This is a fantastic piece of analysis.

"Authoritarian rulers do not ease repression or agree to checks on their powers because foreign officials convince them it is a good idea in a private meeting."

The lynchpin of American diplomacy is its offensive capacity in terms of its defence and economic might.

Psychologists have a phrase that aptly describes the outcome of whispering to dictators and oppressive regimes whilst stuffing their pockets with taxpayer monies - negative reinforcement.

This piece clears up a few things for me:

- It's not just me who finds diplomats (first hand exp) gormless and singularly uninspiring!
- "U.S. diplomats should at least acknowledge the pragmatic reasons for counseling quiet persuasion rather than pretending it is always the best way to influence dictators." It shouldn't be Wikileaks doing their job for them.
- "Political realities mean that American diplomats will use a different tone when confronting human rights abuses committed by a great power like China than a small one like Ivory Coast." Again, it shouldn't be Wikileaks and the press corps doing their job for them.

Malinowki observes that "history is made when the weather suddenly changes -- by deviations from the normal course of events... It is not to wait until a dictator is half-way out the door before you condemn his abuses, freeze his assets, and demand free elections. It is to promote change in repressive states before it appears inevitable."

The two issues this piece raises are as follows:

1. Should diplomats and foreign service personnel who are making progress be given the opportunity (or instructed) to stay on? This way relationships and institutional knowledge is preserved.

2. Are the wrong people being let in? Perhaps more dynamic, confrontational, and interesting (!) people should be selected. Clearly the wet-sock-Ivy-League-boring-as-batsh-t types are not really up to the job!

Artful Aid Worker
http://www.negativeagain.blogspot.com/

Thank you for this article. As someone who's paid relatively close attention to the WikiLeaks spectacle, I've cynically assumed that diplomats were driven to support authoritarian regimes for economic reasons, but it's good to see the truth come out. I can finally understand why diplomats do what they do, and I'm glad to see that they are not as cynical as I thought.

It goes to show that what may seem wrong and unpopular at the time, can actually be the best thing for all those involved. Mr Assange took bold and unpopular actions that made him a lot of enemies, but it seems that we have now seen an example of how his actions have liberated. You don't have to get people to like you in order to be judged as a friend in history.

If Tom Malinowski were paying attention to WikiLeaks, he'd actually have known that many of the cables directly contradict his notion. Some diplomats feel that simply shouting abuse at dictators doesn't help the cause of freedom. Burma is a prime example, where WikiLeaks shows our diplomats in Rangoon don't support sanctions or a vocal approach, whereas Tom would support more of both. One of the reasons simply shouting U.S. support for democracy movements could be counterproductive is because then it makes it easier for dictators to label their opponents as American stooges. I for one don't think it helps Suu Kyi when the Burmese junta calls he the axe handle of foreign powers.

"why not do what you can to help raise the odds to 20 or 30 percent?"

Who could disagree?

Does public shaming by the US raise the odds, or lower them?

I would think that if the US praised the protesters in Iran, it would work catastrophically against them.

Yes, the leaks about Tunisia provided a burst to the protests there, which is unequivocally a great thing. But if they were an official US declaration, rather than a leak of candid documents, would they have had the same impact? Or would Ben Ami have simply ignored it, or taken it as an occasion to do more bad stuff than usual to Tunisians? Would the average Tunisian have been heartened to take action, or irritated at interference?

As Freedom420 points out, it can backfire, as with Burma.

Through the post-9/11 period the neocons got Americans to take sides: DoD vs. DoS. Unfortunately for Obama, by the time he got to be president it became obvious that both are doinated by self-serving mediocrities who justify what they do in self-interest motives as "nowhere near as bad" as what do the politicans. We're doomed, like any fish starting to rot at the top.

Although the analysis in this article is excellent, Freedom410 and Elvis make a valid point in their objections. The interesting thing is that the public exposure of US diplomatic views has been so effective precisely because it was done against their wills. That way, the truth comes out but the diplomatic relationships are still maintained. Ironically, Wikileaks has probably done more to help the State Department gain it's goals than almost anything else in recent history.

Still, don't underestimate the power of the police state. It doesn't take too many beatings and disappearances before the protestors realize that the consequences of protesting is personally very high. The US (if no one else) needs to be able to change the balance of force equation within a country somehow.

good article, although I don't feel comfortable for any government to induce democracy in any country, either by being an active backstage helper or doing verbal service. Democracy, revolution, leave them for the people involved in that country. they will live with that choice, and that choice is better made exclusively by them. one might contend that the state is too oppressive and powerful and therefore the minority needs outside support; the problem is, that outside support cannot stay forever and the oppressive power does not just die. let the people take credit for revolution and leave no trail of foreign governmental interference, however benevolent that is. all actions have consequences, and governmental criticism of another regime too. do we know all those consequences? it could backfire and stir nationalistic sentiment for some and facilitate transition in others. i'm torn about this, trust me. but non-intervention principle exists for a reason: just like I would not tell another person what to do (at most recommend him/her something, but ultimate choice leaves to him/her), a country should not tell another what to do.

