Wikileak has demonstrated that, when there are multiple partners involved as there is international stage, you can’t combine trust and secrecy in the new diplomatic age. Now, every diplomat will have to be careful on the content of his e-mail, daunted by its possible publication by the media.

State official describe the leak as reckless and damaging to the national security. This is the White House statement:

- "Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government.” (BBC World News: 29.11.2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435)

Somehow, could we compare it to the publication of Drogheda Committee’s blue book, in the 50s? (Berridge, 2010, 180) As said Berridge, in his book “Diplomacy in theory and practice”:

- “Public diplomacy is what we call our propaganda; ‘propaganda’ is what the other side does.” (Berridge, 2010, 190)

Therefore, which kind of “propaganda” Wikileaks is and whose’ interests does it served? Moreover, what is its purpose? Accordingly to its website, it says that Wikileaks stands for defending the 29^th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the freedom of speech and access to information (Wikileaks.org, 29.11.2010: http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html). In Diplomacy, we were familiar with three lines of communication, Government-to-Government, Government-to-People and People-to-People. Wikileaks is similar to a P2P relationship, However, I reckon that it does address to the government too, (P2G). Now, with Wikileaks, the people hold a part of the government’s monopoly over information flows and secret document release. Therefore, states authorities are more exposed to the public opinion than ever, which can be damaging to politician when nearly half of the world regimes are democracies (J. S. Nye, 2004, 105).

But is Wikileaks a real threat to national Security? Some voices in America already summon the White House to include Wikileaks on the list of terrorist organisations (The BBC World News, 29.11.2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435) Comparing to Al Qaeda which focus 90% of its resources on propaganda through the media and 10% on the mass murder of the innocent, Wikileaks’ strategy is the one hundred per cent efficient use of the media. Indeed, “propaganda broadcasting is cheap and virtually impossible to block” (Berridge, 2010, 183).The US government seeks to maintain its control over the flow of information, making its computer systems “more secure” (BBC World News, 29.11.10: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435).

Nonetheless, those leaks are not a threat to the US governdment alone. For instance, the Iranian government dispute the revelation that Arabs countries urged the US to force Iran to stop its nuclear programme by military means. Here, common enemies, the US and Iran, have found one common threat, Wikileaks. Multilateral cooperation between states is required to prevent further leaks, and to enhance state-to-state information exchange and collaboration. Then, paradoxically, Wikileaks may weaken the relationships between governments and on the same time force them to collaborate more to keep their “secret diary” safe.

I conclude that Wikileaks contributes to the empowerment of the voice and opinion of the people in the international community. States are being and will be forced to collaborate more if they want to maintain their monopoly on information. They could be seen now as one single group in retreat on the international stage, facing new actors, like the people. Or will the states be forced to breach the right of free press and liberty of expression through repression, as shown in the comic above...?