Thus far, Wikileaks is a dud.

Intended to be read by officials in Washington up to the level of the secretary of state, the cables are generally drafted by the ambassador or subordinates. Although their contents are often startling and troubling, the cables are unlikely to gratify conspiracy theorists. They do not contain evidence of assassination plots, CIA bribery or such criminal enterprises as the Iran-Contra scandal in the Reagan years, when anti-Nicaraguan guerrillas were covertly financed.

One reason may be that America's most sensitive "top secret" and above foreign intelligence files cannot be accessed from Siprnet, the defence department network involved.

<...>

Plenty of other revelations, meanwhile, are rather startling. While details will likely be coming out for weeks as more people are able to go through more materials, it's already surprising, for example, to see how many foreign governments, including the Saudis, have been supportive of a U.S. military strike on Iran.

I'm not convinced that the release of these secret materials -- some have begun calling it "Cablegate" -- will be too devastating international diplomacy, though it certainly makes the State Department's work much more difficult, especially in the short term. I don't doubt that foreign diplomats will be reluctant to engage their American allies for a while, which may very well undermine U.S. foreign policy, but we're still likely talking about bruised feelings and hurt egos, not blockbuster secrets from around the globe.

I would, however, like to know more about the motivations of the leaker (or leakers). Revealing secrets about crimes, abuses, and corruption obviously serves a larger good -- it shines a light on wrongdoing, leading (hopefully) to accountability, while creating an incentive for officials to play by the rules. Leaking diplomatic cables, however, is harder to understand -- the point seems to be to undermine American foreign policy, just for the sake of undermining American foreign policy. The role of whistleblowers has real value; dumping raw, secret diplomatic correspondence appears to be an exercise in pettiness and spite.

I've seen some suggestions that diplomats shouldn't write cables that they'd be embarrassed by later if they were made publicly. I find that unpersuasive. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the nuances of on-the-ground international affairs, but I am comfortable with the notion of some diplomatic efforts being kept secret. Quiet negotiations between countries can lead, and have lead, to worthwhile foreign policy agreements, advancing noble causes.

If the argument from the leakers is that there should be no such thing as private diplomacy, they'll need a better excuse to justify this kind of recklessness.