Good article - but: remember, the minute people in the Middle East have free elections, they always vote in an autocratic government, usually Islamic. That's their choice, it's just that we never seem to like the results of free elections if they don't suit the Empire's purpose.

To expand on America-First, the problem we have with deposing viscous brutal dictators in most of the 3rd world is that what replaces them is usually worse both for the people of the country AND for us.

Look at Zimbabwe, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, and Pakistan, In each case the only institution that had any sort of sufficient framework to take control was either Marxist, Islamist, or some combination or similar ideology thereof.

Its first acts once it has truly completed the takeover have always been to get revenge against those attached to the old regime (no matter how distantly), then settle old grudges against various others having nothing to do with politics, crush those who do or might resist or object to the new morality, trash everyone who isn't on the inside of the new regime, and finally to become even more corrupt and oppressive as those they replaced.

No one in the new regime EVER looks fondly on America - whether we supported the old regime or promoted the removal of them and so doing ANYTHING other than supporting the folks who are our friends - however nasty - is the only thing that has ever helped our interests in the long term.

I hate this but when you crunch the hard numbers this is the only conclusion you can come to.

It would be nice to help usher in new free societies but the last time it worked was back in the 1940's and it took over a decade of real hard and expensive work and it was only after we had personally obliterated the evil regimes that had attacked us in the first place AND we didn't give them any sort of choices on their futures for a very long time, either.

That crossed my mind reading this article was President Reagan's labeling of the old Soviet Bloc as an "Evil Empire". How entrenched, powerful, and intractable those regimes were. Reagan was roundly criticized for making such a statement. Yet, it had an effect. We may debate the timing, we may debate the wisdom of labels, and we may even, rightly, acknowledge that history is always a confluence of events. But, Reagan and the US with him, took a stand and the world changed. Nobody always gets it right. The important thing is to boldly enter the arena when our cause is just.

Reagan's speeches had nothing to do with the demise of the USSR. It colllapsed for two main reasons
A. Economic value subtraction that had festered away for decades, and
B. The smashing of teh Red Army by the Afghans. Gorby when he became Party Secretary stared defeat in A'stan and told Kabul that the USSR was withdrawing. This was 18 months before the CIA Stingers arrived. The Red Army got its copu de garce in its witdrawl and without the Red Army to suppress them, the White Christians in Eastern Europe, and Russia, could liberate themsleves.

Too much gringo centric views about about the US' influence on the world. Especially among the foreign policy hacks, 99% of whom know not the languages or histories of the countries they claim to be experts on.

The US' interest in the Arab world are a) support for Israeli lebensraum and apartheid, b) buy our weapons, c) keep the oil flowing (to China the EU!) and d) suppress Islamists. We pay big bucks for these objectives..like $500 billion /years

Masters of the universe indeed

The United States is damned if they interfere and damned if they don't.
As a result of Wikileaks, the pendulum may swing toward interference.

Why did it take Wikileaks to reveal the State Departments frustration with corruption and repression in Tunisia? One reason might be because the world has ignored published reports of the State Department.

Only when packaged within a sensational leak did the problem get attention. Packaged as a conspiracy worthy of Hollywood: Department of State and its diplomats are a a morally deficient den of spies set out on an evil mission to dominate the world.

Tunisia was buried these leaks, not spotlighted. However the Tunisian opposition brought it to the front. It confirmed to the world what the Tunisian people already knew: The U.S. shared their concern about corruption and repression in Tunisia. If Wikileaks helped the Tunisian revolt, it was because the press had finally alerted not Tunisia but the world. Something they should have been doing all along.

Anyone can do a search "State Department Human Rights Report" to see separate reports for every country for every year. These reports protect sources: insiders, victims, witnesses, dissidents. Check out Tunisia on the site.

Yet the media with its restricted resources cannot attend to this festering problem until a leak drops in its lap. And then only because it was stolen unguarded and secret. Cool.

Still am disappointed by support of Assange. In an “end justify the means” argument, we bow to his god of transparency. Yet Wikileaks itself, operates in a hidden netherworld of theft and destruction to businesses that don’t cooperate. It is naive to believe this is a credit for transparency and not theft of information and blackmail to businesses like Amazon, Visa and Mastercard. . Would we call someone who stole our credit card number a hero? What if the thief stole and released information that ended an innocent life? I give credit to the press for redacting names. Wikileaks did not. Individuals around the world are at risk because of this.

