Wiki Diplomacy and Secrecy
Professor Paul W. Schroeder writes in the New York Times:
The leaks will probably not cause war or even a serious crisis, but they will badly damage America’s diplomatic machinery, processes and reputation.
None of this means that diplomatic correspondence and negotiations should remain secret forever. But except in special instances, confidential communications ought to be released only after passions have settled and scholars can examine the records in fuller context.
Especially in a democracy, the goal of negotiations should be to quietly reach an agreement, followed by ratification or rejection by elected legislators. In other words, open covenants of peace, secretly arrived at.
While I agree with much of what Schroeder writes, I have at least two exceptions:
Allowing scholars first glance at historic documents should not be a deciding factor on releasing them to the general public. Our freedoms should extend to each person, regardless of “intellect” or stature.
“Open covenants of peace, secretly arrived at” should not be the accepted norm but the accepted alternative to what Woodrow Wilson said: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at”.
Secrecy certainly has its place in diplomacy and war. The only way it would not is if we lived in a world where all nations and all peoples of nations shared similar values. We do not. Therefore diplomacy and war are necessary, and secrecy is a necessary tool in both.
That does not mean, however, we should hide behind secrecy from the onset. Doing so diminishes the strength of a flourishing open society.
