Searching for WikiMeaning

Commentary on the latest WikiLeaks release has moved past the “gotta figure out what this means before my deadline!!!” phase and into Punditry Stage II, in which columnists get a little more specific.

The Toronto Star’s James Travers writes about a telling contradiction between our perceptions of the current head of CSIS Dick Fadden and his predecessor Jim Judd. Judd has been pilloried after being snared in the WikiLeaks net harping to U.S. officials about Canada’s weak response to terrorism, and Travers writes, “Caught in the glare of headlines, Judd stands exposed as seemingly loose-lipped.” Contrast this with Fadden’s recent public statements that many Canadian politicians are under the influence of foreign governments. Not only did he provide no evidence to back up his claims, he may have breached the CSIS Act by discussing an ongoing investigation. Despite this he still has his job, and “remarkably, Fadden’s recklessness was widely mistaken for openness.” Travers rightly argues that the sensationalism surrounding WikiLeaks has distorted proper perspective.

The Star’s self-styled Middle East insider Haroon Siddiqui questions why “all the cables advance the American geopolitical agenda, with nary a negative comment or the slightest doubt?” Some of the most remarked upon documents from WikiLeaks describe the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE urging the U.S. to take action against Iran. Siddiqui says what’s missing from the cables is that the majority of Arab citizens in these less-than-democratic states are completely at odds with their governments and don’t fear Iran’s influence. Siddiqui asks if this fact is absent because “American diplomats never report any inconvenient facts?” He seems to have a point. Surely some diplomats out there want Washington to change course. Where are all the WikiLeaks cables demanding Hamid Karzai be deposed, or that the U.S. scale back support for Israel? Surely these conversations have been had behind closed doors, but perhaps the WikiLeaks scoop has been too shallow to pick them up.

Scott Baker writes in the Globe and Mail that although the leaks are “largely pedestrian,” they’re hardly inconsequential. “When you damage an individual’s or institution’s ability to strategically communicate, you damage their ability to realize their social ambitions ... whether WikiLeaks has done a good or bad thing really comes down to what you think of the U.S. administration.”