How America sees the World (Wikileaks)

[freestyler]

Wikileaks is going to release in conjunction with El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel, Guardian & NYT many "sensitive" US embassy cables tonight.

Reportedly this documents will "embarrass the US". A little teaser from tomorrow's Der Spiegel.

“Obama prefers to look East than West.”
“Obama has no emotion towards Europe.”
“The US sees the world as a confrontation between 2 superpowers. The EU plays a secondary role.”
“Europe is not so important for the US.”

From the cover, we read that Ahmadinejad “is Hitler”, Sarkozy is “an emperor without clothes”, Karzai is “driven by paranoia”.

From the inside articles, scanned by Symor Jenkins, we learn that the US have a snitch inside the German government, a member of the liberal FDP party. German chancellor Angela Merkel is described as “rarely creative and risk-averse”. Revelations about the German government go into so much details that Spiegel writes that

“The US is better informed about the secrets of German politics than German politicians themselves.”

This shouldn't have any major implications other than the possible expulsion of US diplomats from foreign postings, but it's interesting nonetheless.

More here.

Update:
The Guardian coverage: US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis | World news | guardian.co.uk

Update 2: Now all over the web.

[supertom]

"Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family." Now that one i want to know about

[Curtis2011]

The thing people need to realize is that every country has classified documents with stuff like this in it.

There just seem to be a lot more people in the world who hate America than other countries, so everybody targets the US with their emotional attacks.

Personally I think it is quite selfish of Julian Assange and his team at wikileaks to release classified documents like this. He is just doing it to be a "revolutionary" while not considering the actual damage he is doing to innocent Americans or people of other countries that were not involved with any politicians' "evil doings".


His actions come across sort of like the Joker in Batman: He is causing trouble just because "he wants to see the world burn".

[st33med]

I don't see any of this news as surprising. I knew before this was even leaked that Saudi Arabia saw Iran as a potential threat and even purchased $90 billion in military supplies and equipment from the US.

As for not caring much for the European side, there's not much economic activity right now in it. Matter of fact, socialist economies are slumping in Europe with France, Germany, and even the model of socialistic economies, Sweden switching to austere measures, which is why Angela Merkel is said to be not a risk taker. We may see that in the US soon depending on when conservatives will take over Congress.

And since when was the 'espionage' network new? The CIA does that on big leaders of the world. I'm thankful that the countries suppressed names so that nothing would come of the information leak except supposed 'embarrassment'.

Russia's Vladimir Putin is right to be called the 'alpha-dog'. He's a total badass and the whole country loves him! Search his name on Wikipedia and tell me you aren't impressed by his success.

Not sure about the Nazi comparisons in Germany though.

[Brutha]

Matter of fact, socialist economies are slumping in Europe with France, Germany, and even the model of socialistic economies, Sweden switching to austere measures, which is why Angela Merkel is said to be not a risk taker.

No, it's more about her personality than about her role as being the German chancellor.

And since when was the 'espionage' network new? The CIA does that on big leaders of the world.

The point was that officials who aren't in the CIA but who are diplomats do the same thing.

Personally I think it is quite selfish of Julian Assange and his team at wikileaks to release classified documents like this. He is just doing it to be a "revolutionary" while not considering the actual damage he is doing to innocent Americans or people of other countries that were not involved with any politicians' "evil doings".

When you buy a product at walmart then one can say that you ignore the actual damage you are doing to people who work in factories as slaves.

When Obama order the CIA to throw bombs that kill civilians on Yemen he's aware of the fact that innocent people die.
When Julian Assange releases document he's also aware that a few innocent people might get harmed.
Saying that either one acts because they want to be perceived as 'revolutionary' is a bit silly, the just make a calculated judgement and are okay with the collateral damage of their actions.

This release isn't only about blaming the US either.

If knowledge but the secrets of German politicians was gathered by the CIA that knowledge helps Germans to evaluate their politicians better.

The cables contain thousands small issues.

There just seem to be a lot more people in the world who hate America than other countries, so everybody targets the US with their emotional attacks.

