The Shock Of WikiLeaks: Confirming What One Knew
From the desk of George Handlery on Fri, 2010-12-10 18:45
By now, it has become obligatory to present a comment regarding WikiLeaks. To some extent, the unstated primary effort of the firecracker to damage the US creates more sound than destruction. The leaks show that, privately, some critics of the USA during daylight, approve in the shadow of the policies they officially castigate. Iran’s Arab neighbors place ethnicity and the reason of state above the commands of the (nearly) common religion. Going beyond that, they even egg on the rather hesitant USA. They want Tehran’s nuclear threat eliminated before the Near East has to live with the facts the Mullahs are set to create. This is hardly a shock –unless one sees an advantage in feigning outrage. Everybody with a dearth of knowledge of how interstate relations work, knew that there is a considerable difference between the official policy of states and the real pursued objectives.
In the real world, the diplomat’s task goes beyond transmitting messages from one foreign office to the other. The representatives abroad serve as a kind of stethoscope. Whatever they hear they need to report back. Not unlike a vacuum cleaner, they are used to pick up information. Most of that is trivial. Pasted together the data is to help to assess intentions, situations and negotiating positions. Rumors are very much a part of the noises to register, to amplify and to transmit. As in the case of insider chitchat, this is local gossip. This makes the “material”, analogous to what goes around about the zoning committee of the community where you reside. What might really strike the observer is the banality of the data that clutters confidential reports.
Some powers will attempt to exploit the opportunity to gain advantages by crying “murder” and by claiming an insult. Once and when that happens Washington has a comeback. It should ask the complaining parties to take a good look at the tone and content of the confidential reports that are in their diplomatic files.
Assange’s consequences
Beyond the noble principles of official releases, the intended purpose of the leaks had been to wound the USA. Being an open society, she has been a suitable target for infiltration. Rest assured that a “WikiLeaks” would not happen to China, Iran, or even Russia. It would appear that the damage to the core of American national interest remains limited. On the other hand, the ability of “diplomacy” to find political solutions to problems that would otherwise lead to violence, will be diminished. The damage to discretion will weaken the context upon which diplomacy depends. Mr. Assange has not made the world a safer place.
For the sake of the perspective
History knows famous leaks that, unlike the Wiki-version, have made history. At first, the “Ems Dispatch” comes to mind. Prussian Chancellor Bismarck practiced what could be called a “self-leak”. He did this by passing on to the press the confidential report of his King about a conversation with France’s Ambassador. As hoped for, the irritable French were insulted by the edited message. Angered, France declared the war she actually wished to avoid. That made them the aggressor. Even worse, they promptly lost the war.
Equally consequential was the “Zimmermann Telegram”. In 1917 the British, who for long had broken the German code, finally decided to act openly on the information they had even if that would unmask their access. The ace they held was a telegram from the German Foreign Office to the Ambassador in Mexico. The hair-brained plan confirms the thesis that the Germans had the best soldiers and the stupidest politicians. Berlin wanted to bring Japan and Mexico together to fight the Americans. In case of victory, Mexico was to get the territories it lost in the 19th century. Once London passed the text to Washington, President Wilson had an excuse to end American neutrality and to enter the war that, regardless of his campaign promise (“he had kept us out of war”) he wanted to join.
Inconveniently challenged principle
Anti-Semitic textbooks of Saudi origin are in use in the UK. That such an action is a violation of national law is obvious. But count on muted reaction by leftist circles. Raised in the tradition of relativism, the guiding standard is that sticking to a principle amounts to uncouth stubbornness. All customs, cultures and worldviews have their merit. That makes them equal. Therefore, rejecting any of them as being beyond the pale of elementary standards is wrong. Our liberals want a justification to be able to abandon every tenet to which they have ever committed themselves. If the challenger has a fist, the moral principle loses the quality of providing a safe mount for uncontested preaching. Once resolute and violence proven opposition rises, the espoused value becomes a commitment that demands a sacrifice. And that is to be avoided because nothing is worth the risk inherent in upholding a principle.
