Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables: Live Updates
Source:
The Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog ... ks-us-embassy-cables-live-blog
Published: Nov 28, 2010
Author: staff writer
Post Date: 2010-11-28 15:48:47 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 10980
Comments: 18
WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables: Live Updates Reaction and updates following the release of more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks. Tomorrow, revelations about North Korea and the UK. 8.32pm: US embassy officials in Berlin will have to soothe ruffle feathers of top German officials if they haven't done so already. Der Spiegel highlights the negative American assessments of the German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle. The secret reports describe him as incompetent, vain and critical of America. The US diplomats report that they face a challenge in dealing with a politician who is considered an "enigma," who has little foreign policy experience and "remains skeptical about the US." An embassy cable from Berlin from Sept. 22, 2009 describes Westerwelle as having an "exuberant personality." That is why he finds it difficult to take a backseat when it comes to any matters of dispute with Chancellor Angela Merkel," the cable says. 8.20pm: The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, will be online tomorrow at 4pm to take questions on the paper's decision to cover this story. Meanwhile, Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins rejects claims by the US and other governments that the stories threaten national security. The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. The disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do... Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment. 7.59pm: Le Monde justifies its decision to cover the classified cables by arguing that to inform does not mean to act irresponsibly. Transparency and judgment (Le Monde uses the word discernement) are not incompatible, the paper says, which is what distinguishes it from WikiLeaks. 7.53pm: Here is the New York Times laying out some of the topics it will cover in the coming days. They include a dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel, gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea and allegations against China of global hacking. 7.48pm: The Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, John Kerry, rejects comparisons with the leak of the Pentagon papers during the Vietnam war. This is not an academic exercise about freedom of information and it is not akin to the release of the Pentagon Papers, which involved an analysis aimed at saving American lives and exposing government deception. Instead, these sensitive cables contain candid assessments and analysis of ongoing matters and they should remain confidential to protect the ability of the government to conduct lawful business with the private candor that's vital to effective diplomacy. 7.45pm: The US ambassador to the UK, Louis Susman, has issued this tough statement. Releasing documents of this kind place at risk the lives of innocent individuals – from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers and diplomats. It is reprehensible for any individual or organization to attempt to gain notoriety at the expense of people who had every expectation of privacy in sharing information. 7.43pm: Here is a summary of all of today's stories from the Guardian's first day of coverage of this major story: • The US faces a worldwide diplomatic crisis. More than 250,000 classified cables from American embassies are leaked, many sent as recently as February. • Saudi Arabia puts pressure on the US to attack Iran. Other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran. • Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK. • The round-the-clock offensive by US government officials, politicians, diplomats and military officers to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and roll back its advance across the Middle East. • Israel regarded 2010 as a "critical year" for tackling Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons and has warned the United States that time is running out to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. • The secret EU plot to boycott the inauguration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president after the disputed Iranian election in 2009. • IAEA officials denied blueprints and told by Iran that evidence of bomb-grade uranium enrichment was forged. • Saudi Arabia complains directly to the Iranian foreign minister of Iranian "meddling" in the Middle East. • US accuses Iran of abusing the strict neutrality of the Iranian Red Crescent (IRC) society to smuggle intelligence agents and weapons into other countries, including Lebanon. • Britain's ambassador to Iran gave the US a private masterclass on how to negotiate with Iran. • How a 75-year-old American of Iranian descent rode a horse over a freezing mountain range into Turkey after officials confiscated his passport. • How the 250,000 US embassy cables were leaked. • Siprnet: where America stores its secret cables. • Editor's note: publishing the cables. • Browse the data base. 7.02pm: The White House has accused WikiLeaks' of "reckless and dangerous action" and says the move endanger lives and risk hurting relations with friendly countries. 6.59pm: Clinton argues that the disclosures put at risk US diplomats, intelligence professionals and others. This is how the New York Times and the Guardian address the issue. The Guardian says: "There are some cables the Guardian will not be releasing or reporting owing to the nature of sourcing or subject matter. Our domestic libel laws impose a special burden on British publishers." The New York Times says it has taken similar precautionary measures and gives this justification for publication of the story. But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name. 6.47pm: Mark Tran taking over from Peter Walker. I'll be following reaction until the early hours so stay with us. Responses are coming in thick and fast. Here is a statement from Hillary Clinton, who ordered a secret intelligence campaign targeting the leadership of the UN, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK. We anticipate the release of what are claimed to be several hundred thousand classified State department cables on Sunday night that detail private diplomatic discussions with foreign governments. By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions. Nevertheless, 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. President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information. 6.32pm: It's also worth mentioning, as widely reported elsewhere, that Wikileaks has alleged that its website, which many internet users had not been able to access over the day, had been deliberately targeted. "We are currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack," it said in a tweet. 6.27pm: Here's the cover of Der Spiegel's initial take of the story. Some of the captions attached to luminaries on the cover, taken from US embassy cables, include "Avoids risk, rarely creative" (for Angela Merkel) and, more intrguingly still, "Luxuriant blonde nurse" (Libya's Muammar Gaddafi). The English version of their story is here.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