The American government kills more citizens of other countries than any other country on the world. Maybe even as much as all other combined if you only count governments and don't count non states. I think it's quite natural that some people think that America should be opposed.

I don't see any of this news as surprising. I knew before this was even leaked that Saudi Arabia saw Iran as a potential threat and even purchased $90 billion in military supplies and equipment from the US.

For me it was interesting to know that Saudi leadership not only wants a war but also thinks that a war with Iran is inevitable.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The American government kills more citizens of other countries than any other country on the world. Maybe even as much as all other combined if you only count governments and don't count non states. I think it's quite natural that some people think that America should be opposed.

And where did you get this statistic? Personally I think this sounds like BS. There are numerous dictatorships around the world where the governments are killing their own people. I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein killed more of his own civilians while he was dictator of Iraq than the number of civilians killed during the US invasion of Iraq. How's that for America being evil?

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

And where did you get this statistic? Personally I think this sounds like BS. There are numerous dictatorships around the world where the governments are killing their own people. I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein killed more of his own civilians while he was dictator of Iraq than the number of civilians killed during the US invasion of Iraq. How's that for America being evil?

Yes, they kill their own people, which is the current definition of sovereignty. He was stating killing other countries' civilians. I don't think that means the US is evil, but, it comes with the US being considered the 'World Police' between countries.

[Brutha]

He was stating killing other countries' civilians.

Yes, killing other countries civilians does more to anger them than killing your owns.
Not that the US hasn't recently invented a process of killing it's own citizens without a court order. Not that the Obama administration wouldn't defend it's right to kill US citizens far away from an active battlefield without asking a court.
Till know you are however right that the US government hasn't killed that many US citizens.

As a sidenote that's one of the reasons we need real resistance against the US government. Twenty years ago the US government didn't claim it had the right to kill it's own citizens far away from an active battlefield.
The US political system is deteriorating and it has stopped to be about the rule of law as high level politicians proclaim that courts aren't allowed to review their actions and whether those actions are in accordance with the law.

I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein killed more of his own civilians while he was dictator of Iraq than the number of civilians killed during the US invasion of Iraq.

Those claims often come from comparing apples to oranges. They take the amount of killings during the US invasion that are documented by newspapers and compare them with estimates of killings by Saddam which were made by taking into account that not every death produces a newspaper article.

That's especially in a country where the US supported government targets journalists and thereby prevents them from leaving their hotels and during detailed research on death counts.

There's a study published in Lancet that suggests that the real death count is around ten times the count that gets published in newspapers.

Replacing one government that tortures it's own people and runs death squads by another with tortures it's own people and runs death squads isn't much progress.
In this case the people who are doing the torturing are often even the same that did it under Saddam.

[Andrew Gubb]

Personally I think it is quite selfish of Julian Assange and his team at wikileaks to release classified documents like this. He is just doing it to be a "revolutionary" while not considering the actual damage he is doing to innocent Americans or people of other countries that were not involved with any politicians' "evil doings".

I'm not too well informed about all this, but I kind of think that the more transparent things are the better. I think Wikileaks must be doing good with all the info it gets out to the world.

[NDN Scholar]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I'm not too well informed about all this, but I kind of think that the more transparent things are the better. I think Wikileaks must be doing good with all the info it gets out to the world.

Look at it this way, then: we're playing a game of hockey, right? My team has come up with a great plan to score a goal against your team. Then suddenly, one of my players tells a spectator about the plan. That spectator then broadcasts the plan to everyone, including your team. We don't score the goal, because you knew what our plan was.

In the real world, this game of hockey is representative of war. People, soldiers and civilians alike, are dying because of the classified documents being released on this website.

[sonde]

Originally Posted by NDN Scholar

Look at it this way, then: we're playing a game of hockey, right? My team has come up with a great plan to score a goal against your team. Then suddenly, one of my players tells a spectator about the plan. That spectator then broadcasts the plan to everyone, including your team. We don't score the goal, because you knew what our plan was.

In the real world, this game of hockey is representative of war. People, soldiers and civilians alike, are dying because of the classified documents being released on this website.

