and appropriate.
That’s what I really think.
