Role of transparency, secrecy in global ties

Krishnan Srinivasan

Former Foreign Secretary

The art, or rather craft, of diplomacy is always changing, according to the times. Almost gone now are the courtly ways and the tropes of yesteryear, when bitter feelings were couched in polite circumlocutions and hostilities were masked by formulaic courtesies. The past few years have given rise to another new phenomenon which could well have wide-ranging consequences — namely, concerning the confidentiality of exchanges between the heads of government.

Summit meetings and crucial decisions taken therein have been current since time immemorial, but the essence of these has been that the leaders, with undoubted plenipotentiary powers, could transact state business unfettered by the critical public gaze or commentary. This aspect appears to be coming under stress due to the onslaught on the concept of separation of powers, evident in the ongoing incessant rivalry between the American president and the legislature. In other words, between the executive and the legislative branches of the United States.

The proximate cause for this tension is the mistrust of presidential actions by President Donald Trump’s political opponents, who invoke Woodrow Wilson’s 19th century dictum of ‘open covenants of peace openly arrived at’, a rubric that undoubtedly has a nice ring to it, but one which Wilson himself knew was incompatible with protecting any nation’s basic interests.

Every one of President Donald Trump’s interactions with foreign leaders is now regarded with intense misgivings by the Democratic Party-dominated Lower House of the US Congress. At the core of such suspicions is the doubt, not entirely effaced by the lengthy enquiries of special counsel and investigator Robert Muller, that Trump somehow colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential elections.

Therefore, the Democratic Party seeks information on what was normally earlier considered to be privileged conversations. Every time Trump meets President Putin, whether formally or in the margins of gatherings, Trump’s opponents on Capitol Hill seek a transcript, and if there is none, attempt to interrogate the American interpreter who facilitated the interaction for the president with his non-English speaking counterpart. Even phone conversations by Trump with allied leaders do not escape scrutiny, and the American president’s manner of conversing with his Australian counterpart, for example, has met with adverse comment. Canberra, for its part, is as usual, not far behind in taking the American cue— Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s political opponents demand a transcript of his phone call with Trump on the suspicion that Morrison agreed to assist Trump with

evidence against allegations of collusion with Russia.

The latest of such pressures on democratically elected leaders concerns the Trump-Zelensky phone call which led a CIA whistleblower, privy to second-hand information about the call between the American and Ukrainian presidents to reveal what he had heard, which snowballed into a series of inquiries by the House of Representatives, which subsequently approved articles of impeachment against Trump. The trial is to take place on a yet uncertain date in the Senate, where Trump will certainly be acquitted by the Republican majority.

For the wider issue of diplomatic practice, the world of international intercourse enters the dark uncharted waters. Even in the darkest and most dangerous days of the Cold War, the hotline phone connection between Washington and Moscow was not only open 24X7, but secure from prying eyes and ears.

While it goes without saying that the risk of unwanted and embarrassing disclosure of confidential material is always present in every government apparatus, and the activities of organisations similar to Wikileaks can never be ruled out and will only increase with the onset of advanced technology, the prospect of sensitive information being used for domestic political purposes is, to say the least, highly regrettable.

No one should doubt the value of some level of secrecy in international relations. Private closed door interactions between the leaders do not pose a risk to international security. It is actually quite the reverse. At a time, when our world is threatened by acts of terror, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and innumerable other dangers, the demise of confidential high-level diplomacy to negotiate the unpredictable landscape of modern society, should never be contemplated. But if our leaders suspect or believe that their conversations are liable to be used against them as ammunition for their own, or another country’s political battles, they will be far less inclined to respond when the White House rings, or suggests a tete-a-tete.

On two separate occasions, the Democrats in the House of Representatives have attempted to subpoena the interpreters who worked at private meetings between President Trump and Russian President Putin, despite the fact that the American Translators Association’s code of ethics enjoins its members to hold in strict confidence any information they are privy to during their course of official work. This rule remains the only tenuous safeguard for those who parley with the American president in what they assume is confidence.

An important point to consider is that President Donald Trump may be re-elected for a second four-year term as the head of the state. Will this urge to have confidential discussions revealed to political opponents die with Trump’s eventual departure or will this be a continuing feature of democratic systems of government, whenever the legislature or judiciary is at odds with the executive?

In our current world of global relations, there is an important role for both transparency as well as for secrecy, and this has been true throughout the history of international politics. The need for private discussions between our leaders is beyond dispute. What has frequently happened of late in the United States, and more rarely, in nations such as Australia, sets a dangerous precedent that risks undermining relations between the countries.

Much of the world’s diplomacy occurs behind closed doors, and to cast aspersions on this hallowed practice would constitute a setback, from which diplomacy, as we know it, will never recover. And this is true for situations with or without the presence of Donald Trump, or someone similar, in the White House.