Not a great translation, but here is LeMonde‘s rationale for the CableGate disclosures:
“. . .Finally, it is no coincidence that these new revelations emanating from the United States, the world’s most technologically advanced and, in some ways, the most transparent society, rather than China or Russia. Par sa nature ouverte, une puissance démocratique s’expose à plus d’intrusions qu’un pouvoir fermé ou opaque. By its open nature, a democratic power is exposed to more than a power of intrusion closed or opaque. C’est des Etats-Unis qu’est partie la révolution Internet, c’est là aussi que vit la tradition des “whistleblowers” , ces “sonneurs d’alarme” de la société civile. That the United States what part the Internet revolution, it is here that saw the tradition of “whistleblowers”, these “whistle-blower” civil society. Et WikiLeaks le sait mieux que personne. Wikileaks and knows better than anyone.
Le Monde Édition. . . .”
As to the “propriety” of the CableGate leaks (gushers), I think The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins gets it just right, tonight, thus:
. . .America’s foreign policy is revealed as a slave to rightwing drift, terrified of a bomb exploding abroad or of a pro-Israeli congressman at home. If the cables tell of the progress to war over Iran or Pakistan or Gaza or Yemen, their revelation might help debate the inanity of policies which, as Patterson says, seem to be leading in just that direction. Perhaps we can now see how catastrophe unfolds when there is time to avert it, rather than having to await a Chilcot report after the event. If that is not in the public’s interest, I fail to see what is.
Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment. . . .