http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/30/3079962.htm?site=sydney

Overreaction to the leaked cables on Wikileaks was expected but how accurate or foolish is the implication that the leaks are dangerous to diplomatic relations or to lives of those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.wikileaks.org/

The interview with whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and the commentary on Democracy Now (in the Wikileaks link) paints a whole different picture. The previous leaks about Afghanistan have proved no troops were at risk from the leaks much of the information being after the event.

As for the latest diplomatic revelations – who would not already be aware that diplomats make behind the scenes comments about foreign leaders. This is the stuff of the real world. Does the public really believe that diplomats are there merely to stroke the egos of other nations, when it is all about vested interests on all sides.

Does it really matter now that we know the US thinks the Australian Government is largely uninfluential in Zimbabwe or that some US diplomat makes disparaging comments about David Cameron or that Gordon Brown was ‘unstable’ (very funny if you think this from the land of Bush, Cheney and the Tea Party).

What do others think?

Are these leaks damaging to international relations or merely a storm in a tea cup and nothing more than just some short-term embarrassment?

I reckon it is mostly a good thing for democracy and reveals the reality behind political decision making which is something we should all have access to in a democracy. Thus far the information leaked has not been deemed dangerous to troops on the ground.

I'm finding this whole saga absolutely fascinating, with most of the interesting stuff "between the lines", so to speak.

Why did the various authorities not take the opportunity they were given to redact the material they felt bad about? One has to assume that they recognized that the material, although somewhat titillating to the public at large, was actually harmless.

I doubt if any of the opinions expressed came as a surprise to their targets. And if the countries concerned had even the most amateurish spy service, they would have had access to this stuff on the day that it was written.

I suspect the overall narrative is simple. Let him have his moment in the sun. We'll take a look at public opinion and see whether we i) can use it as an excuse to clamp down on this sort of thing, perhaps with a whacking great jail sentence (if not for spying, then for rape, or something), or whether ii) the public becomes bored with it all, and it rapidly becomes a non-story.

As for Wikileaks itself, I think they made a big mistake in dumping so much at one time. It would have been better policy, on both occasions, to release the less-than-one-percent of it that is in any way interesting to the general public.

I think they are doing - sorry, were doing - a grand and necessary job. It remains to be seen whether they have now holed themselves below the waterline.

The biggest problem I see, and I noticed this last time too, is that Wikileaks and David Assange are the story. Not the actual leaks, which seem to get quickly glossed over and lost in the hyperactive news cycle.

Well I think Wikileaks is probably one of the single most important entitites in the world right now- even more important than Google (partly because Google is rubbish these days).

The diplomatic revelations are of utmost importance, as the use of such underhand deals and lobbying of national leaders by other national leaders, and attempts to implement spies, should cast a much needed light on activities which are quite serious.
I am especially interested to find in today's paper reporting the leaks (though I had my suspicions) that Saudi Arabia's demanding was the main force pushing for America's sanctions and hostility towards Iran.
Hopefully things like this might stop the wrong parties from being framed or scapegoated.

If anything it might HELP world stability now that countries are forced to clean up their acts and cannot discretely organize others to do their dirty work or take falls on their behalf without being caught.

Hopefully more people will get involved, and more countries that are actually honest and independent will stand behind it.

Ooops I meant Julian Assange. Dunno why I called him David.

Pelican:

In this case I suspect it's just a storm in a teacup and I am surprised that the US is reacting to it so seriously, as you pointed out the information that's being provided is nothing new or of any real value. It's merely giving a platform to Iran.

I'm sure that China with its government-sponsored hacking program is capable of extracting more vital information beneficial to its government that the US is not even aware of. (I can't believe that I've just suggested another "conspiracy theory.") ;-)