It would be much more difficult to have war (games) if information (such as plans, strategies, etc) were freely available.

[metamorph]

I admit I have only briefly read about the content of the new WikiLeaks..., but I got intrigued by the idea of Iran's president Ahmadinejad that the US wanted the documents to be published/leaked. Although it does not look like at first sight at all, but I am trying to imagine if this is not just a "long con"

...maybe I have just been watching too much "Lost" ...

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by metamorph

I admit I have only briefly read about the content of the new WikiLeaks..., but I got intrigued by the idea of Iran's president Ahmadinejad that the US wanted the documents to be published/leaked. Although it does not look like at first sight at all, but I am trying to imagine if this is not just a "long con"

...maybe I have just been watching too much "Lost" ...

Iran's president probably said that because some of the cables revealed by Wikileaks indicated that Saudi Arabia is expecting to go to war with Iran in the near future.

Getting this out in the open probably weakened Iran's overall diplomatic position in the world, now that other countries that might not like Iran know that even Iran's neighbors are preparing for war with them.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Getting this out in the open probably weakened Iran's overall diplomatic position in the world, now that other countries that might not like Iran know that even Iran's neighbors are preparing for war with them.

Sounds plausible. So it is a con after all. I knew it

[Brutha]

but I got intrigued by the idea of Iran's president Ahmadinejad that the US wanted the documents to be published/leaked

The guy runs that talking point since Wikileaks revealed Iran's involvement into Iraq.

Getting this out in the open probably weakened Iran's overall diplomatic position in the world, now that other countries that might not like Iran know that even Iran's neighbors are preparing for war with them.

"Even Iran's neighbors"? Of course those countries who suffer under Iran's power approve of the war.
Every decently informed government also already knew that Saudi Arabia was upping it's military.

As far of actually thinking that the US has a motive to create such a leak, no they don't.
The US doesn't want the that Arab governments get destabilized because the population of those countries knows that the government cooperates with the US.

You also shouldn't underrate the amount of trust that gets lost when French politicians, German politicians, Russian politicians etc read what the US wrote about them.
Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; ?To destroy this invisible government? zunguzungu is worth reading to understand what the game is Wikileaks plays is about.

[Brutha]

Another node for those who don't get the full extend of what Wikileaks is doing and think Wikileaks is inconsequential:
Wikileaks is just getting started.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You also shouldn't underrate the amount of trust that gets lost when French politicians, German politicians, Russian politicians etc read what the US wrote about them.

Sure, they may feel ashamed that it now open to the public, but I just do not believe that the French/German politians did not already know what is said behind their backs. They know politics it is all a charade, and I am sure they themselves have similar gossipy views on other world leaders. I just cannot imagine that the US thought data from an intranet that is accessible to 2.5 million people will not go public. Why use an intranet with 2.5 million people in the first place, and not just use twitter or facebook.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Another node for those who don't get the full extend of what Wikileaks is doing and think Wikileaks is inconsequential:
Wikileaks is just getting started.

I bloody hope so, I was privately hoping for some stuff on UFO's being mentioned

[ChrisGinsburg]

The Wikileaks situation is a double edged sword. On one hand, exposing any countries secret intelligence to the world is more than just offensive. It is downright treason to anyone involved as US citizens. And if it's not, it should be.

On the other hand, it helps the public of the US and the world become more conscious of the actions of their "leaders" and help to bring about much needed change. Essentially, the way the world has been operating for quite some time now can not work in the long term. Something had to give and this may be the spark that ignites it.

I don't know if it's true but I heard the majority of the recent leaks came from a soldier who simply put a flash drive in a computer and took all the info without any scrutiny. The real change will be when the majority of the public wakes up out of their trance and realizes the government is beyond dysfunctional and demands change.

[Brutha]

Sure, they may feel ashamed that it now open to the public, but I just do not believe that the French/German politians did not already know what is said behind their backs.

Your problem is that you think on the aggregate level.
On a collective level they know that the other side thinks some bad things about them. On an individual level they however don't.

Imaging a school. The teacher will know that some of his pupils think badly about him, because that's what pupils do.
If he however gets to read how the pupils write on facebook that he's stupid and ignorant he will change his opinion of the specific pupils who wrote it.

