The characterization by the Pentagon of Wikileaks being “reckless” in their release of the documents came in fact ahead of their release, as were Sunday’s headlines quoting the White House statement that their publication is “reckless and dangerous.” If the documents so far released are dangerous at all, it is mostly to the continued perception by the American public that their government stands above other nations on a moral high-ground, and that USG foreign policies are in any tangible way amenable to and affected by democratic processes at home. Wikileaks has in fact respected the danger that confidential informants and private citizens inside Iran, Afghanistan and Korea face by censoring their names, though the names of foreign diplomats, statesmen and US officials are rarely spared, as they are ostensibly publicly accountable. Such statements from sources protected by Wikileaks’s self censorship are in any case usually the least revealing as to actual policy, and are interesting only in their insight as to what foreign insiders and parties want the USG to do or think.
The statement by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs which has formed the leading paragraph in so many news outlet’s headlining stories: "To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government," is a falsehood, as the cables themselves demonstrate that the USG, with abandon, continues to support on a quid pro quo basis innumerable corrupt dictatorial regimes such as in Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. The notion that anyone anywhere is soliciting the USG in the aid of “promoting democracy and open government” is absurd in the light of these cables, which instead demonstrate foreign governments soliciting the USG for money, weapons and military action against their neighbours, or in the cases of Syria, Azerbaijan and Turkey, that the USG not continue to provoke the Iranian regime and desist from sponsoring terrorism, subterfuge and the foment of dissent within Iran’s borders, which they believe strengthens the Islamic leadership by providing it pretext for the further curtailing domestic freedoms of movement and expression, and which convinces the Iranian leadership that an attack by American forces is imminent and forestalled only by its current difficulties in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. The cables reveal that many representatives of middle-eastern nations believe that Iran’s operations and attempts to destabilise Iraq and Afghanistan stem from the Iranian government’s conviction that allowing a military success in Iraq or Afghanistan would precipitate a rather immediate invasion of Iran itself by Western forces.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy has called Wikileaks a “Threat to democracy,” which seems understandable only if one extrapolates that the release of the cables will motivate people such as him to dispense with it. For the moment, exactly how the exposure of secretive government workings to the public threatens that public’s right to rule itself (democracy), if it does not in fact do the opposite, remains unexplained. Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon, called the leaks “deplorable” and reportedly continued that ‘leaks like this one do not serve anybody's national interests and may threaten national security.’
Hilary Clinton’s statement that the leaks are “An attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity," seems ironic in light of the continual proliferation of weapons and conflict on every continent and the ongoing global economic crisis; and thereby causing one to wonder about exactly whose security and economic prosperity she speaks, and to whom she is referring when she invokes the name “international community,” a rather ambiguous and ubiquitous term of late. There are also the calls from News outlets such as Fox News and NY Rep. Congressman Peter King that Wikileaks be deemed a terrorist organisation, and that its assets be seized and donors be considered sponsors of terrorism, which is an obvious absurdity, inconsistent even with the USG’s loose definition of terrorism, and would define innumerable US citizens as terrorists.
One of the few reasonable reactions by any government to the scandal is from David Cameron’s Conservative UK government, who as very recent newcomers to power are perhaps not (yet?) a part of Secretary Clinton’s ‘international community’. A spokesman for the UK government discussed the matter with reporters, stopping short of branding Wikileaks as a criminal or terrorist organisation, and relating simply that the released cables and a lack of confidentiality on matters “is inhibiting the conduct of governments.” While an honest observation, the merit of the conduct of any government and which matters merit strict confidentiality is itself a matter which clearly requires debate.
Overall, the picture is one of public leaders worldwide closing ranks in face of what they view as a clear attack on their authority and mandate to continue the types of behaviours described in the cables, which it is. They deplore the leaks as a threat to “national” security, mistaking themselves as the nation and not merely its representatives, and are weary of the possibility that an informed public may better understand their government’s duplicity and actions against the public welfare in favour of privately profitable wars and support for autocratic/oligarchic regimes abroad, causes which almost no citizens of western nations find virtue in. A massive PR campaign is being mobilised in the mainstream media, beginning with a repetitious doublethink mantra which in its essence suggests to the public mind that to hold its leaders to task on matters most important is antithetical to their freedoms and democratic rule.
Only 278 of the 251,287 cables obtained by Wikileaks have thus far been released. The relative voracity of global leadership’s reaction to the publication of these cables, which have provided very little extra insight beyond information which is already publicly available, if not conveniently located in a single place from a single source, is perhaps indicative that the ruling echelon is convinced the most damning evidence of their self-interest and misappropriation of public trust is yet to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment