Os problemas da diplomacia…
Keefe, «The Denver Post»
Escreve Joshua Kucera na Foreign Policy:
[…] When I travel to a foreign capital, I will ask the U.S. Embassy there for a background briefing, but I know not to expect much from it. I’ve found it far more useful to set up meetings with the Europeans — Germans, French, or Swiss, especially. Those are the diplomats who will give you the real dirt: juicy details about corruption and political infighting and what nefarious schemes the Russians or Chinese (or Americans) are up to in the country. The difference is so striking that I long ago concluded that the Americans — the product of a Foreign Service selection process that encourages dutiful ladder-climbers rather than creative thinkers and then sends them out to be walled up in overprotected embassy compounds far from town — were just not as sharp as their wilier continental counterparts. (I exaggerate here slightly — I also have met very savvy American diplomats, including all of you who are reading this article right now.)
In any case, this is what I thought until I started reading the diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks has started making public. U.S. Foreign Service officers might not like their confidential correspondence aired in public, but overall, the cables portray them as smart and perceptive, and with no illusions about the countries they are dealing with. […]
Paresh Nath, «The Khaleej Times»
É desta forma que o Sr. Kucera defende o Departamento de Estado norte-americano e os seus diplomatas; afinal eles parece que percebem bem o mundo em que vivem. A mais recente divulgação por parte da Wikileaks de documentos confidenciais americanos continua a dar o que falar, e o mundo ficou a saber, ao mesmo tempo, o que a diplomacia americana pensa dos líderes do resto do mundo e não só — o blog da The Economist, Democracy in America, discute bastante o assunto. Silvio Berlusconi, por exemplo, é descrito como vaidoso e completamente ineficaz como líder de um mundo moderno, como escreve a Der Spigel. Na mesma Spiegel fica-se a saber que há um país que até pode ganhar com tudo isto: Israel na sua cruzada contra o Irão:.
[…] One of the few countries which may stand to benefit from the WikiLeaks revelations appears to be Israel. Countless documents indicate that several countries in the Middle East are much more concerned about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons than they have let on in public. One dispatch reveals that Saudi Arabia had urged the US to “cut off the head of the snake” by attacking Iran, a sentiment shared by other countries in the region. The cables also reveal that North Korea may have provided Iran with missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe.
“These (disclosures) don’t hurt Israel at all — perhaps the opposite,” Giora Eiland, a former national security adviser to ex-prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, told Israeli radio according to the Associated Press. “If there is something on the Iranian issue that, in my opinion, happens to help Israel, it is that these leaks show that Arab countries like Saudi Arabia are far more interested in Iran than they are in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Chappatte, «International Herald Tribune»
Jack Shafer, na Slate, escreve que mais cedo ou mais tarde, Hillary Clinton terá que se demitir devido a este escândalo, tornou-se impossível permanecer como Secretária de Estado. David Corn, no Politics Daily, escreve que isso não acontecerá; tal como a sua antecessora, Condoleezza Rice, a Sra. Clinton continuará no lugar.
Stephen M. Walt tem uma visão bem mais pragmática da questão:
How much difference would it really make if all these “private” diplomatic meetings were public? Suppose there was no such thing as a “private” diplomatic meeting or a backchannel discussion. I can easily imagine that world leaders wouldn’t like it very much — but how much would world politics change if all these conversations were held in public so that people could see and hear what was being said? […]
Would it really make that much difference? Would a world of “open covenants, openly arrived at” (to use Wilson’s phrase), really be that different than the world in which we live today? And aren’t all those people who are now defending the importance of diplomatic confidentiality really saying that there is a lot of information that our leaders have to keep from us, or else the world will all go to hell?