Revelations of wickedness 4

These are a few of the WikiLeaks revelations that are exciting much comment on both sides of the Atlantic and in the Middle East, and that we find helpful to know:

The release of Magrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, from a Scottish prison, was done for cowardly motives that had nothing to do with justice or compassion, just as we always thought. (See the Telegraph here and here, and the Scotsman here.)

Contrary to Obama’s assumptions, the Arab States are much more interested in stopping Iran developing a nuclear capability than they are in the Israel-Palestinian “peace process”, and they confer directly with Israel about this crisis, having lost patience with Obama. (See the Jerusalem Post here and Front Page here.)

Ireland impeded US arms transfers to Israel. (See the Jerusalem Post here.)

In the vain desire to empty Guantanamo, the US administration used questionable inducements to persuade foreign governments to accept prisoners – with little success. (See PowerLine here.)

The Saudi Arabian rulers – under whose strictly “moral” Wahhabi regime young girls were pushed back into a burning school because they ran out with their faces uncovered – entertain themselves in extravagant orgies, with every kind of sexual indulgence and drugs, with music they forbid their subjects to listen to.  [Note it is their hypocrisy and cruelty we find morally repulsive, not their choices of entertainment,  except when they involve the exploitation and corruption of children – which, to our certain knowledge, they frequently do, especially homosexual exploitation.] (See the Guardian here.)

These revelations underline the message that many others convey, such as those concerning the Obama administration’s mishandling of relations with and between North Korea, Iran and China. (See our posts Thanks to WikiLeaks? December 3, 2010, and More on WikiLeaks December 4, 2010).

If WikiLeaks, which did not steal the documents but published them, is guilty of a crime – what crime we are waiting to be told – then are not the newspapers that publish them, such as the New York Times, equally guilty?

Attorney General Eric Holder, no master of understanding or expression, will name the crime eventually perhaps. So far he has only told us that the WikiLeaks publication of the documents was “not helpful”. To whom? For what? They’re certainly helpful in proving, inter alia, that the State Department is an institution which does not serve the interests of the country. Or, to be a little less delicate, that it’s a malignant tumor on the body politic.

  • Fernando Montenegro

    Hello again,

    One point I’d make is that the State Department takes orders from the administration. In my opinion, the cables show the contingent of American diplomats implementing the foreign policy dictated to them by Washington and providing information back to Washington that may be relevant for refining that policy.

    To me, the State Department is the messenger getting shot here (not Assange), the tool used to implement policy. Assign responsibility to the White House and its appointees. I’m sure that the Bush White House made many mistakes, just as I’m sure the blame for the current geopolitical crises lies with the Obama/Clinton team.

    Respectfully,
    Fernando

    • Jillian Becker

      At present, under this administration, Fernando, you are right, I’m sure. The State Department was no doubt in sweet harmony with Jimmy Carter too. The State Department, like the British Foreign Office, is packed with lefties, generation after generation, and the jokes that apply to the one could apply just as well to the other. “As the Department of Education works for education, the Foreign Office works for foreigners.” “They found a mole in the Foreign Office – he was working for Britain.” I remember how bets used to be taken on how long would it be before this new Conservative foreign minister or that Republican secretary of state would be corrupted by the FO’s or State’s ethos – one month or three? Sometimes it takes longer. Remember how Condoleezza Rice, strong with regard to Russia, failed utterly to understand the Israeli-Arab conflict, thinking it was analogous to the race problem in the South? One had only to listen to N. Burns, or listen now to – one of the worst – P.J. Crowley, to catch a flavor of that ethos. Or observe Susan Rice at the UN, thanking Libya and China etc for complaining about America’s human rights record! Or some of the ambassadors, like the one who thinks toys and lollipops should be handed out to the blood-soaked tyrant of Sudan, or the one now in Britain who visits a mosque in East London and gives fawning speeches when the place is known to be a thrumming generator of jihadist passion. We long to see John Bolton as Secretary of State, not only because we know his approach to foreign affairs is right, but also because we believe he might actually change things in that rotten institution. The sort of people who are recruited into it, for instance. A naive faith? Maybe. If he cannot, nobody can. But then, even if he does, what will happen when a Democratic administration comes in again? It will all too probably be as you say, and it will change back to its old ways.

      • Fernando Montenegro

        Jillian,

        Thank you for your comments.

        You bring up an excellent point that I had overlooked: in all likelihood, there is a strong “corporate culture” at State that has its own worldview and functionaries may have trouble ignoring it while exercising their functions. It certainly introduces some uncertainty as to how much of foreign policy is dictated by the White House and how much is influenced by State.

        To me, one dangerous side effect of this culture is that the similarities between foreign service people across the world – a diplomat from the US is likely as “polite” and “worldly” as someone from China, Ghana or Sweden, for example – leads them to ignore the harsh differences between the countries themselves. This leads to the mistaken belief that everything can be “talked out”. From Roosevelt’s “Speak softly…”, now it appears that the US position is “just talk” and sometimes not even show up (http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/13/united-nations-libya-human-rights-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html).

        But that becomes a whole separate discussion from WikiLeaks…

        All the best,
        Fernando

  • Tyler520

    In all honesty, I have yet to see one leaked document that tells me something I didn’t already know, or was certain about, and had known or suspected for up to a decade?

    The Pakistanis are backstabbing, two-faced, traitors? you don’t say? color me shocked