The core idea behind my diagram is outlining what lead to a lot of the cable leaks and of the article (in a general sense). As one can see from the diagram, the United States was a major player in these leaks on several occasions and used various tactics (intimidation, bribery, etc.) in order to achieve their end-mean. In this sense, one could also use this diagram fairly reasonably to see the United State’s motives in the outplay of the leaks. Each path listed demonstrates a new leak and how it came to be; for example: by following the arrows, one can see that the failed talks in Beijing helped to lead to a new leak. With the talks having failed, one sees that the Copenhagen Accord was their ace in keeping the attention off themselves (as they were a major contributor towards pollution). This Accord was met with mixed results (as logically expected), and so one sees the US “encouraging” the smaller countries to go along with the Accord through monetary means. While not listed explicitly, there were leaks released here as well with the US “threatening” the countries to “sign, or the talks stop”. At the same time, one sees that the US was trying to gain support for the Accord from other bigger countries as it would more likely pass the more support it received. The smaller, poorer countries were willing to sign and support, but remained skeptical about their payment. This is just one of several paths presented however.

I have mixed feelings on the State Department cables and they way the whole situation was handled. I do believe that everyone had the right to know about the dealings, but the cables should not have been made public (if one were to view it from the United States’s perspective). I feel that by making the cables public, it greatly damaged the reputation of the United States and maybe even those involved (to a lesser extent), although we as the citizens have a right to know what our country is doing abroad. This undoubtedly would make future negotiations with the United States much more difficult in the future and lessen the trust others have for them. The way it was handled is actually disgraceful. They should have used their position as a powerful country to help come up with a plan of collective action instead of not taking responsibility for their own part. The United States should not continue to conduct climate change diplomacy in the way it has been. I am not saying that the United States shouldn’t speak out, but rather speak out as a motivator and leader to get things accomplished, instead of the “bully” who gets everyone to go along. While the motivation for change would lead to the same end result, I can’t help but feel that if the other countries had the motivation to change for them and the betterment of the world (instead of being bribed), the results would be stronger and quicker with less strife.