Truth will out, as they say. I have only heard the headlines about the Wikileak revelations, but they seem, so far, to have been controversial in a couple of areas in particular. One of these areas is the suggestion that Hillary Clinton and her predecessor ordered US diplomats to gather private and personal information about top UN officials, and the other is the unflattering assessments made by some of these diplomats of different world leaders.
While it is the job of national representatives in Embassies across the globe to report on what is occurring in their areas of interest, I wonder how far, in a fair court of law, facts obtained through spying or based on gossip and subjective opinion would be admissible? If what we hear is true, then it cannot be right that biometric or credit card details of UN staff were taken for some future, probably improper, use nor that a strongly judgmental approach by one person of another person should be officially expressed and, presumably, believed.
I am not suggesting that background assessments and guidance should not be made by officials, but rather that there are different ways of achieving the objective. Gossip and judgment are always unhelpful and can never be justified: in the end, karmically and energetically, they hurt the instigator as much as they do the object of the criticism.
Someone, I cannot remember who, spoke of the importance of not saying or doing anything that, if revealed later, we would be ashamed or embarrassed to have known about publicly. Each of us has a moral code, a standard of conduct and behaviour available to us to guide us in our work and private life. If we do our best to behave with integrity, courtesy and kindness then no Wikileaks can hurt us; if we, as an individual or as a nation, forget to do so or can't be bothered, then we will be reminded, sometimes painfully, that there is an alternative way. There are no secrets now.