The hundreds of thousands of secret memos released by WikiLeaks this week shine a bright light on a world used to being away from the public eye. Some argue secrecy in diplomacy is important.On Monday, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton responded to the release by saying that "it is imperative that we have candid reporting from those who are in the field, working with their counterparts, in order to inform our decision making back here in Washington." But what would it be like if the art of diplomacy was always this open?
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, looks at the transparency foisted onto U.S. diplomats, and how relations would change if this became standard.
Haass takes the opportunity in one case to take issue with a characterization of the words of American Diplomat April Glaspie in the run-up to the Gulf War in 1990. Ambassador Glespie's words to Iraqi leader Sadam Hussein may have held some nuance concerning U.S. interests in the region; Haass believes she made U.S. intentions to defend Kuwait clear, though some suggest her statements were more convoluted.
The story you just read is freely available and accessible to everyone because readers like you support The World financially.
Thank you all for helping us reach our goal of 1,000 donors. We couldn’t have done it without your support. Your donation directly supported the critical reporting you rely on, the consistent reporting you believe in, and the deep reporting you want to ensure survives.