WikiLeaks and US diplomatic cables

Spy Games

This must be really embarrassing for the US. Backbreaking too. A nation that has always been on the offensive suddenly finds itself in the midst of a 'diplomatic' predicament.

The US broke all rules of engagement (not that it cared) when it invaded Iraq in 2003 on the pretext of WMDs, finds it acceptable to detain suspects on the pretext of risk to national security, violation of human rights, Guantanamo bay etc... In all these instances its stance was not questioned by the foreign governments (except Iran), and in most cases it was supported and sometimes legalized by the judiciary.

This is something different- espionage. No country likes it when they are at the receiving end of the bargain. And getting spied upon will not go too well with its leaders and politicians. It's something like this: you enjoy watching a good fight, but tortuous if you the one in it and getting beaten up.

A cable sent by Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, in July 2009 asks diplomats to spy on state officials as well as UN officials. Information were to be passed over containing

Office, organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet "handles", internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.

Apart from the above information requested, Ms Clinton also requested other sensitive information from UN offices.

Since these documents cannot be refuted by the State department, they have turned their offensive against their biggest headache- Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

A senior US defence official said lawyers from across US government agencies are studying whether it might be possible to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.

He said lawyers are trying to determine whether the Espionage Act applies in this case, what individuals it might apply to and whether it's possible to use it against the WikiLeaks organisation.

Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, said on Monday that there is an "active and ongoing criminal investigation," and that the website's chief would be pursued if he were found to have broken the law.

The White House branded those who released the documents "criminals, first and foremost," but so far US authorities have publicly filed no charges against Assange.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, called the release by WikiLeaks "an attack on the international community", adding that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the material. Rather, it was a revelation to the world – The dirty games US plays on other nations and the bully that it is.

Meanwhile, Assange from an undisclosed location said that Clinton must resign if it were to be proved she had asked to carry out espionage activities.

Wikileaks and US Diplomatic cables

The one that got away

The current cache of US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks has put the US govt. on a diplomatic marathon to mend any potential damages done with its allies. Its PR department has been working round the clock to divert attention from damning pieces in the leaks. The US govt. had even tried to prevent the site from uploading the cables by hacking their site.

Media Coverage

Saudi Arabia requesting to attack Iran, Iran and its nuclear programme, more doubts on Iran, Doubts in Mahmoud Abbas's leadership by the Israeli leaders, Germany's Chancellor Ms. Angela Merkel as "risk averse and rarely creative", Vladimir Putin as the "Alpha-dog" etc. These were the ones that the media chose to cover prominently.

In the current socio-political environment the current selection might be helpful in pushing forward certain agendas. For example, it may be helpful for Iran's detractors apply more pressure with the support of the Arab nations, not that they (Arab nations) have an opinion other than the ones dictated by the US. And then there is Israel, as always.

When there's Israel, the media prefers to turn a blind eye to its evil ways.

Negotiating Peace

Middle East peace quartet or The US peace envoy to the Middle East is not something new. Neither would be Israel's blatant violation of international law- building in occupied Palestinian territories, attack on a foreign soil and civilians, war crimes and so on. Or the way the media calls occupied territories in Palestine as 'settlements.'
But new to everyone out there would be Netanyahu's non-commitment to the peace negotiations- in writing. That too from the US. In a cable sent from Tel-Aviv detailing a meeting between Ackerman and Netanyahu,

Netanyahu said he would not agree to such a withdrawal since the 1967 lines were indefensible, but he added that the "right of return" was the real acid test of Arab intentions. Instead of Israel making more step-by-step concessions, Israel should insist that further concessions be linked to reciprocal steps toward peace

....
Netanyahu insisted not one refugee could ever return

....Netanyahu said UNSCR 242 was not a bad formula since it did not specify precisely from which territories Israel would withdraw.

The main issue that has been derailing the current 'peace talks' is the settlements and illegal constructions in Palestine by Israel. There has been partial construction freeze (s) which only prevented giving new permits during the freeze period, but allowed construction work on the ones already approved by the authorities concerned.

The above transcript sheds light on the current impasse over the Israel-Palestine negotiations. Netanyahu was never serious over the settlement issues; rather he is buying time and bullying Palestinians into expanding the territorial reach of Israel. He is wasting time to make sure that the existence of a Palestinian state will be a fraction of its former self by including terms like "security of its people" and "the right to self exist". From the onset, Israel has stated that it is entitled to any area it controls but is ready to make some "territorial concessions" that suits its needs and interests.

The ongoing peace process has been stalled over the same issue, over and over again, and Israel is not interested in giving back Palestinians their rightful, rather using it as a bargaining chip to pressurise Palestinians into giving up more, in the process legitimising their occupation.

Yasser Arafat had called the Oslo peace process "the peace of the brave" and the world around called it a moment in history. But we seemed to have missed the irony- 'The peace of the brave' was originally used by General de Gaulle about the end of the Algerian war. The French lost the war in Algeria.

Down with my team

In any political system there are disagreements and exchange of words. And in a democratic system, there is always friction between the ruling party and the opposition, if there is one. This is essential in ensuring that there is someone to keep checks on the government from crossing the line. And the media has a role of conveying to the people of these developments, both good and bad. This is a part of achieving good governance.

The working of a democratic government requires the opposition support the policies that are in favour of the people and be against the ones that run contrary to will and expectations of the people. But never should they act as an agent for a foreign nation. Never.

"I'm with you, not my president"- these were the words of the soon to be house majority leader Eric Cantor (Republican - VA) to the Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu. This was just before Hilary Clinton's meeting with the PM assure their commitment to the peace negotiations and opposition to illegal Israeli constructions.

Cantor's office later tried to recant his statement and construed his remarks as "a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington." But from the context it is clear that he meant otherwise.

Even more shocking or disappointing is the way the media has covered the whole event – or let's say, not covering the event. Remember the time when Helen Thomas, a White House journalist, was crucified for making remarks about Israel. Or when Octavia Nasr, a senior Middle East editor at CNN, was fired over her tweet revealing her respect for the Late Shiite cleric Ayatollah Fadlallah.

This may not be something new as many may not have even heard of New York Senator Chuck Schumer supporting 'economic strangulation' of Gaza, even when its economy is reeling under Israeli policies. Because the people of Gaza had elected Hamas to power, Israel was in its right to "to strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go," and the US was morally obliged to stand by them, according to Schumer.

Coming back to Cantor and his remarks, if it had been said by any democrat (or Muslim in the current social environment) he/she would have been subjected to immense scrutiny and might even be said to have committed treason or sedition.

Arundhati Roy's statements on Kashmir were termed to be seditious by TIMES NOW which went on to become a huge debate in the country. It dint stop with TIMES NOW, but other media outlets joined the bandwagon and upped their rhetoric against her. All this in the race for TRP ratings and viewership.

With the republicans set to regain control of the house in the 112^th congress after the 2010 elections it is worrisome to know that people like him, are against human rights and freedoms, are still able to be elected by the people by toying with their fears. And even more worrisome is the state of media that are misinforming the public by not giving the complete picture, when all along they should have remained balanced and fair– not biased and opportunistic.