6.24pm: In contrast to the Foreign Office's measured tone, Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini, has rather colourfully described the embassy cables as "the September 11th of world diplomacy". Speaking on a visit to Qatar, he was quoted as saying that the information would "blow up the relationship of trust between states". 6.22pm: The Foreign Office has already condemned the release of the information. An FCO spokesman said: We condemn any unauthorised release of this classified information, just as we condemn leaks of classified material in the UK. They can damage national security, are not in the national interest and, as the US have said, may put lives at risk. We have a very strong relationship with the US government. That will continue. 6.17pm: This is, of course, the latest in a series of revelations published in collaboration with Wikileaks, following on from the Iraq and then Afghanistan war logs. Reaction has already begun ahead of the release of the embassy cables. In an unusual move, the US government has released a letter from the state department to the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, warning that making the files public would poison international relations and jeopardise lives. State department legal adviser Harold Koh said publication will "place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as affecting "on-going military operations" and "on-going cooperation between countries". He wrote: They were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. David Cameron is among a series of world leaders already briefed about the likely revelations by state department officials. UK newspaper editors were asked on Friday to inform the government if they planned to publish the files, although the government has no plans to try and formally suppress them. 6.15pm: It is, without a doubt, the biggest leak of secret diplomatic missives in the history of international relations – a total of 251,287 cables from more than 250 US embassies and consulates around the world, many of them frank, a number of them shocking and all of them previously secret. Over the coming days the Guardian will publish extracts from the cables, obtained by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, along with its international partners, the New York Times, Le Monde, El País and Der Spiegel. Even today there's a lot to read through so here's a brief precis of the initial revelations: • The US is engaged in a spying campaign against the leadership of the United Nations. A directive issued under Hillary Clinton's name last year ordered American diplomats to seek details about both UN communication systems and personal details for top officials. • Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has "frequently" urged the US to launch an attack against Iran in order to scupper Tehran's nuclear ambition. • The US has relentlessly pressured other countries, including close allies such as Italy and France, to distance themselves from Iran and assist American efforts to isolate Tehran • There's plenty more to come, including "claims of inappropriate behaviour" by a British royal and allegations of links between Russia's government and organised crime.
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
8.53pm: The Israeli paper, Haaretz focuses on the June 2009 memo. This quotes Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, telling visiting American officials that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was viable until the end of 2010, but after that "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage." Little in the way of reaction from Iran, where it has gone midnight, so far. Press TV mentions in its breaking news strap, but that's it. The revelations about Iran do show how unpopular Tehran is in the Arab world. It will be interesting to see whether the disclosures will prompt Iran to soften its image - perhaps launch a charm offensive - or reinforce its hard line.
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
9.03pm: Reuters has a round-up of some reaction. Views are mixed ranging from alarm to "it's no big deal". Cox, one suspects, has it about right. Roger Cressey, a partner at Goodharbor Consulting: "This is pretty devastating. The essence of our foreign policy is our ability to talk straight and honest with our foreign counterparts and to keep those conversations out of the public domain. This massive leak puts that most basic of diplomatic requirements at risk in the future. Think of relations with Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan, governments who we need to work with us in defeating al Qaida. Their performance has been uneven in the past, for a variety of reasons, but this kind of leak will seriously hinder our ability to persuade these governments to support our counterterrorism priorities in the future." Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to the US: "This won't restrain dips' (diplomats) candour. But people will be looking at the security of electronic communication and archives. Paper would have been impossible to steal in these quantities." Professor Michael Cox, associate fellow, Chatham House thinktank. "It's a great treasure trove for historians and students of international relations. It is a sign that in the information age, it is very difficult to keep anything secret. But as to whether it's going to cause the kind of seismic collapse of international relations that governments have been talking about, I somehow doubt. Diplomats have always said rude things about each other in private, and everyone has always known that. Governments have a tendency to try to keep as much information as possible secret or classified, whether it really needs to be or not. The really secret information, I would suggest, is still pretty safe and probably won't end up on WikiLeaks.
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
9.35pm: The New York Times has a revealing exchange of letters between various senior government officials and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. The administration argues that the leaked cables will endanger lives and national security. Assange responds by saying that the "supposed risks are fanciful" and argues that the US is more concerned to "suppress evidence of human rights abuses and criminal behaviour
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
No shit sherlock....bears really do **** in the woods.
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
I've posted these Wikileaks for those who may be interested, as for me and what I think about them.... "I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
the one thing that strikes me is the view of other ME states toward Iran, but what is stopping Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other countries in the region from attacking Iran on their own? Instead they just wait for us or Israel to act to protect them.
