Is government transparency always a good thing for the people?

Starting November 28^th, 250,000 diplomatic cables were released to the public through Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an international non-profit media organization that seeks to encourage government transparency by releasing otherwise classified documents to the public. Among the quarter-million documents released Sunday, 11,000 of them were marked secret. The editor in chief of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, staunchly defends the release of the documents stating that governments use secrecy to conceal unjust behavior, and therefore Wikileaks must, “act against abusive organizations.”

Some of the leaked documents were almost comical - one U.S. diplomat called Russian Prime Minister Medvedev Robin to Putin’s Batman.  Other documents were more substantial; some indicated that Iran’s Arab neighbors are quietly pleading with the US to launch an attack against Iran’s nuclear program.  While this might come as a surprise to some, those who closely follow the region suspected as much.

Now that Iran is aware other Arab nations are coordinating the United States, will this adversely affect efforts to impede Iran’s nuclear program? Will Arab states be more reluctant to coordinate with the United States, even in secret, for fear their actions will be revealed? When does transparency become detrimental to international diplomacy?

The Wikileaks documents undermined political trust built up between nations.Releasing this type of political gossip does not make the world more just, it makes world more difficult to diplomatically navigate. If governments cannot communicate in private and give their honest opinions about heads of state without fear, they become less efficient, and therefore less effective. I’m usually a tremendous advocate for government transparency. However, in this scenario I do not see the benefit.