The most tri-dimensional illustration is the once uncompromisingly conducted struggle against anti-Semitism. Once the countries that made that their stated policy had been defeated, the retroactive heroism sounded good and involved no price. This factor made, after 1945, out of the originally small band of active anti-Nazis a crowd with standing room only. Today, with Islamists preaching crude anti-Semitism and equating it with it the detested West’s democracy, the tune changes. This leaves us with the lesson that anti-Semitism and other forms of obscurantism are to be combated heroically only in the case of the safe past. In the case of advocates of comparable policies in the present, the worldview is to be “understood” on a “multicultural” basis.
A bad human being
A doctor in Germany had posted rules on his door. He asked his patients to speak German and to refrain from wearing Muslim-style covers. Whether his ability to communicate with his female patients has improved is unknown. He was, however, censured by the board of physicians.
Avoid insulting those who love to be offended
Christmas plays and nativity exhibits in schools and other public places are disappearing. Soon private garden displays might also get the ax once they are classified as a public nuisance. Meanwhile, Christmas cards mute into Seasons’ Greeting messages. This is because, unlike Buddhists, Jews or Animists- Muslim pupils might choose to be insulted. The next step seems farfetched. But only until it happens. In the future, it will be proposed that Muslim holidays be celebrated. After all, ignoring them might insult the members of that community.
Welcome news
Iran is or has again been ready to negotiate on the basis that it is not asked to cease its current programs. One therefore wonders what the purpose of the recently concluded talks in Geneva between the West and Iran could have been. The only result is that Tehran gains time to pursue its program. The case is completed by the UN’s coming inability to supervise nuclear projects. This task used to be delegated to the IAEA. Teheran has just publicized its finding that this UN agency is spying against Iran. Indeed, some material made public by WikiLeaks suggests that Mr. Amano has sympathies –how could it be otherwise- for the American/Western position.
One example...
Submitted by mpresley on Sun, 2010-12-12 21:00.
An example of usually clear thinking gone awry is Diana West's analysis of the situation:
Whether such information was originally classified, the body politic should be electrified by the fact, as revealed by the leaked cables, that nations from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia are regularly discussed as black holes of infinite corruption into which American money gushes...
First, who, after following the situation in the Middle East, and America's foreign policy toward the Arab countries, could not understand that these regimes are corrupt to the core?
Did anyone need to read privileged State Department communications in order to know the depravity of the Saudi royal house, or what is taken for a government in Afghanistan?
If there is a problem with American foreign policy (and there most assuredly is), it is not attributable to the information now known as Wikileaks. Rational observers (including Ms. West) could not have been at all surprised by any of it. However, in championing the actions of Manning and Assange, they are demonstrating misplaced outrage directed toward the institution and function of government in the abstract, as opposed to the particular actions of one regime.
The idea: now that we are a democracy, and hence "we the people" have a constitutional right to know everything, displays a hubris that is, at its core, anti-government and anarchic.
cablegate
Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-12-12 13:32.
Limiting the Leaks on Iran and corridor gossip shows that the author has not a glimpse of idea of the real content. The whistle-blowing effect of WikiLeaks reveals nothing but 'the plain truth', nobody can deny what has been said or written. How can U.S. embassy cables damage U.S. interests? Beside the amusing gossip on politicians (the 'important public interest'), the cables show the extent of U.S. spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in 'client states'; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for U.S. corporations; and the measures U.S. diplomats take to advance those who have access to them. Of course, the hawkish secret-keepers are embarrassed and like to kill WikiLeaks (hopefully Mr Assange will survive this, or will Clinton's aggressive steps take place? What about 'Goebbels' Lieberman's mental health?). No single individual has ever come to harm as a result of anything that WikiLeaks has ever published and the documents were scrutinized by reporters – the free press - excluding information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise security matters. However, only ElPais is publishing widely, German, French, British and U.S. press stepped largely back. Notorious are the blunt (candid) manners in the scripts, it seems there is not one politician the US Foreign Office likes, a symptom of paranoid hysteria and appropriate for unfounded conspiracy theories. Then again, Israel is hardly mentioned so far, as 'they were prepared', Netanyahu said. All in all, there's bound to be one or two comments in there that might lead to embarrassment at the most, but nothing more serious on that matter.
