In case you missed them...

There is plenty of information and analysis on the net available about WikiLeaks. Only problem is that they are usually tucked away from general view and require a little bit of effort finding. It's much like how the embarrassing news of the crash of the Soviet Union's pride of technology, the supersonic passenger aircraft Tupolev Tu-144 (or Concordeski as it was dubbed by the Western media), in front of the West at the Paris Air Show in 1973, was reported in the USSR with just a 27 word article tucked at the bottom of page 6 of the Moscow daily Pravda. Or how critical and informative documentaries are shown at 2am on a Tuesday morning. This is the well-tried and highly useful tactic of downplaying information which otherwise could change public opinion. On the same token, they have fulfilled their minimum obligation of actually reporting it (albeit not as effectively).

Nevertheless, here are some articles to read up on.

Anatol Lieven, professor in the War Studies Department of King's College, London, examines the impact of WikiLeaks. Lieven points out that "despite the impression given by much of the media, just because US diplomats believe something and report their views in private does not necessarily make it true".

Lieven's conclusions about WikiLeaks and its role in democracy, and to bringing attention to real opinion (without requiring US diplomats to be the messenger) are spot on:

On the security threat which has so often been cited as an objection, it seems that Wikileaks have taken care to exclude anything that can endanger specific US agents or actions.

Another objection is that for the need for confidentiality in diplomacy - so that diplomats can express candid views to their home governments without fearing that they will be spread all over the media.

This is a much stronger argument, but in the end it is outweighed - in the West, not obviously in Russia - by the fact that we are after all supposed to be democracies, and our electorates have the democratic right to know more than they have done in recent years about the conduct of their government's foreign policy.

Far too much misinformation and outright lying has surrounded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Overall, we in the West now live in an atmosphere of security hysteria and obsessive secrecy that would have filled our ancestors with horror.

If the threat of more Wikileaks releases makes this less likely in future, so much the better.

As to the effects on the tender sensibilities of Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin and Hamid Karzai of private US official opinions of them - well, how very tragic.

The more these people know of how the outside world regards them the better for their countries. From this point of view, Wikileaks might almost be seen as rather a good way for a US administration to pass on candid messages that it could not possibly deliver officially.

Here, the BBC reports that efforts by the USA to prosecute Julian Assange and WikiLeaks will be very difficult. One strong point which shoots the US Government's criticism that these leaks would endanger lives is that in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security. Plus, any espionage charges will be considered 'political', which would make extradition from Sweden or the UK to the USA very difficult. This makes US efforts to actually 'find' a way to prosecute Assange extremely worrying in terms of the rule of law, as this proves that rather having someone obviously commit a crime, the US authorities will tailor the law around to make sure their target can be charged. Rather much like what Russia did to Khodorkovsky.