Should we not call out all the other democracies with Embassies in Tunisia that to walk a careful diplomatic line ? Although spared theft of classified state documents, they have been equally aware of the problems of repression and corruption.

American diplomats in Tunisia who have carried the Human Rights and Democracy Portfolio have openly supported Human Rights advocates, attended rallies, visited prisoners and dissidents and stood up to the secret police at personal risk. Although not reported in Tunisia, due to censorship, their activities have been reported in the offshore dissident press. They have not been reported by mainstream media or academic journals. Physician, heal thyself.

The United States is damned if they interfere and damned if they don't.
As a result of Wikileaks, the pendulum may swing toward interference.

Why did it take Wikileaks to reveal the State Departments frustration with corruption and repression in Tunisia? One reason might be because the world has ignored published reports of the State Department.

Only when packaged within a sensational leak did the problem get attention. Packaged as a conspiracy worthy of Hollywood: Department of State and its diplomats are a a morally deficient den of spies set out on an evil mission to dominate the world.

Tunisia was buried these leaks, not spotlighted. However the Tunisian opposition brought it to the front. It confirmed to the world what the Tunisian people already knew: The U.S. shared their concern about corruption and repression in Tunisia. If Wikileaks helped the Tunisian revolt, it was because the press had finally alerted not Tunisia but the world. Something they should have been doing all along.

Anyone can do a search "State Department Human Rights Report" to see separate reports for every country for every year. These reports protect sources: insiders, victims, witnesses, dissidents. Check out Tunisia on the site.

Yet the media with its restricted resources cannot attend to this festering problem until a leak drops in its lap. And then only because it was stolen unguarded and secret. Cool.

Still am disappointed by support of Assange. In an “end justify the means” argument, we bow to his god of transparency. Yet Wikileaks itself, operates in a hidden netherworld of theft and destruction to businesses that don’t cooperate. It is naive to believe this is a credit for transparency and not theft of information and blackmail to businesses like Amazon, Visa and Mastercard. . Would we call someone who stole our credit card number a hero? What if the thief stole and released information that ended an innocent life? I give credit to the press for redacting names. Wikileaks did not. Individuals around the world are at risk because of this.

Should we not call out all the other democracies with Embassies in Tunisia that to walk a careful diplomatic line ? Although spared theft of classified state documents, they have been equally aware of the problems of repression and corruption.

American diplomats in Tunisia who have carried the Human Rights and Democracy Portfolio have openly supported Human Rights advocates, attended rallies, visited prisoners and dissidents and stood up to the secret police at personal risk. Although not reported in Tunisia, due to censorship, their activities have been reported in the offshore dissident press. They have not been reported by mainstream media or academic journals. Physician, heal thyself.

In one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U. S. diplomacy. To expand on America-First, the problem we have with deposing viscous brutal dictators in most of the 3rd world is that what replaces them is usually worse both for the people of the country AND for us. Look at Zimbabwe, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, and Pakistan, In each case the only institution that had any sort of sufficient framework to take control was either Marxist, Islamist, or some combination or similar ideology thereof. Its first acts once it has truly completed the takeover have always been to get revenge against those attached to the old regime (no matter how distantly), then settle old grudges against various others having nothing to do with politics, crush those who do or might resist or object to the new morality, trash everyone who isn't on the inside of the new regime, and finally to become even more corrupt and oppressive as those they replaced. "Indeed, one of the most delightful ironies of the leaked Tunisia cables is that they make precisely this argument getting rid of acne. One missive -- after laying out more juicy details about how and why Ben Ali had "lost touch with the Tunisian people" (the very commentary that, when publicly revealed, actually seemed to affect the situation on the ground) -- concluded that the U. S. should "dial back the public criticism" and replace it with "frequent high-level private candor. "" S. support for democracy movements could be counterproductive is because then it makes it easier for dictators to label their opponents as American stooges. I for one don't think it helps Suu Kyi when the Burmese junta calls he the axe handle of foreign powers.

I have been following your page and articles for quite a while and really respect what you are doing for the Wikileaks/Julian Assange cause. I recently found and donated $20 to Wikileaks campaign where a group of supporters such as myself are trying to raise money to put up a billboard in Los Angeles...

http://epicstep.com/campaign/95/support-wikileaks/

Wikileaks apparently really liked the campaign as they have already promoted the campaign on their twitter and facebook page, with a direct link for supporters to pledge to the billboard.

I wasn't sure if you guys had already heard about this, so I wanted to reach out to you to try to push the movement even further. I know you have a ton of dedicated readers and subscribers, and I assume it would be of much interest to expose them to this campaign if they have not already read or heard about it. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this. Keep rockin' guys! Your unwavering support of the Wikileaks cause inspires us all.

- Cynthia Hawtin