WikiLeaks: Who Will Benefit from the Crime?
Published in La Libre
(Belgium) on 2 December 2010
by Pierre Piccinin (link to original)
(Belgium) on 2 December 2010
by Pierre Piccinin (link to original)
Translated from
by Emily Bell.
Edited by Jessica Boesl.
The “revelations” of the WikiLeaks site, which has just published tens of thousands of American diplomatic letters and correspondence, are, alas, some of the most disappointing — at this stage at least — due to a disturbing common detail.
For example, on the role of the United States, there is nothing about the destabilization of the Iranian government, nor about its intervention in the “green revolution” that followed the June 2009 elections; there is nothing about the computer science virus “stuxnet” that would be paralyzing the Iranian army and its centers of nuclear research; there is nothing about Syria; there is nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that recently began again and are at the center of American politics in the Middle East; and there is absolutely nothing about Israel.
Furthermore, there is no information on the origin of these documents or their authenticity (that the principal parties of interest don’t deny, however).
In fact, globally, nothing was really interesting in what was published until now.
Indeed, this correspondence contains some negative words said by one second-rate diplomat or another regarding one head of state or another, but it’s nothing over which to start a fight. Overall, nothing seems out of the ordinary in this area of informal exchanges, since all the leaders in the world are quite familiar with this sort of talk: Mohammad Gaddafi* likes pretty girls, Hamid Karzai is corrupt, Vladimir Putin likes to work out his biceps, Silvio Berlusconi is old and tired, Angela Merkel is insensible, and as for Nicholas Sarkozy, he would be insensitive and authoritarian. Breaking news! The French president is also described as “the naked king,” but here, no one understands nor dares to interpret it. And Washington spies on the U.N. Incredible!
For the rest, the main “news” is that most leaders of Arab states (Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the king of Jordan, the dictators on the Persian Gulf, etc. — all old allies of the United States) have very fiercely declared that they are opposed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government and wish to have an American intervention. No joke?! This has been the case since 1980 and the war between Iran and Iraq, during which all these states overtly supported and financed Saddam Hussein against the ayatollahs of the Islamic Republic.
In brief, we’re not learning anything.
Isn’t it interesting, however, that the only “pertinent” information basically concerns only the Middle East? And could we wonder if these leakages were organized and used, only partly, by the White House itself?
The fact that these sorts of statements were disclosed makes it possible to reinforce the pressure on Iran a little more and makes its isolation more official within the Arab world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not hesitate to go one step further by rejoicing in what, from now on, Israel and the Arab countries are officially agreeing upon as the Iranian danger and the way to suppress it.
Also, the other “big news,” the issue of Iran’s purchase from North Korea of rockets that are capable of reaching Europe, arises at the right moment for the United States' foreign policy, not only regarding Iran, but also precisely at the time when NATO wants to construct its famous antimissile shield. And this is how to kill two birds with one stone.
Thus, the bulk of these “revelations” brings us back to Iran, which is also designated as a threat to the world, as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was before it was confirmed by illegal war in 2003 that the country was, in reality, without defense.
On second thought, this case noticeably resembles a well-formed propaganda stunt that could aim at justifying aggression toward Iran. In policy, the old tested recipes are often used again. Following Sherlock Holmes’ tracks, let’s find out who will benefit from this crime. …
Most of the columnists and commentators are talking about a “Sept. 11 of diplomacy.” It’s very overdone and too excessive. And they guarantee that American diplomacy will not be the same in the future. Nothing could be less certain.
*Editor’s Note: This is in reference to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
For example, on the role of the United States, there is nothing about the destabilization of the Iranian government, nor about its intervention in the “green revolution” that followed the June 2009 elections; there is nothing about the computer science virus “stuxnet” that would be paralyzing the Iranian army and its centers of nuclear research; there is nothing about Syria; there is nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that recently began again and are at the center of American politics in the Middle East; and there is absolutely nothing about Israel.
Furthermore, there is no information on the origin of these documents or their authenticity (that the principal parties of interest don’t deny, however).
In fact, globally, nothing was really interesting in what was published until now.
Indeed, this correspondence contains some negative words said by one second-rate diplomat or another regarding one head of state or another, but it’s nothing over which to start a fight. Overall, nothing seems out of the ordinary in this area of informal exchanges, since all the leaders in the world are quite familiar with this sort of talk: Mohammad Gaddafi* likes pretty girls, Hamid Karzai is corrupt, Vladimir Putin likes to work out his biceps, Silvio Berlusconi is old and tired, Angela Merkel is insensible, and as for Nicholas Sarkozy, he would be insensitive and authoritarian. Breaking news! The French president is also described as “the naked king,” but here, no one understands nor dares to interpret it. And Washington spies on the U.N. Incredible!
For the rest, the main “news” is that most leaders of Arab states (Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the king of Jordan, the dictators on the Persian Gulf, etc. — all old allies of the United States) have very fiercely declared that they are opposed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government and wish to have an American intervention. No joke?! This has been the case since 1980 and the war between Iran and Iraq, during which all these states overtly supported and financed Saddam Hussein against the ayatollahs of the Islamic Republic.
In brief, we’re not learning anything.
Isn’t it interesting, however, that the only “pertinent” information basically concerns only the Middle East? And could we wonder if these leakages were organized and used, only partly, by the White House itself?
The fact that these sorts of statements were disclosed makes it possible to reinforce the pressure on Iran a little more and makes its isolation more official within the Arab world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not hesitate to go one step further by rejoicing in what, from now on, Israel and the Arab countries are officially agreeing upon as the Iranian danger and the way to suppress it.
Also, the other “big news,” the issue of Iran’s purchase from North Korea of rockets that are capable of reaching Europe, arises at the right moment for the United States' foreign policy, not only regarding Iran, but also precisely at the time when NATO wants to construct its famous antimissile shield. And this is how to kill two birds with one stone.
Thus, the bulk of these “revelations” brings us back to Iran, which is also designated as a threat to the world, as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was before it was confirmed by illegal war in 2003 that the country was, in reality, without defense.
On second thought, this case noticeably resembles a well-formed propaganda stunt that could aim at justifying aggression toward Iran. In policy, the old tested recipes are often used again. Following Sherlock Holmes’ tracks, let’s find out who will benefit from this crime. …
Most of the columnists and commentators are talking about a “Sept. 11 of diplomacy.” It’s very overdone and too excessive. And they guarantee that American diplomacy will not be the same in the future. Nothing could be less certain.
*Editor’s Note: This is in reference to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.