Dear Editor,
While I have disagreed with many of Joshua Youner's "Conscientious and Contentious" columns over the course of this semester, I have chalked it up to differences in ideology that are not worth quibbling over. His column on Thursday, however, while aptly identifying the downsides of the State Department diplomatic cables leak by the organization known as WikiLeaks, ends with the preposterous conclusion that "the assault on WikiLeaks and [Julian] Assange should stop."
Since WikiLeaks came into the possession of classified U.S. government documents, it is necessary that the government investigate the leaks of these documents thoroughly and ensure that it does not have sources beyond the Army private currently in custody for the leaks of the so-called War Diaries earlier this year.
In a nation that is governed by the rule of law, it is despicable that a public servant took advantage of the privilege of handling sensitive information and abused the trust placed in him by the U.S. government, and therefore its people, by indiscriminately leaking thousands of classified documents for the purpose of "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms."
Moreover, it is fair to say that the American people do not have a carte blanche "right to know what is being done on our behalf around the world." Should Americans have an interest in specific documents, the Freedom of Information Act and the passage of time are the legal remedies that Congress has created for unearthing government secrets. Working within the law to change how the government classifies secrets is the appropriate solution, not flouting the law while lives are at stake.
I will concede that the U.S. government may be overstating the number of lives at risk due to these disclosures, but that does not mean that these leaks are harmless. While WikiLeaks has attempted to redact names of specific sources, the background descriptions of the sources often remain, placing these individuals at risk.
Besides the obvious risk to sources, U.S. and worldwide diplomacy have been dealt a blow. While it has been more or less known that some Arab leaders are uncomfortable with a rising and someday-nuclear Iran, the disclosure that Arab leaders are pushing for military action over international sanctions and negotiation is not a reflection that the United States has "successfully built a network of allies against Iran as a potential enemy." Instead, it shows that Arab countries are just as skittish about nuclear Iran as Israel. Furthermore, while Iran publically "mocks the whole operation as a Western propaganda game," the leaders of the Iranian government are not so foolish as to dismiss these cables behind closed doors. Their reaction to these cables will be unpredictable — encircled by a U.S.-led coalition, Iran may choose to abandon its nuclear efforts in the face of broad opposition or instead redouble its efforts as its fears of isolation and encirclement have been confirmed.
Likewise, the revelation that China has hinted to South Korea that it would not oppose unification if it gained access to North Korea's resources is confirmation that North Korea's notorious paranoia is not misplaced and its nuclear weapons may be the only ace it has left.
While foreign governments may publicly disavow the contents of the cables by accusing the United States of being mistaken at best and conspiring with WikiLeaks at worst, this will not be the case during internal policy discussions. These cables will have subtle but long-lasting effects on how the United States and the world conduct diplomacy. It should come as no surprise that American diplomats are adept and effective in doing this nation's work — we did not need these cables to prove that to the world.
Sincerely,
John K. Atsalis
Class of 2011
Business Manager, The Primary Source
