Wikileaks

The powers that be (except of the USA), they say are unaware of all that has been ‘exposed’ in the cablegate (CG). Yes, sure leaders of some countries who can’t see beyond their medium size noses are naïve and so unaware. I do not think the Indian leaders or the Indian press are naïve by any standard.

 We have all used ‘names’ to describe someone sometime. The connotative meaning of words is often exploited to describe a person. Such use only shows up the user’s bare repertoire of words. Indians are well known for leaking anywhere anytime. That is an example of use or misuse of the word ‘leak’ itself! Connotation refers to the associations that are connected to a certain word or the emotional suggestions related to that word. So we have friends who are snakes. Here the connotations for the word snake could include evil or danger. What is the big deal if Putin was referred to as Batman and Medvedze was Robin in a private repartee?

Having a voluptuous blond or brunette hanging on your arms is a sure shot topic for banter for even a diplomat. So what is the big deal in talking about Gaddafi and his nurse in the same breath? 

There is no free lunch. A leader is not worth his iodised salt if he does not act for his led.  It is only a simpleton who will assume that there is no quid pro quo in international dealings. More over wikileaked missives are at best work in progress. Taking an analogy from golf how many times have we said ‘good shot’ while we wished it was a fluke and the opponent fluffs his next shot? So thinking is one thing, saying is another thing and doing is yet another thing.

Foremost in every leader’s international dealings will be the interest of her country. Every diplomat is a leader representing his country. Why do we say somebody is being diplomatic? That is right he does not want to hurt you and so he deftly handles his reply. When we know that private ‘diplomatic’ missives will be different from public diplomatic postures, why are we surprised by wikileaks?  

Or Are we?