Julian Assange - Christmas 2012 - Ecuador embassy in London

Ecuador grants asylum to Assange - FULL SPEECH by FM Ricardo Patino

Commentary: Even though I had little doubt that Ecuador would grant asylum to Assange, it was really heart-warming for me to listen to the absolutely beautiful statement of Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño, in particular after learning of the mind-boggling arrogance of the Brits who dared to cross a line very few, if any, governments ever dared cross: threaten to violate the sovereignty of an embassy (the only other example I can think of is the USAF bombing the PRC embassy in Belgrade - which everybody forgot, of course).

Does anybody remember that even the Iranian revolutionary government did not dare to openly say that it had seized the US embassy in Tehran, but that it hid behind a student movement instead? Yes, I know, this was a *very* thin fig-leaf for a regime which right in the wake of the Islamic revolution was rather over the top in most of its actions at the time. But even that regime did not have the arrogance to openly declare that it had violated one of the most basic rules of civilized behavior: one does not directly violate the diplomatic immunity of an official embassy.

Do you remember the Hungarian Roman Catholic Cardinal József Mindszenty sought refuge in the US Embassy in Budapest where he lived for FIFTEEN YEARS and yet neither the Hungarian Communists nor the Soviets dared to seize him?

Wikipedia has an interesting article entitled List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission with a list of individuals who took refuge in diplomatic missions. Do you know how many of these were seized by force inside these embassies? Zero!

And yet the British government does not mind showing less shame than the Iranian revolutionary regime or less restraint than the Hungarian or Soviet Communists.

This also goes to show that the Brits have learned nothing since the Malvinas War.  By bulling Ecuador with such arrogance the Brits have just shown again how they are fundamentally unable to understand the cultures and people of Latin America.

The most pathetic of this all is, of course, that the British "poodle" only dares to bark because of the high patronage of Uncle Sam, whose orders both the UK and Sweden are slavishly obeying.

There is a big opportunity in all this, however.  Should these British threats materialize in one fashion or another (storming the embassy, cutting off utilities, etc.) this would strongly polarize the Latin American continent which would be highly beneficial as only a few Latin American countries - like Colombia - are really and openly US colonies, and polarization of the continent would very much isolate them.

One more thought: does anybody out there still seriously believe that Assange is a US agent or that Wikileaks is an Israeli operation?

The Saker

The Secrets of Wikileaks - Julian Assange's Deal With the Devil

By Israel Shamir for Counterpunch

In Part One of my report last weekend here on the CounterPunch site I showed that the US was secretly funnelling money into Belarus to fund the unelected opposition. Previously, the claim had been routinely denied. Now we have sterling proof. It is engraved in a confidential cable from a US Embassy to the State Department. It is undeniable.

That is, if you found the cable and were able to understand it.

And you happened to understand the political background of the cable.

The cables are raw data. Not as raw as Afghan Diaries, the previous coup of Wikileaks, but still quite raw. They are written in obscure state department lingo; much of the story is implied, as the cables were composed for colleagues and definitely not for strangers. They simply have to be explained, interpreted, annotated and then finally delivered to the reader. Dumping raw cables onto the web would not do: you’d never find the relevant cables and probably you wouldn’t be able to understand its significance even if you did find it.

The main job of a newspaper or news website is to process raw data and transmit it to a reader. This work requires an experienced and highly qualified staff. Not every newspaper or website has such resources, and none of the independent sites can compete with the mainstream outlets for readership. If all the cables were published in a local newspaper in Oklahoma or Damascus, who would read them? In order to get our news to you, our reader, we are forced to make use of the dreaded mainstream media.

That is why Julian Assange chose to partner with a few important Western liberal newspapers of the mainstream media. Let us make it perfectly clear that we understand that all mainstream media are at their heart embedded; in bed with the Pentagon, the CIA, with Wall Street and all its counterparts. Let us also make it clear that we understand that not every journalist on the staff of The Guardian, Le Monde or The NY Times is a crooked enforcer of imperialist ideology; no, not even every editor. We do understand that not everyone is willing to sacrifice their career to field a story that will attract storms of protest. From this point of view, the difference between the soft liberal and the hardline imperialist media is one of style only.

For instance, if they plan to attack Afghanistan, the hardline Fox News would simply demand a high-profile strike against the sand rats, while the liberal Guardian would publish a Polly Toynbee piece bewailing the bitter fate of Afghani women. The bottom line is the same: war.

Modern embedded media constitute the most powerful weapon of our rulers. The modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin succinctly explained their modus operandi: "The embedded media does not care about the content and does not attempt to control it; they just add a drop of poison to the stream in the right moment."