Real revelations come from Saudi-Arabia (its relation to Iran), the CIA flights to Guantánamo (blocking European investigations against CIA members, specially in Spain), and multiple actions to weaken Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez. Interesting the quest for iris scan, fingerprints and DNA samples of South American politicians and Washington's acknowledgment of the Honduranian putsch regime in spite of better knowing (Hugo Llorens cable on 24.07.2010). The degree of U.S. influence on the foreign policies of other countries is obvious, take the controversial speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly, when the State Department sent a directive to the members of the European countries to leave the hall, which was promptly accomplished. Or take, for example, the U.S. Ambassador to Georgia, John Tefft, who confused Ossetian villages subjected to shelling with the Georgian ones. Based on the analysis of other documents, it becomes clear that this "confusion" was deliberate, as he reported to Washington that the Georgian troops moved to the borders of South Ossetia, and after the failure of the Georgian adventure, he wrote to the State Department about the need to insist on "absolute innocence of Georgia."
How did it come to leak? The 'secret' information web linked to U.S. embassys counts about 2,5 million users. That's the answer. Israel is amused, as should be Moscow and Beijing. Yet, it's a matter of time when we hopefully will hear leaking them, too.
@ kappert
Submitted by mpresley on Sun, 2010-12-12 17:19.
Just a suggestion: if you would consider using paragraphs, one would be able to more readily read your writing. Otherwise it is too much effort.
WikiLeaks - mostly treachery
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sun, 2010-12-12 04:57.
It has never been WikiLeaks’ policy to attack the US or American interests. Assange’s personal opinions about US foreign policy aside, WikiLeaks’ stated goal is to publish leaked information and protect its sources without reference to corporate or governmental sensitivities, which it claims restricts full disclosure by the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is a merely conduit, and does not engage in investigative reporting unlike the major media outlets which do both, and which have published the materials sent to them by WikiLeaks.
The (alleged) individual that wanted to “damage” or “wound” the United States was Bradley Manning, who became disillusioned with American foreign policy and decided to illegally transfer two videos and 250,000 diplomatic cables (incl. classified material) to CDs.
RE: Assange’s consequences
WikiLeaks has not been shown to be either biased or working for a foreign intelligence service. I assume that “whistleblowers” in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc., could count on WikiLeaks as much as Bradley Manning did.
I specifically put quotations around “whistleblowers”, as Bradley Manning did blow the whistle on the “collateral damage” inflicted in Baghdad and Granai. However, I do not see how the leaking the cables served justice. They were no Pentagon Papers: many of them embarrassed countries that had turned in confidence to the United States for support. Why should the Director of CSIS or King Abdullah be embarrassed for no reason? Is it out of revenge and spite for demotion and don’t ask/don’t tell?
RE: For the sake of perspective
Crucially, NATO’s plans to change its defense plans for Poland to include the Baltic states – and the associated re-designation of nine divisions, plans for exercises and offers to station US air forces in Poland – was an attack on NATO. It endangers NATO forces and civilians in Germany, Poland and the Baltic states, who may now be targeted for pre-emptive or defensive tactical nuclear strikes by Russia, which clearly cannot rely on conventional strength alone.
RE: Welcome news
On December 7, five senators (with John McCain possibly adding his name) sent a letter to Obama warning not to offer Iran any concessions and to make zero enrichment on Iranian soil a pre-condition for any negotiations to resolve the problems between Iran, the West and the UN.
However, Iran is well within its rights per the NPT to enrich uranium domestically for “peaceful” purposes. For the West to respect Iran’s NPT rights, Iran will have to allow full IAEA inspections to insure that there is no attempt at weaponization or a parallel IRGC program, which appears to be the case. If Obama’s follows a zero-enrichment policy, it may cause Iran to withdraw from the NPT and open the door not only to overt weaponization but the transfer of nuclear weapons (e.g. “dirty bombs”) to Hezbollah and IRGC proxies as far away as Venezuela, whose intelligence agencies are linked to the MISIRI.
@ KA
Submitted by mpresley on Sun, 2010-12-12 17:16.
I do not understand what it could mean that the "policy" of WL was not to "attack" US interests, since the fact of publishing the documents clearly did so. To say that WL is "merely" a conduit is to divorce their actions from a very real moral foundation.
First, the documents were stolen, and therefore never Wikileak's property. Thus, even from a libertarian standpoint, one where property must be held inviolate, the act was immoral. This certainly begs the question as to Mr. Assange's motives.
It seems that the most that can be said or argued is that his actions were those of a narcissistic anarchist who does not appreciate or understand the nature of civil government, and man's relation to government. He appears to be a non-philosophical individual controlled by desires, and an opportunist.
