The disclosure by the website Wikileaks of thousands of previously "secret" cables sent to Washington from the United States of America's embassies mostly between 2006 and 2009 has certainly caused much fluttering in the diplomatic dovecotes, and doubtless many a wry smile on the faces of those who have been subject to the routinely frank analysis by its diplomats.
Assessing actual and potential leaders, their characters, characteristics, weaknesses and strengths is a normal part of the game of tactical warfare that takes place, and has always taken place, beneath statecraft's veneer of truth and mutual respect.
What is so embarrassing about these disclosures is not the nature of the contents of the cables, but that they have been exposed for all to see.
And the emperor, naked, is not always a pretty sight.
Matching confidential diplomatic opinion with actual consequences will doubtless be a game played for years to come, and there is certainly much potential: key US allies in the Middle East pleading with Washington to take military action against Iran's nuclear programme; US officials warning the German Government not to arrest CIA officers suspected by Berlin of being involved in the "extraordinary rendition" abduction and internment of suspected terrorists; Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's characterisation as the "mouthpiece of Putin" in Europe; the gathering of personal, biometric and even the banking details about United Nations Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and others; of Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai - a US ally - "driven by paranoia"; German Chancellor Angela Merkel as "risk-averse and rarely creative"; Russian Prime Minister Putin, derided as "an alpha dog".
What is quite extraordinary about some of the cables are the apparent examples of breaches of the boundary between diplomatic statecraft and outright espionage, long thought to be an intolerable demand of envoys.
The aggressive reaction by Washington to the leaks is indicative of the level of mortification the US Government is experiencing and will continue to experience for some time to come. A considerable effort will have to be mounted to contain the damage to bilateral relations, and especially to US interests abroad generally.
American pressure has been placed on owners of web servers to shut down the Wikileaks sites, Interpol is said to have the individual largely responsible for engineering the leaks, the Australian Julian Assange, in its sights, and he has been vilified by the government of the country of his birth. Some want him charged with espionage.
All this may have been anticipated by Mr Assange, whose avowed purpose is to expose the way governments, especially the US Government, work to further their interests, despite what they might be telling - or not telling - their taxpayers.
Of the more than 251,000 stolen documents, 11,000 are marked "secret", some 9000 contained information not to be shared with those outside of the US, and the remainder are confidential or unclassified.
Obviously, such an unwieldy system was prone to be misused by dissident authorised personnel. No doubt it will be replaced, at great expense, with a more secure arrangement. Human incompetence has, yet again, been shown to be the greatest threat to keeping secrets.
Cables from the embassy of the US in Wellington are said to be among those to be made public, and the Prime Minister, John Key, has anticipated trouble by warning of possible embarrassment, although since the cables mostly cover the period of the Clark government it is unlikely to worry National.
The broader questions arising from this activity are much more important.
How far does "free speech" actually extend? Should governments be able to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information? If so, at what point does confidentiality become irrelevant? Is the public interest served by disclosing material of this nature, in which frank opinion may not necessarily be aligned with the true facts? Whistle-blowing can occasionally help, rather than harm, official actions; the public interest can certainly be damaged, however, by early publication of sensitive information, especially where lives have to be protected in the interests of national security.
Judging what is, and what is not in this category requires knowledge, skill and experience, none of which can justly be claimed by WikiLeaks or its founder.
The one certainty is that such trust as exists between America and the countries it deals with will be further constrained - no bad thing in itself - but the world is a dangerous place and will not be made safer by this farrago.