I just cannot imagine that the US thought data from an intranet that is accessible to 2.5 million people will not go public.

It wasn't directly accessible to 2.5 million people. Just because you are cleared to read a document that's secret doesn't mean that someone will give you access to the document.
It just means that people are allowed to show you the document.

It's not like the single pieces of cablegate in themselves contain huge scandals. It's 1000's of little issues.
Together they however provide a picture that US diplomats don't want the world to see.

I bloody hope so, I was privately hoping for some stuff on UFO's being mentioned

Should Wikileaks leak the US military documents about UFO's I suspect that your deer conspiracy community will call it a fake leak just like they call cablegate and the last two megaleaks fake.

Most of the things that go wrong in this world can't be easily boiled down into a single paragraph to cry "Scandal!".

It is downright treason to anyone involved as US citizens.

They created an oath that's about serving the constitution.
In the US it's not treason to act against the interest of your own government if you are acting in the interest of the constitution. The US founding father purposely didn't let soldiers and officials take an oath that's about doing what the president orders.

Given how much the present US government opposes the US constitution with acts like ordering it's own citizens to be killed far away from a battlefield, actions that weaken said government aren't treason to the US constitution.
If anything the oath obliges soldiers to do something against this government.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's not like the single pieces of cablegate in themselves contain huge scandals. It's 1000's of little issues.
Together they however provide a picture that US diplomats don't want the world to see.

While I think it is OK and comendable to publish documents about shooting civilians in Irak, I am not sure the recent leak is fair on the US. As we agree, virtually every country will have such or similar views towards politicians from other countries. For example, the former German chancellor said "Bush has no clue...". If they leak such info from the US, then they should also leak other "gossip" from let's say Germany, France, UK and compare.
What is the actual bottom line of the new leak? That the US does not love everyone from their heart? The bottom line for international (not US alone) diplomacy and politics is that it is all a big charade, wearing masks and thinking selfishly.

[Criseyde]

I need a "Wikileaks for Dummies."

I've been reading about the leak on the NYT and CNN all week but I still don't feel in any way informed. All I see are accusations and finger pointing on both sides.

Granted I haven't dug into this very far myself, due to the astonishing amount of homework I find myself faced with, but still. I have spent plenty of time reading what the journalists have to say and I'm not really impressed.

What are the benefits of knowing the information in these cables? I have a hard time screaming "international crisis!!" just because some diplomat called Sarkozy a tiny tyrant with a Napoleon complex and a pegleg swagger. There has to be more to it than that.

What are the detriments? ie. -- how many people could die? And who will they be?

I've learned one important thing from this thread: Saudi Arabia wants to go to war with Iran. I see how that is important. Is there more information of that nature?

[Brutha]

I am not sure the recent leak is fair on the US.

Fair? This is serious business. It's not about being fair. It about using the power of the freedom of the press.
The first amendment doesn't include a footnote saying: "Speech that isn't fair doesn't count."

But if you think that the affair isn't fair for the US, maybe you understand why it was in the US interest to release those documents.

What is the actual bottom line of the new leak?

Unfortunately we live in a complicated world and you can't reduce the leak to a single line or a single article.

If you want to understand how US geopolitics works instead of just going with the next mentally convenient conspiracy theory or mainstream media perspective you will learn a lot by reading through some cables.

The fact that they published the cables allows people who are interested in the real reality of US politics to understand how the US state department works. The raw cables allow the interested citizen to inform himself about the power structure in a way that isn't only about scandals.
Take the following paragraph:
We were astonished to learn how quickly rumors about alleged U.S. economic espionage ) at first associated with the new U.S. air passenger registration system (ESTA), then with TFTP ) gained currency among German parliamentarians in the run-up to the February 11 vote in Strasbourg. [...] Furthermore, the German public and political class largely tends to view terrorism abstractly given that it has been decades since any successful terrorist attack has occurred on German soil.
Does this show that a scandal exist? No, it doesn't. It however tells you something about how real politics works.
It provides us Germans with a good understanding about which talking points we should run when we try to get our politicians to share less data with the US.