Furthermore, they skilfully arrange the information in order to mislead us. The headline might scream MURDER MOST FOUL but the article describes an unavoidable accident. We do not look beyond the headline, but the headline has been written by the editor and not the journalist who penned the article. Twitter is nothing but a mess of headlines; we are being trained to think in terms of slogans.

In the case of Belarus, the Guardian published three cables the day before elections in order to maximize the exposure and to influence the results of the election. One of the headlines, published on December 18, 2010 said: “WikiLeaks: Lukashenka’s [sic] fortune estimated at 9 billion USD”. It was a very misleading headline. Wikileaks made no claims about Lukashenko’s wealth. Read the entire article, and you will find that it was nothing more than a US embassy employee who had heard a rumor and transmitted it to the State Department. Only in the second to last sentence of the article do they mention that the cable admits: “the embassy employee couldn’t verify the sources [sic!] or accuracy of the information”.

So a corrected headline would read: “Wikileaks reveals: US diplomats spread unverifiable rumors about Lukashenko’s personal wealth.” But the Guardian made it appear as if it was Wikileaks itself that made the claim.

Let us suppose that one day Wikileaks will publish cables from the Russian Embassy in Washington to Moscow Centre. Shall we expect to see in the Guardian a screaming headline like: "WikiLeaks: The Mossad behind 9/11!!"

Isn’t it more likely we would be soberly told: “Wikileaks reveals that Russian diplomats in Washington report the persistent rumors on Israeli involvement in 9/11”?

Another cable on Belarus published on the same day was headlined: “US embassy cables: Belarus president justifies violence against opponents”. Again, a misleading headline, and again the majority will never read beyond it. In reality, this very interesting report contains the debriefing of the Estonian Foreign Minister after his long chat with President Lukashenko. The most interesting factoid was deliberately not highlighted in the article: Lukashenko told the Estonian visitor that the opposition in Belarus would never unite, and only existed “to live off western grants.” When you read the article, your eye gravitates to the highlighted section, skipping the valuable information just above. In fact, the highlighted section itself says nothing about justifying violence against opponents. The text says something completely different: “Lukashenko stated the opposition should expect to get hurt when they attack the riot police”. Again, it is sterling truth: in every country, people who attack riot police end up getting hurt. In Israel they also get shot, but that’s another story.

Thus the Guardian made use of Wikileaks in order to influence Belarus voters and Western audiences, and prepare them for an Election Day riot.

So here we are: in order to get valuable data to the people, Julian Assange had to make a deal with the devil: the mainstream media. It was most natural for him to deal with the liberal flank of the mainstream, for the hardliners would not even touch it. But since the liberal papers are also embedded, they freely distort the cables by attaching misleading headlines and misquoting from the text.

For me, a Guardian reader since I worked at the BBC in the mid-1970s, it is painful to say that the Guardian has become an impostor. This paper pretends to provide the thinking liberal and socialist people of England with true information; but at the moment of truth, the Guardian, like a good Blairite, will switch sides.

Next, the Guardian apparently decided to destroy Wikileaks after using it. The Moor did his job, the Moor may go. The Guardian’s embedded editors, understanding full well that the Wikileaks crew won’t be tamed or subverted, are preparing a book called The Rise and Fall of Wikileaks. It’s not quite released yet; they have still to arrange for the fall.

This will be done in two ways.

First, by slandering the Wikileaks chief Julian Assange. Destroy the head, and the body will wither and die. This is not the place to deal with allegations in detail, but I’ve never seen an article more crooked and lying than the one the Guardian published recently on Assange - and I’ve seen some beauties. It is trial by media in the best tradition of Pravda 1937. Its author Nick Davies ingratiated himself into the vicinity of the trustful Julian and then bit him in the best scorpion’s manner. Davies wrote years ago in his Flat Earth News that the practice of journalism in the UK is "bent"; now he proven it beyond a doubt by his own writing.

There is no doubt: Assange never raped. The day after the alleged rape, the alleged victim boasted to her friends in a twitter that she had a wonderful time with the alleged rapist. It was all published.

Moreover, if Swedish authorities are primarily concerned about prosecuting Julian for rape, why do they attach a special condition to their demands of extradition, specifically reserving the right to pass him on to US authorities?

Nick Davies clearly performed a cruel hatchet job. But was publishing the article a simple case of bad judgement by the Guardian, or the beginning of a smear campaign? "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", as James Bond in Goldfinger put it neatly. Here is the second attack. The third piece was surprisingly an attempt to smear Assange by association with me.

