On Feb. 22, 1946, George F. Kennan, then charge d'affaires of the US Embassy in Moscow, sent the historic long telegram to US secretary of state James Byrnes. The 17-page telegram contained an analysis of the Soviet Union's behavior and recommendations for how the US should respond.
Kennan's telegram became an important part of what was later known as Truman's containment policy.
Throughout history, diplomacy has used different media for communication. In ancient and medieval times, letters were widely used in diplomatic communications. They were delivered by pigeon post or human dispatchers. Following the industrial revolution, the telegraph, as in the case of Kennan's report to his superior in Washington, DC, has been used as a medium of diplomatic communications.
As explained by David Paul Nickles in his book Under the Wire: How the Telegraph Changed Diplomacy, the telegraph radically expanded the pace and scope of diplomacy in the mid-19th century. It continues to play a critical role in today's diplomacy.
As part of their jobs, diplomats meet their counterparts from relevant ministries and other government agencies. In the current context, they also consult with non-governmental organizations, parliamentarians, human rights activists and the general public. This is done in such a way that it does not meddle in the internal matters of the countries, or else diplomats would end up persona non grata.
Reports like Kennan's could become an impetus for new policies. They could ignite a policy debate among key actors back home. Many diplomatic analyses could also confirm the understanding and perceptions, as pronounced to the public, of governments about other countries.
Thus, there is no or almost no gap between what was observed and secretly reported and what was publicly stated.
WikiLeaks has emerged as the fruit of remarkable progress in cyber technology. Its impact on diplomacy has yet to be assessed. As of now, secret documents uploaded by WikiLeaks have not caused any diplomatic ruptures.
They did stir up feelings of embarrassment among prominent individuals explicitly mentioned in the leaked documents, especially when personally restricted languages are used to describe them.
Other consequences of Wiki Leaks and the like could be breaches of confidentiality. Secrecy remains one of the main features of modern diplomacy. The uploading of confidential documents that relate to distant events would probably pose no harm. But, when the documents are related to an ongoing peace brokerage, the leakage could put peace negotiations at risk. This would also destroy the ability to get results. The recent leakage of documents concerning Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by The Guardian and Al-Jazeera has been regarded as having a destabilizing effect on the future of those negotiations.
The WikiLeaks factor in diplomacy begs us to think through three aspects of diplomatic communications, namely content, medium and language.
On content, the WikiLeaks experience will not prevent diplomats from generating reports from their posts to headquarters. They will continue to supply their supervisors with general pieces of information, analyses or examinations of situations with strategic value.
Diplomats, however, might want to develop a more thorough classification of document confidentiality levels. They might also want to calibrate the amount of content reported. The size becomes smaller as the level of secrecy gets higher.
On the medium of transmission, diplomats have choices. Telegrams, diplomatic bags and telephones remain the favored means.
Now, however, email has an increasingly important place among diplomats. Email has a speed advantage, and this advantage has been amplifyed by such technology as BlackBerrys.
But, email itself is not immune to misuse or hacking. Some quarters have stopped using BlackBerry emails for diplomatic communication because of security risks.
On language, diplomats generally use standard language to present their reports or analyses. But, in diplomacy that involves high-level officials, the use of personally customized languages that are considered undiplomatic is unavoidable. Diplomats who accompany high-level officials generally prepare a report. So, when one head of state describes another head of state to his counterpart as an 'idiot' the report would state that.
This is, of course, indecent, but it should be read within context.
There are two choices of language in order to avoid embarrasment: Keep using decent language or use constructively ambiguous language. The latter is commonly used in diplomacy and usually gives diplomats space for further talk and more detailed explanation in the future.
Kennan's telegram became an important part of what was later known as Truman's containment policy.
Throughout history, diplomacy has used different media for communication. In ancient and medieval times, letters were widely used in diplomatic communications. They were delivered by pigeon post or human dispatchers. Following the industrial revolution, the telegraph, as in the case of Kennan's report to his superior in Washington, DC, has been used as a medium of diplomatic communications.
As explained by David Paul Nickles in his book Under the Wire: How the Telegraph Changed Diplomacy, the telegraph radically expanded the pace and scope of diplomacy in the mid-19th century. It continues to play a critical role in today's diplomacy.
As part of their jobs, diplomats meet their counterparts from relevant ministries and other government agencies. In the current context, they also consult with non-governmental organizations, parliamentarians, human rights activists and the general public. This is done in such a way that it does not meddle in the internal matters of the countries, or else diplomats would end up persona non grata.
Reports like Kennan's could become an impetus for new policies. They could ignite a policy debate among key actors back home. Many diplomatic analyses could also confirm the understanding and perceptions, as pronounced to the public, of governments about other countries.
Thus, there is no or almost no gap between what was observed and secretly reported and what was publicly stated.
WikiLeaks has emerged as the fruit of remarkable progress in cyber technology. Its impact on diplomacy has yet to be assessed. As of now, secret documents uploaded by WikiLeaks have not caused any diplomatic ruptures.
They did stir up feelings of embarrassment among prominent individuals explicitly mentioned in the leaked documents, especially when personally restricted languages are used to describe them.
Other consequences of Wiki Leaks and the like could be breaches of confidentiality. Secrecy remains one of the main features of modern diplomacy. The uploading of confidential documents that relate to distant events would probably pose no harm. But, when the documents are related to an ongoing peace brokerage, the leakage could put peace negotiations at risk. This would also destroy the ability to get results. The recent leakage of documents concerning Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by The Guardian and Al-Jazeera has been regarded as having a destabilizing effect on the future of those negotiations.
The WikiLeaks factor in diplomacy begs us to think through three aspects of diplomatic communications, namely content, medium and language.
On content, the WikiLeaks experience will not prevent diplomats from generating reports from their posts to headquarters. They will continue to supply their supervisors with general pieces of information, analyses or examinations of situations with strategic value.
Diplomats, however, might want to develop a more thorough classification of document confidentiality levels. They might also want to calibrate the amount of content reported. The size becomes smaller as the level of secrecy gets higher.
On the medium of transmission, diplomats have choices. Telegrams, diplomatic bags and telephones remain the favored means.
Now, however, email has an increasingly important place among diplomats. Email has a speed advantage, and this advantage has been amplifyed by such technology as BlackBerrys.
But, email itself is not immune to misuse or hacking. Some quarters have stopped using BlackBerry emails for diplomatic communication because of security risks.
On language, diplomats generally use standard language to present their reports or analyses. But, in diplomacy that involves high-level officials, the use of personally customized languages that are considered undiplomatic is unavoidable. Diplomats who accompany high-level officials generally prepare a report. So, when one head of state describes another head of state to his counterpart as an 'idiot' the report would state that.
This is, of course, indecent, but it should be read within context.
There are two choices of language in order to avoid embarrasment: Keep using decent language or use constructively ambiguous language. The latter is commonly used in diplomacy and usually gives diplomats space for further talk and more detailed explanation in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment