251,287

The number of US embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

The other day I received the following e-mail as part of some research into what journalists think of the WikiLeaks affair. “What do you think of WikiLeaks?” the mail asked me. “Is it wrong what they do? Or do they keep governments honest?”

I replied in a pretty pragmatic way, for while the answers to the first and second questions are easy I, like many other people, have trouble with number three.

“WikiLeaks is a channel for those who wish to leak information,” I said, stating the obvious. “What WikiLeaks does is therefore not wrong. It facilitates, it does not manufacture or invent what may be in the public interest, as far as we can see.”

I continued, “Do they keep governments honest? That remains to be seen. Do they expose governments, politicians and their representatives as two faced, divisive, self-interested, dishonest and often indiscreet? Yes.” I concluded, “So nothing new there then.”

I thought this was a fair response in the circumstances. The circumstances being that I cannot read the future any more than any one else can. And remembering that politics is said to be “the art of the possible,” trade offs, advancing and/or balancing interests, attempts to influence or to peddle influence would all be part of a career in politics, or international diplomacy I imagined.

Meanwhile the more I read of the WikiLeaks material the more I am disappointed by two aspects. The first is that these are all US embassy cables. So, although they seem informative, and are often entertaining, I would really like to know the other side of the story.

What for example did the Iranians or the Saudi Arabians think of the US, its role in their part of the world and what would or could the Americans actually achieve for the Saudis versus the Iranians? Its recent track record of achievements in the Middle East is not great.

What did Britain’s Prince Andrew make of the US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan? And doesn’t that Ambassador know that spotting indiscretions and public stupidities acted out by the Royals is a form of tabloid sport in the UK, that signifies very little in the great scheme of things.

And then the suspicions of deals between Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. I wonder if Mr. Berlusconi was suspicious of deals between Putin and various Americans, and Putin of deals between Americans and Berlusconi. I mean there can only be so much honey in the pot to go round.

This last suggestion stems from the “it takes one to know one” view of gossip and intrigue. But as we don’t see the situation in the round from the leaked US embassy cables, we will have to wait for reports from other sources to colour in the rest of the picture.

The second of my disappointments arises from the obviousness and banality of such a lot of the WikiLeaks material. No fault of WikiLeaks’, they just appear to be reporting what has come their way.

For example, on Saturday 4th December 2010 UK daily broadsheet The Guardian reported, “Conservative party politicians promised before the election that they would run a “pro-American regime” and buy more arms from the US if they came to power.”

Well the Conservatives were hardly likely, at any time, to say they would run an anti-American show, especially when speaking with Americans. And it would not surprise anyone in the pre-election sucking up period if they had fed similar sweet words into the ears of the French, the Germans, the Swedes or anyone else who manufactures armaments or defence equipment in the hope of making friends for the future.

The previous day German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that Berlin was irritated by a 15% fee the Americans were intending to charge them on a €50m donation made to a trust fund set up to improve the Afghan army. This would apparently not go down well with German taxpayers. Well I never.

And on the same day we learn that partying had “taken a physical and political toll on Mr. Berlusconi” – born 1936… You don’t say.

So, perhaps what I should have added to the researcher who sought my views on WikiLeaks and its revelations, was that it is the quantity, the tsunami of material - 251,287 cables in fact - that is being published, that may be in large measure responsible for its sensational effect. If this information had been drip-fed to us in the world’s press over a period of months or years, some individual stories might have made the front pages for a day or two, may be. But much of it I suspect would not have figured in the media at all, so un-newsworthy is it.

And then to answer the third of those e-mailed questions, will WikiLeaks “keep government’s honest?” I don’t think so. But what is honesty in the context of the art of the possible?

What is more edifying however is the scale of the reaction to some of this material from some quarters. It reveals a great, and very human truth: no one likes to be caught with their trousers around their ankles; not prime ministers, not diplomats, not trade ambassadors and not superpowers.