This last attack was written by Andrew Brown has been described as “The Guardian‘s resident moron”, and with good reason. I always enjoy discussing my views, though Brown completely missed the subtleties and nuances of my writings. Andrew Brown is a man who understands the public’s need for screaming headlines. Now we are left with a lot of crazy bloggers who claim I am the Mossad’s liaison to Wikileaks and that Wikileaks is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mossad.

I do not for a moment think that anybody sane takes these ridiculous accusations seriously – they are just more things to throw at Julian. I am not a member of Wikileaks, not even a spokesman, just a friend. But even without me, Brown will still be able to attack Assange for quoting Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize winner and “notorious antisemite whose works are being published by a racist site.” Quoting a popular blog, Brown “is beneath contempt, and, from now on, beneath notice”. Still, the Guardian editors let him off his leash from time to time, to their eternal disgrace.

The second mode of attack on Wikileaks is to use it as a source of misinformation. These US State Department cables are double-edged swords. They are full of rumors, trial balloons, and hopeful thinking. Worse, the newspaper headlines often declare that Wikileaks is the source of the rumor, and leave it to the discerning reader to discover that an embassy staffer was the real source of the story. Readers often do not understand that headlines are little more than come-ons, and reflect a very loose interpretation of the article content. They tend to believe the misleading headline that says, “Wikileaks: Iran prepares nuclear weapons” or, “Wikileaks: all Arabs want the US to destroy Iran”. Wikileaks never said it! It was the Guardian and the NY Times that said it, and loudly. A corrected headline would look like this:

Wikileaks reveals that US diplomats spread unsubstantiated rumours on the Iran nuclear program in order to ingratiate themselves with the State Department

But you will not live long enough to see this headline. Such is the price for using mainstream media: they will eventually poison the purest source.

However, I would rather place my bet on Assange. He is smart, and he has a mind of a first-class chess player. He has many surprises up his sleeve. It is possible that the Guardian will have to rename their book The Rise and Rise of Wikileaks.

The Israeli Angle

Now you can understand the mystery of Israeli satisfaction with Wikileaks. While the US officials were furious at the disclosure, Israelis were rather smug and complacent. Haaretz has this headline: “Netanyahu: WikiLeaks revelations were good for Israel.”

Simple-minded conspiracy junkies immediately concluded that Wikileaks is an Israeli device, or, in the words of a particularly single-minded man: a “Zionist poison”.

The truth is less fantastic, but much more depressing. The Guardian and the New York Times, Le Monde and Spiegel are quite unable to publish a story unacceptable to Israel. They may pen a moderately embarrassing piece of fluff, or a slightly critical technical analysis in order to convince discerning readers of their objectivity. They may even let an opponent air his or her views every once in a blue moon. But they could never publish a story really damaging to Israel. This is true for all mainstream media.

Furthermore, no American ambassador would ever send a cable really unacceptable to Israel – unless he intended to retire the next month. Yet even supposing this kamikaze ambassador would send the cable, the newspapers would overlook it.

Even with thousands of secret cables about Israel in their hands, the mainstream media delays and prevaricates. They don’t want anyone to yell at them. That is why they have postponed publishing the articles. Once forced by circumstance or competition to publish the contents of the cables, you can bet they’ll twist the revelations into toady headlines and bury the truth in the final paragraph.

Always kind, Julian Assange attributes this behavior to the “sensitivity of the English, German and French audience”. I am not that kind; I call it cowardice, or if you insist, prudence. Any journalist who confronts the Jewish state will be made to suffer.

In such a situation, the mainstream media just can’t help us. Professional journalists have families and careers to protect. We can’t count on them when the rubber meets the road. We shall never know and will never fully understand the truth behind any Israel-connected event as long as the cables remain only in the hands of the mainstream media.

Edited by Paul Bennett

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

The "five pillars" of Israel's strategy towards Iran

source:  http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/08/07TELAVIV2652.html

