Here's the question: How much difference would it really make if all these "private" diplomatic meetings were public?...how much would world politics change if all these conversations were held in public so that people could see and hear what was being said?

However, we have to add our voice to those supporters of the free flow of information who argue that it is vital that the public - and in this globalised village we mean every citizen of the world - has as much information at their disposal about how those in control of the levers of power utilise that power as possible.

Why are diplomatic cables secret at all? It's a fair question to ask as we assess the WikiLeaks disclosures and the damage they may do. Overall, there are very few surprises in these cables.

Last year, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed an unorthodox way to return Guantánamo Bay prisoners to a chaotic country like Yemen without fear that they would disappear and join a terrorist group.

With North Korea reeling from economic and succession crises, American and South Korean officials early this year secretly began gaming out what would happen if the North, led by one of the world’s most brutal family dynasties, collapsed.

Less than a month after President Obama testily assured reporters in 2009 that Pakistan’s nuclear materials “will remain out of militant hands,” his ambassador here sent a secret message to Washington suggesting that she remained deeply worried.

Those looking for skullduggery won't find very much, although of course as they will remind us, that is because all the skullduggery is hidden behind much higher layers of secrecy. As Timothy Garton Ash writes, "from what I have seen, the professional members of the US foreign service have very little to be ashamed of."

Governments around the world have tended to downplay the United States' embarrassing problem over the ongoing release of hundreds of thousands of its confidential diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.