Honestly. I've read the contrary/alternative theories about these leaks and they might be correct. What do these leaks have to reveal about Israel and its intentions?
I could be wrong, but I believe our attention is about to be diverted towards another target, N Korea, soldiers, resourses, and weapons wasted on another viet nam/korean war, when our attention should stay focused on the ME.... There is not one nation in the ME that are our friends except Israel, dispite what many think about them owning everything under the sun, it's what most have been weaned on all their lives, and believe. If Israel was not such a threat to the surrounding nations around them, if they did not stand strong in their convictions to protect their country, they would fall, and so would our country. We are not at war with Israel, but we are fighting battles with almost every other nation around them. JMHO!
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
It seems NK has already quieted down, the Chinese aren't going to allow them to do anything too stupid. But again, given how much we've sold to the Saudis, why can't they attack? They expect us to do their dirty work so they can thank us in private while telling their people that our attack on Iran is yet another example of the work of the Great Satan.
Fear of assasination from within by their own radicals, and logistics.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Guess again on North Korea...and its amusing you think the Chinese 1) Have that kind of sway with the mad Dictator Kim Il Jong, or that they even give a shit if North Korea attacks South Korea. They suffer no ill affects from it, WE DO.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Uh huh...... Its nothing but 'for show'.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
3.09pm: The state department has just postponed a press conference with secretary of state Hillary Clinton. It was due to begin nowish, but it has been delayed until 6pm, our time. 2.47pm: The respected Middle East analyst Juan Cole says one of the cables is particularly revealing about fears in Israel of Jewish emigration if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. The cable shed light on the thinking of high Israeli officials about why Israel cannot, as many US analysts have suggested, just live with an Iranian bomb if one is achieved. They believe that such a development would create a psychological nervousness in the Israeli public that would likely doom it as a Jewish state. What is being implicitly referred to is the expectation that if the Middle East turns even more dangerous for Israelis, such that they lose their status as the sole nuclear regional superpower, then Israeli Jews may well simply emigrate in large numbers. Over time, this development would ensure that Palestinian- Israelis, now over 20% of the population, become a plurality and even a majority. 2.27pm: The White House has just ordered all US agencies to review safeguards on classified information, according to AP. A security review is already underway at the US state department, it's spokesman told the Guardian. The cables portray the US in a positive light on Iran, according to the BBC's world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds. What the documents show in fact is not that the US secretly wants to go to war with Iran but that it has resisted pressure to do so from Israel and Arab leaders acting out of a coincidental common interest. This is very much in line with President Barack Obama's public diplomacy, which is to engage with Iran and, if necessary, to impose sanctions to try to get it to stop its nuclear activities. This it has done and the documents agree. The damage in this case is that the US has not protected the Gulf Arab leaders from having their opinion that Iran should be attacked made public. Yet for the rest of the world this is actually very important information. It might even give Iran pause for reflection. But the spying disclosure are much more problematic for the Americans, he argues: On the evidence so far there is really only one secret operation that appears to have been blown. That is an effort by US diplomats at the UN to get personal details (passwords and even frequent flyer numbers) about senior UN staff and permanent representatives on the Security Council. That indeed might come as something of a shock to the British ambassador there. He might have felt that his country's claimed "special relationship" with the US protected him. Not so, it appears.
"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee
OK Dick Morris.
No problem Congressman Grayson.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: All (#2)
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: All (#4)
"The New York Times has a revealing exchange of letters
#6. To: All (#1)
"claims of inappropriate behaviour" by a British royal and allegations of links between Russia's government and organised crime".
#7. To: All (#0)
#8. To: Murron (#7)
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#9. To: go65 (#8)
(Edited)
#10. To: go65 (#8)
#11. To: Murron (#10)
I could be wrong, but I believe our attention is about to be diverted towards another target, N Korea, soldiers, resourses, and weapons wasted on another viet nam/korean war, when our attention should stay focused on the ME....
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#12. To: go65 (#8)
the one thing that strikes me is the view of other ME states toward Iran, but what is stopping Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other countries in the region from attacking Iran on their own?
#13. To: go65 (#11)
It seems NK has already quieted down, the Chinese aren't going to allow them to do anything too stupid.
#14. To: Badeye (#13)
Guess again on North Korea...and its amusing you think the Chinese 1) Have that kind of sway with the mad Dictator Kim Il Jong, or that they even give a shit if North Korea attacks South Korea.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-korea-20101129,0,6088023.story
Reporting from Beijing — China called Sunday for an emergency international meeting to ease tensions on the Korean peninsula, but the United States and South Korea, engaged in large-scale war games nearby, appeared initially cool to the idea.
The proposal followed a rare burst of shuttle diplomacy by the Chinese, who have been stung by accusations that they have failed to rein in their ally North Korea
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#15. To: go65 (#14)
#16. To: All (#0)
#17. To: Badeye (#15)
Its nothing but 'for show'.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#18. To: go65 (#17)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]