I suspect that the intelligence services of most major countries spy on the UN or at least try to, but I also think if you get caught the person who caught you has the right to disclose the information.
Yeah - I also expect a certain amount of information gathering. I have lines I'm comfortable with, and I expect they're different from other people's.
I don't expect total openness either - diplomats need to be, well, diplomatic when dealing with foreign dignitaries, and honest when dealing with their bosses back home.
The first is rational behaviour (note _discussing_), the second is fairly blah - everyone assumed that 'the above' was going on, right? The second option seems to miss the mark, to me what has been released is quite different from 'informing' - you could prove what was been talked about without disclosing all of the contents
If the US is trying to persuade him to quietly sell out some of his supporters, or betray some terrorists who are camped out in his back yard, then, yes, he probably is afraid of bad publicity on the Internet.
If a dictator is discussing such things with the US, or internally, or with anyone else, then as always, the greatest risk of discovery comes from his internal staff.
Put in those terms, it's pretty clear that the first is simply not news (almost all countries are members of the UN, and if they do any spying at all it is on each other; discussion of pre-emptive strikes on Iran has been a staple of Washington Beltway commentary for years) whereas the second is a betrayal of confidence (as zornhau eloquently illustrates above). I'm actually in this game to an extent, and the striking thing to me is how little of the Cablegate stuff is actually news. OK, I'm unusually well-informed, but to me this means that the shock value of releasing the cables is much greater than the intellectual value contained in them; in other words it is a publicity stunt rather than any serious lifting of the lid.
There does seem to have been a complete lack of anything groubndbreaking. I was expecting the odd assassination coverup, propping up of a regime that is publically vilified, or similar. Instead it's mostly exactly what you'd expect.
I voted for the first on a if it's actually discussing it seriously, I expect all nations to have contingency plans for a large number of scenarios involving the armed forces, so having such a plan for a strike in Iran should simply be one of many things in the list.
But actually sitting down to talk about it as a serious policy option is one I have problems with.
I was shocked by the Saudis urging the US to bomb Iran, I must say, but that was the only thing. It made me laugh that Ahmedinejad called it propaganda and refused to believe it.
The things that the papers mostly seem to be het up about, on the other hand, are people's opinions. People having opinions is not news.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I suspect that the intelligence services of most major countries spy on the UN or at least try to, but I also think if you get caught the person who caught you has the right to disclose the information.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't expect total openness either - diplomats need to be, well, diplomatic when dealing with foreign dignitaries, and honest when dealing with their bosses back home.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Disconnect
World is now a less safe place
Generally, the world is a safer place if people can resolve international problems behind the scenes.
Re: World is now a less safe place
Re: World is now a less safe place
American Diplomat; "Hey psycho 3rd world dictator, suppose instead of starting a war, you accept a sort of bribe?"
Psycho 3rd world dictator; "If we even talk about this, it'll end up all over the Internet."
Re: World is now a less safe place
Re: World is now a less safe place
If the US is trying to persuade him to quietly sell out some of his supporters, or betray some terrorists who are camped out in his back yard, then, yes, he probably is afraid of bad publicity on the Internet.
Re: World is now a less safe place
Ain't nothin' particularly worth noting here.
Re: World is now a less safe place
no subject
no subject
no subject
I voted for the first on a if it's actually discussing it seriously, I expect all nations to have contingency plans for a large number of scenarios involving the armed forces, so having such a plan for a strike in Iran should simply be one of many things in the list.
But actually sitting down to talk about it as a serious policy option is one I have problems with.
no subject
The things that the papers mostly seem to be het up about, on the other hand, are people's opinions. People having opinions is not news.