The leak empowers the average citizen and reduces the centralized power of governments.
That the core of what Wikileaks is about.

I've learned one important thing from this thread: Saudi Arabia wants to go to war with Iran. I see how that is important. Is there more information of that nature?

WikiLeaks cables: Russian government 'using mafia for its dirty work' | World news | guardian.co.uk is a article about ties between the Russian government and the Russian mafia.
The Governor of the Bank of England is involved in a scandal: WikiLeaks: Mervyn King should quit over 'political bias', says David Blanchflower | Media | guardian.co.uk
The UK government might have withhold evidence from an UK commision related to US torture: WikiLeaks: British government promised to 'protect US interests' at Chilcot inquiry - Telegraph

Another handy list with top ten middle East related stories from cablegate: Top Ten Middle East Wikileaks Revelations so Far | Informed Comment

I have a hard time screaming "international crisis!!"

Given that the US is unable to keep secrets other nations might be less willing to share information with the US. That's why people scream "international crisis".

There also the risk that some people who lives in oppressive regime outside the West who talked to US officials will face reprisals when the host country know about the fact that they talked.
At the moment Wikileaks has published only 553 out of ~250 000. We don't know yet whether Wikileaks retracts enough names/material to prevent this from happening.
The story is still unfolding.

For example, the former German chancellor said "Bush has no clue...". If they leak such info from the US, then they should also leak other "gossip" from let's say Germany, France, UK and compare.

Wikileaks can only leak information that someone gives them.

Yes, they have a backlog of unpublished documents and it's a valid criticism that they don't publish more of those documents. How however have to keep in mind that they have to read the documents to authenticate them and think about possible harm that would require the deletion of names.
Over the next year they will hopefully published the hundreds of thousands of documents that they still have in their backlog.

The next target is announced to be a big US bank. Rumors suggest that it's about Bank of America.

[t4488]

Originally Posted by NDN Scholar

Look at it this way, then: we're playing a game of hockey, right? My team has come up with a great plan to score a goal against your team. Then suddenly, one of my players tells a spectator about the plan. That spectator then broadcasts the plan to everyone, including your team. We don't score the goal, because you knew what our plan was.

In the real world, this game of hockey is representative of war. People, soldiers and civilians alike, are dying because of the classified documents being released on this website.

Sort of like the Leaf game last night when they showed the Lightning play diagrammed on tv when the coach held it up. Except Tampa scored dammit.

[Cantando]

Some people seem to revel in turning over every stone in the hope of finding some juicy morsel of scandal.

If people elect representatives to form a government, it is a given they should be entrusted to act in the people's best interests and take care of national security.

I can't see much point in thousands of emails (if that is the case) being released to the general public as they can be interpreted in as many different ways.

Personally, it doesn't surprise me that Saudi might have wanted to go to war with Iran. But, why is it so important or necessary that such a piece of information should come out?

The desire to have all information made public reeks of obsession and ♥♥♥♥♥ stirring, imo. Each sovereign state is entitled to have its own national security policy, and elected leaders should be given some trust to get on with it.

In the same way, if you are a parent, there are things you would discuss with your partner but not with your children; there are things you would discuss with your children but not with your neighbour; there are things you would discuss with your child's teacher but not with your child; there are things you would discuss with your mother but not with your partner.

In this information-sharing obsessed age, it seems to be a God given right to media nosey parkers that everyone must know everything about everyone else.

The next thing, we’ll be having Google cameras in our bedrooms, in the interest of free, open information for all!

Give us a break.

[Brutha]

If people elect representatives to form a government, it is a given they should be entrusted to act in the people's best interests and take care of national security.

Given the power of the non elected bureaucratic and the corruption through campaign finance money the US becomes every day less democratic.

When a president who campaigned on furthering the rule of law starts targeting his own citizens with assassination far away from active battlefield then I find it hard to argue that he has the

Lastly the US isn't supposed to be a pure democracy. The founders wrote a document that outlined the system that they wanted to created.
Using the free press for political change is part of the way the system is supposed to function. US elected officials violate on the other hand many articles of the constiution.

