Robert Gates gets the last word on WikiLeaks

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 9:11 AM Share

I've expressed skepticism about whether WikiLeaks will actually lead to greater foreign-policy transparency. That said, l'affaire WikiLeaks has generated just a smidgen of greater candor from at least one U.S. policy principal. Here's Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the fallout from the cable dump:

Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel." …

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.

Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

Hat tip: Jack Goldsmith.

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, DIPLOMACY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, FOREIGN POLICY, REALISM, UNITED STATES, WEB 2.0
 

HANMENG

3:10 PM ET

December 1, 2010

He's a Bush man

But that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.

 

UMESHGEETA

3:56 AM ET

December 2, 2010

Not at all

Gates was never wrong because he was the Bush Man. In fact he is the rare species who helped Bush to get right his 'wrongs'.

Gates is right here.

Having said that, the right course for USA and the world is to bring Assange to books. Yes, the guy needs to go behind the bars. Anarchist have never solved problems of the world. They have rather compounded it.

Conversation between myself and some one else should not be published just because Assange's di*k says so. Further, just because someone is in Public Service job does not mean any of that conversation can be published too. People are privy to their own communications in their private life as well as at their work place.

As Ben Smith of Politico says, Assange is simply trying to undermine America and America's strength. He is the worst side of Western Liberal Thinking. (I am Liberal, Dem Supporter, for record.) America must pursue him as the national enemy. I hate Wall Street Bankers and absolutely do not love Bank of America (no BofA Securities owned). But even then I do not want anyone 'stealing' proprietary information of that private enterprise and this dude to make it public. BofA will have to release information what law demands. Otherwise, BofA is fully in ownership of it's information and no one can steal it to publish under the name of journalism.

Assange journalism is nothing but stealing what belongs to others. So what if he does not profit? That is irrelevant.

What is essential for Obama and Hillary is to get this guy and put him down.

Osma bin Laden has found a companion and America needs to take him that serious to put his end.

 

CURT SAMPSON

3:59 AM ET

December 4, 2010

Steady on, there!

If you are, like me, a liberal, you probably want to stop and think for a moment about what you're saying.

First, you appear to be confused about the idea of "ownership" of information. Keep in mind that information is a very, very different thing from physical property, and even for physical property we tend to condone the "theft" of goods when it serves a greater moral purpose (in many ways from taxation to forcing tyrants to give up food and land they own in order to benefit the people they oppress). This is probably not the space to get into the details, but you need to read a book such as Patry's Moral Panic and the Copyright Wars to understand why we have the idea of "intellectual property rights" at all, and what that really means, including a lot of implications I'm sure you've not thought of.

Second, while people certainly have a right to privacy (which appears to be what you are trying to say above, though I think that "privy" does not mean what you think it means), assigning that to non-human intellectual entities, such as governments and corporations, is treading very, very dangerous ground. I'm rather surprised at someone who doesn't like banks making an argument that could eventually lead to arguing that banks should also have the right to vote. (If banks have rights, why do they have some but not others?)

In short, if you really are a liberal, you probably want to sit down and work out carefully what you really want to be aiming towards here, lest you find your suggestions give you short-term gain in trade for long-term illiberal policies.

 

300BAUD

4:56 PM ET

December 8, 2010

You're missing something

You say that all private commercial information should always stay secret, which is dubious. But you also assert that government information, which in a democracy is by definition publicly owned, should be presumptively secret as well.

There is a reason that freedom of the press is given a prominent place in the Constitution, right next to freedom of speech. For this to be a government of, by, and for the people, the people have to know what is going on.

That's true of any management. That's why your boss can look through your work email, for example, and why publicly traded corporations have to produce public accounts of their activity. Managers and investors can't be kept in the dark if they're going to make good decisions. And that's just as true for citizens. Just as true, but a hundred times more important, in that failed governments wreck not just individual companies, but whole economies and societies.

 

GZZZUS

5:49 PM ET

December 2, 2010

Well, the newscycle has got to be fed with something right?

I guess for the people that don't really follow international affairs but for the information they get from their newscasts or newspaper, this could be all of those aforementioned hyperbole-s.

I normally take the time to read source information when trying to make up my own mind about things, but wikileaks sure is a real yawner. Military covers things up? NO WAY! We don't really like some of our supposed allies? SHUT UP! International leaders are quirky? REALLY?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that for someone who came to political consciousness under the Bush administration there is very little out there that would surprise me at this point. I guess the outright idiocy of a block the republican party is among the only things that continually surprises me, and that comes through without any classified or top secret documents being disclosed.

 

GRUMPYFSO

10:59 AM ET

December 4, 2010

oops

I generally, genuinely like Gates and I get his point, but saying this in public was a gift to Manning's defense.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More