The classical view, and the view I believe to be correct, is that man is political by nature. If so, then political action must be conducted, not by the individual, but by the collective--i.e., the government. It is the regime's responsibility to create the conditions necessary for maximizing the potential for each citizen's achievement toward the good life, or justice.
Governments are constitutionally responsible for conducting foreign policy, and not individual citizens. Therefore, Mr. Manning's actions were seditious. By subverting his government, he essentially declared war on the general citizenry, the job of which it is the government to protect.
Mr. Assange, on the other hand, heads an outlaw or pirate organization. His appropriation of what is not his subverts the natural political process.
Libertarians, leftists, and some left conservatives argue that Assange's actions (I've not heard much about Manning in all of this) are to be commended because he showed the "true" nature of the regime.
However, this extra-legal behavior on the part of Assange can not be justified by naive libertarian arguments [anarchists have no arguments, so their views are nonsensical]. If government is corrupt, then citizens must take whatever action they can, collectively, and within the limits of their constitution. Otherwise, the actions are revolutionary, and must be resisted by those citizens that claim the government as their own.
A corrupt regime is not known by leaks. A corrupt regime is like the tree: known by its fruit. One does not need to know the inner workings of the chemistry of cells in order to know whether the fruit is poisonous.
wondering
Submitted by George2 on Sat, 2010-12-11 15:38.
I wonder about the diplomatic communications concerning other nations among those who think it is right to stone people to death, to kill homosexuals, to mutilate the sexual organs of women, to cut off the nose and ears of girls who want to go to school ... I just wonder how kind and courteous the wording may be.
@ George2
Submitted by mpresley on Sat, 2010-12-11 15:49.
I wonder about the diplomatic communications concerning (all sorts of horrible things)...
Your question presupposes that American diplomats are concerned about these things--a questionable presupposition. If they were particularly offended, and hence particularly concerned, why are past and present administrations so happy to import these people as replacement populations?
@ mpresley
Submitted by George2 on Sat, 2010-12-11 16:17.
I wonder how diplomats of nations who favor cruelty communicate among each other. As far as I know, the US do not belong to this 'select' group of nations. What we read in Wikileaks seems standard (diplomatic) language. I wonder about the language used by those diplomats serving this special 'select' group of nations. I do not think that mr Assange is keen on publishing those leaks.
language
Submitted by mpresley on Sat, 2010-12-11 17:06.
Diplomats are trained in a special language. It would surprise me if there is ever much "off the record" common-vernacular speech used between the parties. In private, and within each group apart from the other, it is likely that speech is less formal, and hidden thinking arises.
I have not read the released material, but my impression is that the leaks are not of actual diplomatic sessions, but rather are transcriptions of intra-State Department communications.
Christmas plays and political intrigue...
Submitted by mpresley on Sat, 2010-12-11 15:29.
Christmas plays and nativity exhibits in schools and other public places are disappearing... This is because, unlike Buddhists, Jews or Animists- Muslim pupils might choose to be insulted.
It is, of course, because Islam cannot be divorced from its totalitarian political side. And claiming to be offended is a wonderful tool for Muslims to use against mild-mannered liberals suffering from a surfeit of Christian guilt as they (Muslims) effect their colonization of the West.
Jews are less offended by a show of Christian tradition, but not completely immune, either. Because of it all, I've noticed that even private companies take Pilate's advice and wash their hands of the entire situation, or in their attempts to show inclusiveness, pander to the ridiculous. Witness the occasional kwanzaa celebration, usually an embarrassment for blacks, and perplexing to whites, but they'd never admit their thoughts openly--again, for fear of offending.
Rest assured that a “WikiLeaks” would not happen to China...or even Russia.
It is instructive to note respective responses. Putin, in an almost comical statement dressed in melodramatic irony, gets in his digs, while the Chinese have been not uncharacteristically reserved. I'm sure that at this late stage of the game, neither Putin nor Hu have much respect for the current administration. It will, however, make them play hardball a bit more aggressively, so we've got that much to thank of our wikileakers.
Citizen diplomacy is nothing new, but unlike Aristophanes' merry character, Dikaiopolis, it is doubtful Assange's fate will be as happy. But you never know. In fact, for such an opportunist, it may turn out quite rewarding. After all, he does not live in Russia, or China.