A matter of caliber
by
EKREM DUMANLI

On top of everything else, these intrigues are taking place in diplomacy, politics and the media. The system that provides sources to WikiLeaks must be properly depicted in order to understand the inaccuracy of some of the assessments and analyses that have been made so far. Analyses that are presented without a proper understanding of the system either come from false information or lead to deliberate manipulation.

WikiLeaks disclosed information from a virtual environment called SIPRNet and this disclosure caused a major uproar. That is because SIPRNet comprises a communications network used by the US Department of Defense and the US State Department. Three million people have clearance to access this platform. The most striking information in the documents that have been disclosed so far is the notes written by ambassadors. Almost all of these notes are based on rumors, interpretations and impressions. In other words they do not contain claims that have been investigated, proven or documented. Diplomats even shared rumors with each other. I suppose they never thought their notes would be disclosed to the public. Now a group of embarrassed bureaucrats are trying to make up for their mistakes, but to no avail.

President Abdullah Gül made a wonderful comment about the notes and assessments written by the diplomats. He said: “These are the diplomats own assessments. Some are true, some are exaggerated, some are wrong. That just shows the caliber of the diplomats.”

Gül didn’t want to go on out of courtesy, but what he is saying is obvious. He’s saying the diplomats who relayed false, wrong and inappropriate information back to their countries are of “low caliber.” This is accurate because if the quality of the notes shows the caliber of them then it must also show if there is a lack of caliber as well. As a result, the situation changes from ambassador to ambassador.

Actually the debate over WikiLeaks itself is helping to measure caliber. The measurement in diplomacy turns into an indicator of caliber in politics by reason of the attitude adopted at the time of the incident.

For example, one of the notes disclosed by WikiLeaks accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of having eight secret bank accounts in Switzerland. Is there any concrete evidence to prove this claim? No. This is a stale topic that ultra-nationalists always mention but become tongue-tied whenever concrete information or documentation is requested.

When the topic was brought up again, this time through WikiLeaks, the prime minister said anyone who accuses him of having Swiss bank accounts but can’t prove it is shameless. He was right. That is because the information disclosed by WikiLeaks had been deliberately filtered and altered and some of the names had been covered up while others had been exploited. Moreover, there is no information that can be considered “top secret” or has the potential of changing the course of history. It is not a good strategy to use hearsay and rumors in these notes to manipulate domestic politics. To say “why are you getting mad at us, get mad at the Americans” when the person whom you accuse says “prove it or else you are shameless” is just being cunning. To think that citizens will fall for such cheap tricks means you do not understand Turkey’s new horizons. Moreover, it’s important not to forget that playing politics for the sake of a little popularity is a measurement of one’s caliber (or lack thereof) in the eyes of the public.

The same applies for the media. To say “let’s take WikiLeaks seriously” is one thing, to approach the issue with the mentality that WikiLeaks is “changing the course of history” is another. Journalism relies on inquiry. I’m not saying let’s be conspiracy theorists, but let’s not forget that letting go of certain suspicions will surely lead to a historical mistake. It’s obvious that the information on WikiLeaks is not records. There are some people who can’t even comprehend that. Besides, it’s very obvious that the information has been edited. Plus not a single word is said about critical issues. That said, those who thoughtlessly jump at the information are either very naive or...

A distorting and misleading aspect of the issue has also come into view. The show put on by some of our colleagues, who mix and compare the WikiLeaks papers with the documents in the Ergenekon case, should be remembered as an important historical incident. It would be useful to remember the facts that our colleagues who defend the Ergenekon organization have forgotten. The organization called Ergenekon has guns, bombs and action plans to name just a few things. How can you compare information and documents obtained through legal channels to notes based on hearsay and impressions? Let’s be fair. One is a case that contains evidence provided in court, the other is rumors heard by diplomats. One the one hand there is an organization that had plans and armaments and was caught red-handed planning coups and juntas, while on the other hand we have heedlessly written crumbs of information. Those who compare the WikiLeaks notes to the Ergenekon indictment are either profoundly ignorant or they don’t have the skill to differentiate between legal texts and diplomatic rumors.

Perhaps WikiLeaks, without knowing it, has helped to make a very beneficial picture more pronounced. Both the “caliber of diplomats” and the perspective of those who assessed their notes have become clear. What happens next is left to history and the public conscience. I’m sure assessments in the public conscience will be of a much higher caliber.