Even if the president could claim that he has a democratic mandate for killing US citizens far away from an active battlefield he would still violate the principles of the US constitution. Wikileaks on the other hand doesn't but plays according to the rules that got set up by the founders.

Each sovereign state is entitled to have its own national security policy, and elected leaders should be given some trust to get on with it.

Why should elected leaders who lie to the people that elected them given trust? Why should the US citizens not know how much their leaders lie to them when those leaders wage war?
Why does the world work better when citizens believe the lies of their government instead of holding the government accountable?

Each sovereign state is entitled to have its own national security policy,

When it commits war crimes the way the US is doing I don't think that it's entitled to form it's own national security policy without outside pressure.

The next thing, we’ll be having Google cameras in our bedrooms, in the interest of free, open information for all!

No, that certainly not the hacker philosophy that drives Wikileaks.
Exposing government information is something different than exposing private information. Different people advocate either side.
As a political force the hacker community via outlets such as Wikileaks is rather the only chance to prevent total government surveillance.

[NDN Scholar]

Originally Posted by Cantando

On this information-sharing obsessed age, it seems to be a God given right to media nosey parkers that everyone must know everything about everyone else.

The next thing, we’ll be having Google cameras in our bedrooms, in the interest of free, open information for all!

Give us a break.

I agree with your overall stance, but not with this particular argument.

The reason WikiLeaks believes we should be able to view government records is because we pay money, through taxes, for the government to act on our behalf.

Recording the actions and information of private individuals is an entirely different, unrelated matter.

[Brutha]

Recording the actions and information of private individuals is an entirely different, unrelated matter.

It depends a bit on what you consider a private individual to be. Corporations are included in Wikileaks mission. Wikileaks itself announced that the next target is a big US bank.
Wikileaks also battled big corporations in the past.

To read from Wikileaks mission statement: Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance.
If someone posts such material on Wikileaks, they promise that they will release it.
A webcam of your bedroom won't qualify under those standards.

The interesting thing is that the decisions about what should be public gets transfered to individuals within organisations who witness wrong doing. Average people who work in government or business get empowered to leak wrong doing.
The playing field gets leveled. Power gets more evenly distributed.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The leak empowers the average citizen and reduces the centralized power of governments.
That the core of what Wikileaks is about.
WikiLeaks cables: Russian government 'using mafia for its dirty work' | World news | guardian.co.uk is a article about ties between the Russian government and the Russian mafia.
The Governor of the Bank of England is involved in a scandal: WikiLeaks: Mervyn King should quit over 'political bias', says David Blanchflower | Media | guardian.co.uk
The UK government might have withhold evidence from an UK commision related to US torture: WikiLeaks: British government promised to 'protect US interests' at Chilcot inquiry - Telegraph

Another handy list with top ten middle East related stories from cablegate: Top Ten Middle East Wikileaks Revelations so Far | Informed Comment
Given that the US is unable to keep secrets other nations might be less willing to share information with the US. That's why people scream "international crisis".

There also the risk that some people who lives in oppressive regime outside the West who talked to US officials will face reprisals when the host country know about the fact that they talked.
At the moment Wikileaks has published only 553 out of ~250 000. We don't know yet whether Wikileaks retracts enough names/material to prevent this from happening.
The story is still unfolding.

Thank you for the information!

[Cantando]

I'm not saying I'm necessarily against what Wikileaks are doing, but they seem to be a self appointed organization who decide themselves what information they will release or withold. Some of that released information could stir up old grievances between governments. What gives Wikileaks the right to have such responsibility?

Furthermore, Wikileaks are pretty sensitive themselves about any investigations being done into their own business. Their founder, Assange, is still in hiding, and is currently being sought by the Swedish police on a charge of rape.

As far as the motives of hackers goes, I would have thought that your average hacker gets his kicks from the success of breaking into someone's computer, not from some altruistic desire to reveal the 'truth' (whatever that may be) into the public domain.

I wouldn't assume that Wikileaks are necessarily the 'good guys' here.