The recent leaks of US reports have revolutionized the left-wing Western press, which is delighted to receive "sensitive" material and to be able to attack the US. The source of these scandals is a website called Wikileaks, founded in 2007 and turned into a headache for Obama and his diplomatic service. Wikileaks stores 1.2 million classified documents, which are periodically leaked to the media. However, the reports that this website launches at network not only inform about the US (and its excesses in Guantanamo, Iraq or Afghanistan), but also affect dictatorships (such as human rights violations in China or Iran), democracies (especially espionage and corruption) or large financial corporations (JP Morgan or Barclays Bank, accused of tax fraud).

Behind Wikileaks is a communication group called Sun Shine Press, which aims to recover the freedom of the press according to the maxim of President Thomas Jefferson "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". That is to say, refund journalism to the place it deserves as the Fourth Estate, something that others have tried before (such as the websites Cryptome or Secrecy News), but with less success. At least, that is their version.

The core topic of Wikileaks is its sources of information. In the 1970s, the legendary Berstein and Woodward brought down Nixon thanks to the confidences of Deep Throat, pseudonym of FBI agent Mark Felt. Is the Wikileaks informant someone from the FBI or the CIA? Or perhaps from the British Mi6? Could it be the Russian espionage? Or rather the Israeli Losad? Chances are that everyone is doing their bit and someone is already a millionaire.

In the complicated world of the International Office secret services have always played a role core topic. They are in charge of the dirty work , as Felipe Gonzalez recognized when justifying the GAL: "The State also defends itself from the sewers".

The French DGSE or the CIA only recognize their missions when they are discovered (for example, the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985 or the secret CIA flights to Guantanamo). Hence the usefulness of Wikileaks, a site that has achieved such a reputation for independence that the most influential newspapers in the world have paid for exclusives on espionage or torture.

The juiciest came a few days ago with what has been baptized, without too much imagination, as Cablegate: the revelation of the routine reports sent by American embassies and consulates to department of State. The truth is that they do not say anything new (Berlusconi is a satyr, Merkel is a peacock or ZP is an old-fashioned leftist), but they have the morbidity of being signed by high-level diplomats. At least that is what El País or The New York Times, two of the five world newspapers to which Wikileaks has sold its information, despite the tiny percentage of secret documents (which are worthwhile), have thought. However, anyone familiar with diplomatic practices knows that such language is the norm in the vast majority of reports.

Not only Americans, but Spaniards or Cubans. I was only surprised the first time, while researching in the US National Archives, to discover the opinion of the American ambassador in Cuba in 1960, Phil Bonsal, about Fidel Castro ("an unscrupulous paranoid") or about the archbishop of Havana, Evelio Diaz ("pusillanimous, influenceable and cowardly"). Those judgments would have been succulent leaks.