Why Do Diplomats Still Send Cables?

To keep a record and advance their careers.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | NOVEMBER 29, 2010

WikiLeaks' release of nearly 250,000 U.S. State Department cables has given the public a rare look into the inner workings of American diplomacy. The files document everything from the U.S. take on Turkish foreign policy to accounts of meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats on North Korea's nuclear program, to instructions for intelligence gathering at the United Nations. The cables provide the media, scholars, and foreign governments the kind of access that they normally don't get until decades later, but also raise the question of why, in the era of modern communications, U.S. diplomats are still using a format left over from the days of the telegraph. Why does the State Department still send cables?

It's a combination of factors, including record-keeping, secrecy, and career advancement. Of course, State Department "cables" aren't actually transmitted by cable anymore. They've been transmitted electronically since the early 1970s. But the format and protocol for these transmissions remains largely unchanged since the Cold War days.

The concept of secret diplomatic communications dates back to the birth of modern diplomacy during the European Renaissance, when ambassadors would send correspondence back to their home governments in sealed diplomatic pouches that could not, by law, be opened. The inviolability of diplomatic pouches is still enshrined in international law.

The development of undersea telegraph cables in the late 19th century made for much faster communication. Yet because of the high cost of sending and encrypting sensitive telegrams, longer reports were still sent by diplomatic pouch, while telegrams were used for shorter messages. Deputy Moscow mission chief George Kennan's 1946 description of "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" -- probably the most famous cable in U.S. diplomatic history -- became known as "The Long Telegram" because at over 5,000 words, it initially annoyed the penny pinchers at Foggy Bottom.

These days, embassy officials use cables to describe important meetings, analyze political trends in the countries where they are based, and make policy recommendations. Cables are easily encryptable and allow the State Department to keep a permanent record of diplomatic efforts. These documents are typically declassified after 25 years. Although most diplomatic cables end with an ambassador's electronic "signature," they are quite frequently written by lower-level staffers and often haven't even been seen by the ambassador in question.

Readers of the WikiLeaks document dump might be surprised by the level of descriptive detail and the writerly touches in many of the cables, which often read more like travelogues than bureaucratic memos. (See this colorful description of a Dagestani wedding attended by Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov.) Well-written cables are one way for low-level officials in distant embassies to make a name for themselves back in Washington and are often crafted for maximum impact. Foreign Service veterans cite Lawrence Eagleburger, a former ambassador to Yugoslavia who was later secretary of state, and Christopher Ross, a former ambassador to Algeria and Syria who is now U.N. envoy to Western Sahara, as prominent diplomats whose cables were must-reads at Foggy Bottom. But in the age of information overload, cables are increasingly just one of the many ways -- from email to "open-source intelligence" on the Internet -- that officials in Washington keep up with developments in the field.

Diplomatic cables include detailed routing information indicating who should be given access to them. Those are the abbreviations like "OVIP," "PREL," and "PGOV" you see at the top of the WikiLeaks documents. (For more, check out this useful guide to reading cables from the National Security Archive.) There are also classification levels ranging from "Unclassified" to "Top Secret." None of the documents released so far by WikiLeaks has been marked Top Secret, likely indicating that whoever leaked them only had secret-level clearance. Many of the leaked documents are also marked "NOFORN," indicating that the information they contain is not to be shared with foreign governments.

Since 9/11, in an effort to promote information sharing, embassies have increasingly been uploading diplomatic cables onto a database known as SIPRnet, which is accessible to military personnel as well as State Department staff. That means that the cables in question were accessible to any of the 3 million soldiers and officials holding secret clearance, including, presumably, WikiLeaks' source.

In the wake of "cablegate," President Barack Obama's administration has ordered the State Department to review its information-sharing procedures to prevent future leaks. In an age of information openness, the secret diplomatic dispatch -- the preferred tool of international statecraft for five centuries -- may have become a liability.

Thanks to Charles Hill, diplomat in residence at Yale University, and Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco.

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: DIPLOMACY
 

Joshua E. Keating is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

RKERG

11:26 PM ET

November 29, 2010

Championing the obvious

When you go to a social event, you speak afterward with a friend or significant other and are a bit more revealing with your criticisms or questions pertaining to your host. Probably if this conversation were somehow beamed in to your host you would be a bit concerned but you said what you said because it was the way you felt at the time and, you thought that you were having something like a private conversation. As for Wikileaks, when your claim to fame is just exposing the unseen you must be careful to distinguish between damning evidence and someones underwear.

 

JUNGLE JIM

11:33 AM ET

November 30, 2010

Cable Sharing

The article says three million people have access to SIPRnet. Is that right? If so, then nothing uploaded to that database can be said to be secret or even sensitive.

 

JAYV

3:01 PM ET

November 30, 2010

SIPRNet is not a database

It's DoD's network for transferring data up to secret level. Not an individual database.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNET

Useful info on the topic:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/29/state-pulls-the-plug-on-siprnet/

 

STEVE102

1:53 PM ET

November 30, 2010

Cable is electronic

When the message was sent by cable, it was still an electronic form of communications. Electrons were used.

 

FSORET

4:03 PM ET

November 30, 2010

additional info

State was working on a replacement for cables but last I heard it had been delayed.

Among unstated reasons for reporting cables is provide the information to Washington (and other locations) -- a lot of money is spent to have people overseas to further US goals. At present, email would not do as the sender can limit who receives the information. Would be chaotic for someone to submit a report that might benefit from review by others at an embassy (others might have more background, an idea of the context or know the source's track record). Might cause misunderstanding by whoever got it. Sending instructions to a limited audience by a single person could likewise be problematic. Sender could be "off the reservation" or might not have considered all aspects of a situation. With cables at present, the ambassador or dcm at an embassy or the office of the assistant secretary in a bureau will see all relevant information.

TAGS is a distribution system based on geographic area and subject matter. TU is the TAGS for Turkey. Using that TAGS ensures distribution to those concerned with Turkey (and does not route it to say those working on Laos). There are subject TAGS that deal with consular matters, political issues, economic matters, etc. Their use ensures proper distribution. Given the number of cables produced annually, no one has the time to weed through ones irrelevant to their work. The system also assists with searching for a cable. If one sees a reference to a matter and one knows the embassy and/or general issue, the TAGS can make the search much easier. Interesting that websites now use a taging system that is similar to the one State has been using for over 40 years.