Cyperspace meets private candour. The Wikileaks phenomenon is met by bureaucratic “we don’t comment on unconfirmed reports”, which only shows how slow institutions are to respond to the realities of the new world.
When I was in Afghanistan for the first time nearly five years ago, everyone I met talked about the widespread corruption, including the allegations about President Karzai’s half brother. It was hardly a secret. The idea that Bill Crosbie should resign because he let the American Ambassador know his blood was boiling at the problems surrounding the Karzai Presidency is ridiculous. I would be more worried if our ambassador shrugged his shoulders and said “no big deal” when confronted with the growing evidence of problems.
Some of what will emerge – in the Middle East, in Pakistan, and elsewhere – will compromise sources, practices, and on it goes, but none of it should “shock”. Corruption in Russia, Arab leaders saying privately how worried they are about Iran, Americans razzing Canadians for having an “inferiority complex” and “anti-american” programming on the CBC: there’s nothing new here, and we shouldn’t be so touchy or sensitive that we can’t handle a vigorous discussion. CSIS directors complaining about the “shackles” that courts concerned about charter rights and due process is hardly news.
The internet is full of gossip, hate, mistrust, misinformation, as well as all that is true and valuable. We still want our diplomats and public officials to give us their candid and honest assessment of things, and to keep the spin to a minimum. Maybe if our public comments were closer to reality there wouldn’t be so much amazement at what we are now seeing.
A refreshingly clear-headed reaction, in contrast to the predictable chicken-little musings produced by militarily-aligned pundits.