The wicked leaks
Leaks of state secrets involving classified dispatches sent by diplomats to their home governments on events and leaders in countries where they are posted are dangerous. Such dispatches are sensitive instruments for foreign policy. The disclosure of their contents cuts both ways. It harms the interests of the country under close surveillance by envoys of other governments, as well as those of countries sending emissaries abroad. Leaks of these documents have destabilized civilized relations among nations.
This is why keeping diplomatic dispatches under wraps is a primary concern of governments. Diplomats enjoy certain privileges and immunities that allow them to perform their function properly as eyes and ears of their governments in foreign lands. They enjoy parking privileges, and relatively free movement of their cars identified with their diplomatic plates. Diplomatic pouches are protected from inspection by diplomatic protocols, and violations of this immunity could spark a war. Diplomats are generally immune from arrest while performing their duties. These privileges have allowed diplomats relative freedom to move about in their host countries inspecting many and interviewing people from all walks of life. As a result of these immunities and privileges, and the protocol on the protection of their diplomatic documents, diplomats have written their dispatches with little inhibition, often to the embarrassment of the subjects of the dispatches.
Diplomats collect and report in their dispatches a mixture of gossips, hard information, as well as analysis, producing a document that contains information written in an engaging style not permitted in public journals, such as newspapers. When these dispatches are disclosed, governments are often embarrassed. When the global anti-secrecy whistle-blowers, WikiLeaks, started to unload into the open information stream hundreds of thousands of diplomatic documents, the entire diplomatic establishment of the West was thrown into a state of consternation after their blanket of secrecy was stripped away by the leaks.
The Philippine political scene was shaken by the disclosure of US diplomatic cables that assessed critically the presidency of President Cory Aquino and the leadership style of her son, Benigno Aquino III, the incumbent President. The unflattering cables dispatched by former US Ambassador Kristie Kenney in 2009 during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo upset the incumbent Aquino administration, although they did not contain any new startling information not already known to many observant Filipinos. Weak leadership was the theme of the assessment.
I shall refer only to key points of Kenney’s assessment. In the cable of July 2, 2009, Kenney noted that “Aquino’s credibility as a moral crusader was tarnished when she was seen with former President Joseph Estrada in protest movements against (then) Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo – even after she had supported then Vice President Arroyo’s successful second People Power revolt in 2001 that ousted Estrada.”
Kenney said that Aquino’s “falling out with Arroyo continued after Arroyo moved to distribute Hacienda Luisita – the huge sugar estate belonging to the Cojuangco family of which Aquino was a part – to its workers under the government’s agrarian reform program.”
Kenney said, “Revered as a hero for taking the reins of power at a difficult moment in Philippine politics, and at a time of great personal loss, President Aquino leaves behind an incomplete transition to democratic governance that, while marked by great freedom for Philippines citizens, never seems to have properly taken root in the institutions that must handle the difficult task of governing a diverse and divided society.”
The unkindest cut was Kenney’s assessment that Aquino’s “moral leadership, while coming at an important time for the Philippines, never fully compensated for her weak leadership style.” The presidency was marked by numerous coup attempts and allegations of corruption, Kenney said. Following her tenure, Aquino’s “antipathy toward President Arroyo led her to ally with more dubious political figures such as President Estrada, blemishing her (Cory) reputation as a moral crusader.”
Kenney pointed out, “The Philippines must also live with an imperfect 1987 Constitution that, according to some observers, was passed in extreme haste to meet an artificial deadline imposed by Aquino, taking the country from one extreme – rigid rule under Ferdinand Marcos – to another extreme, in which minority parties and groups without defined constituencies (such as the Philippine Senate) are given extensive power at the expense of a more mature and stable political system.”
Kenney noted a streak of weak leadership in Benigno Aquino III after she had an hour-long coffee meeting in January 2010 when he was then senator running for president.
Kenney described Aquino as “clearly more relaxed and self-possessed than in previous encounters” when he appeared as a “diffident and unassertive man continuing a political tradition handed down by his parents but not carving his own legacy.” Kenney’s cables were perceptive and showed a keen sense of analysis that reflected that of Filipino commentators who have noted such flaws in these members of the Aquino political dynasty.
All that the administration could say was the comment of Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario who said that Kenney was “well-traveled in the Philippines and was extremely sociable.”
Unlike her distinguished predecessors, however, “she was a dismal failure in helping Filipinos defend democracy.” The task of defending democracy is the responsibility of Filipinos – not of American ambassadors.
