WikiLeaks’ ill-considered move

There is a Cablegate in the making following WikiLeaks’ publication on November 28 of what The New York Times describes as a “cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years.” In the past six months this has become the third major leak from WikiLeaks, but this time the White House appears to be in more serious trouble. Whereas the two previous disclosures pertained to the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, this one focuses on US diplomatic correspondence, with over 250,000 messages being made public.

Judging by these documents, US diplomats have described some foreign political leaders in a markedly unpleasant manner. For example, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is referred to as an “alpha dog”; Afghan President Hamid Karzai as paranoid; German Chancellor Angela Merkel as capable of being “tenacious [when cornered] but… risk averse and rarely creative.” US Ambassador Philip Murphy wrote in a cable that Westerwelle’s foreign policy thoughts were “short on substance” and that his “command of complex foreign and security policy issues still requires deepening…”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is “like Hitler,” and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is alleged to have described Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as a modern, new generation intellectual surrounded by people he can’t keep under control. He is further quoted as saying that he has witnessed Medvedev make decisions and then wait for them to be approved. Also, Medvedev is portrayed as playing “Robin to Putin’s Batman,” and that he is “pale and hesitant.” Another diplomatic message makes it clear that Medvedev has no control over his retinue. Ukraine is mentioned in conjunction with the “voluptuous blonde Ukrainian ‘nurse’” who always accompanies the “strange” Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Der Spiegel writes: “Much in the material was noted and sent because those compiling the reports or their dialogue partners believed, with some certainty, that their transcripts would not be made public for the next 25 years… One cable from the Moscow Embassy on Russian First Lady Svetlana Medvedeva, for example, states that she is ‘generating tensions between the camps and remains the subject of avid gossip.’ It then goes on to report that President Medvedev’s wife has already drawn up a list of officials who should be made to ‘suffer’ in their careers because they have been disloyal to Medvedev. Another reports that the wife of Azerbaijan leader Ilham Aliyev has had so much plastic surgery that it is possible to confuse her for one of her daughters from a distance, but that she can barely move her face.” A number of whistle-blowing documents published by WikiLeaks have to do with Russia, describing it as a country that has turned into a “virtual Mafia state” where the government and clandestine agencies use underworld leaders in criminal operations. US diplomats also wonder about the close friendship between prime ministers Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi [who is referred to as the “mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. – Ed.], especially the lavish gifts and lucrative energy contracts that are described in detail in the diplomatic messages now on the Internet.

The Russian government believes it premature to pass judgment on US diplomats’ assessments of its leadership, reports the radio station Echo of Moscow, quoting the prime minister’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, as saying that it is necessary to see the original text to make sure the translation is correct.

Analysts note that about one half of these documents aren’t classified, that 40.5 percent are marked confidential; six percent (16,652), top secret, and 4,333 are marked NOFORN, which means they are not to be read by people who are not US citizens.

Washington’s response to the WikiLeaks’ publications was that of shock and outrage. The White House said it was an ill-considered move. Its statement read that “these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world. 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. These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies.”

On November 29, New York Representative Peter King, the ranking Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News: “They are engaged in terrorist activity. What they’re doing is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist groups… Either we’re serious about this or we’re not.”

The State Department, contrary to standard practice, sent a letter to WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, signed by its top lawyer and legal advisor Harold Koh, to the effect that publication of the documents would be illegal and that they had to stop it; that if published, these documents would “place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals,” “place at risk ongoing military operations,” that WikiLeaks should return the documents to the US government and destroy any copies it may have in its possession or in computer databases. Koh’s message was a response to a letter received the US Ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman, from Assange and his lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, asking for information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of the release of the documents.

COMMENTARY

What consequences will another leak in confidential data have for the US, Russia and Ukraine?

“Concerning the US at the most superficial level, the revelations are less damaging than they might seem. After all, they show that the country most resolved on military action against Iran was not the United States, but Iran’s Arab neighbours in the Persian Gulf. But at a deeper level the revelations are very damaging, especially to vulnerable allies of the United States. Not only will they be shocked to see such information publicly released. They will be even more shocked to discover that thousands of people in US government bureaucracies had access to it. In the sphere of electronic security, I think this episode will generate the same sort of security overhaul as the events of September 11 and early Cold War scandals about Soviet agents in the US government. The US approach to security is highly technocratic and bureaucratic. I would expect it to become even more technocratic and more bureaucratic. So the impact on how the United States conducts its business will not be entirely favourable.

“As for Russia I have two points of scepticism. First, for how long will WikiLeaks function with impunity? The Russian security services have stated they will not hesitate to employ extreme measures, and many in Washington would not blame them. I would not be surprised if consultations between Washington and Moscow have taken place. Second, the Russian Federation and the United States have fundamentally different security cultures. The numbers of people in the Russian political and security establishments with access to such sensitive information is extremely small. It is inconceivable that information of this magnitude would be shared with tens of thousands of people. That information damaging to business clans can be released I do not doubt for a second. But information about state-to-state relations? Why would a traitor release such information into the wild? What is his incentive? Where is his protection? For how long would he or she stay alive? WikiLeaks is not a foreign government or a country you can defect to. It would surprise me very much if the WikiLeaks information on Russia has anything like the value of what they have already published.

“I have no doubt that if serious, secret documents were disclosed about the aims and methods of Russian policy in Ukraine, they would be damaging to Russian interests.

They would doubtlessly show that the aim was Ukraine’s complete subservience. They would identify Ukrainian collaborators in politics and business and would reveal mechanisms and methods. In general terms, such things are known to serious students of Russian-Ukrainian relations anyway. But to others, they would be a revelation. Yet I would be very surprised if the information coming out of Russia turned out to be much of value about Ukraine. Such information as there is will more likely focus on corruption inside Russia. But let’s see! Perhaps I will be surprised.”