VZCZCXRO5629
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHTV #2652/01 2431245
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
P 311245Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3082
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 0817
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 1007
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 0441
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 0434
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 TEL AVIV 002652 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/24/2017 
TAGS: PREL PTER MARR MASS KNNP UNSC PK IR IZ ZP
JO, EG, RS, CH, LE, SY, IS 
SUBJECT: U/S BURNS' AUGUST 17 MEETING WITH ISRAELI MOSSAD 
CHIEF MEIR DAGAN 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Richard H. Jones.  Reasons: 1.4 (b)(d). 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (S) In an August 17 meeting, Israeli Mossad Chief Meir 
Dagan thanked Under Secretary Burns for America's support of 
Israel as evidenced by the previous day's signing of an MOU 
that provides Israel with USD 30 billion in security 
assistance from 2008-2018.  Dagan provided his assessment of 
the Middle East region, Pakistan and Turkey, stressing 
Israel's (a) concern for President Musharraf's well-being, 
(b) view that Iran can be forced to change its behavior, and 
(c) sense that Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are 
unstable with unclear futures ahead of them.  Dagan probed 
for more detail about XXXXXXXXXXXX U.S. military assistance
to the Gulf  states, and -- while signaling agreement with the
U.S.  approach to the Gulf states vis-a-vis Iran -- cautioned that 
they may not be able to absorb significant military  assistance.
Dagan reviewed Israel's five-pillar strategy  concerning
Iran's nuclear program, stressed that Iran is  economicall
 vulnerable, and pressed for more activity with  Iran's
minority groups aimed at regime change.  Dagan urged 
caution in providing assistance to the Siniora government in 
Lebanon, noting Syrian and Iranian efforts to topple the GOL. 
 
¶2. (S) Under Secretary Burns cited the MOU as tangible 
evidence of the USG's commitment to Israel, and stressed that 
the U.S. would support all of its friends -- Arabs included 
-- in the Middle East, and will remain engaged in the region 
for the long term.  He described U.S. efforts to support the 
Musharraf and Karzai governments as they face opposition from 
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and explained that the Gulf 
Security Dialogue is meant to bolster Gulf states facing 
threats from Iran.  The Under Secretary reviewed U.S. efforts 
to isolate Iran and increase pressure on it, stressing that 
the U.S. is currently focused on the diplomatic track.  He 
shared USG thinking about the Siniora government in Lebanon, 
and urged that the U.S. and Israel continue to consult on 
Lebanon.  END SUMMARY. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE MOU AND ISRAEL'S QME 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (S)  Dagan observed that the signing of the MOU on 
security assistance could not have come at a better time, and 
stressed that Israel appreciated America's support.  The 
Under Secretary agreed about the timing, noting that the 
U.S., Israel and like-minded countries were facing multiple 
threats around the world, and that the Middle East is a very 
dangerous region.  He said that the MOU serves as a concrete 
reminder that the U.S. stands by its long-term security 
commitments to its friends, and is ready to help them with 
their needs.  The Under Secretary noted that the Middle East 
is now at the heart of American interests.  Because Egypt 
also plays a vital role in the region, the U.S. would also 
renew its security assistance commitment to that country. 
U.S. relations with the Gulf states were longstanding, and 
America would stay true to those friendships, as well.  The 
Under Secretary stressed that the USG is committed to 
Israel's QME.  He noted that the majority of systems and 
equipment that the U.S. would sell to Egypt and other Arab 
partners would replace items that had been sold to those 
countries in the past. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
DAGAN REVIEWS MIDDLE EAST, PAKISTAN, TURKEY 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (S) Assessing the region, Dagan said Israel sees itself in 
the middle of a rapidly changing environment, in which the 
fate of one Middle Eastern country is connected to another. 
Dagan then said he was concerned about how long Pakistani 
President Musharraf would survive:  "He is facing a serious 
problem with the militants.  Pakistan's nuclear capability 
could end up in the hands of an Islamic regime."  Turning to 
Iran, Dagan observed that it is in a transition period. 
There is debate among the leadership between Rafsanjani and 
Ahmadinejad and their respective supporters.  Instability in 
Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic 
minorities.  This, Dagan said, presents unique opportunities, 
and Israelis and Americans might see a change in Iran in 
 
TEL AVIV 00002652  002 OF 005 
 
 
their lifetimes.  As for Iraq, it may end up a weak, federal 
state comprised of three cantons or entities, one each 
belonging to the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. 
 
¶5. (S) Dagan said that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are 
concerned about the growing importance of Iran and its 
influence on them.  They are taking precautions, trying to 
increase their own military defensive capabilities. 
Referring to the Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD), Dagan warned 
that these countries would not be able to cope with the 
amount of weapons systems they intend to acquire:  "They do 
not use the weapons effectively." 
 
¶6. (S) Dagan said that Jordan has successfully faced down 
threats from the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and that Egypt 
is struggling with the question of who will replace President 
Mubarak.  He said he sees no hope for the Palestinians, and 
that Israel looks at Syria and Lebanon, and sees only 
instability.  Further afield, it looks at Turkey and sees 
Islamists gaining momentum there.  The question, he asked, is 
how long Turkey's military -- viewing itself as the defender 
of Turkey's secular identity -- will remain quiet. 
 
¶7. (S) If Israel's neighborhood were not unstable enough, 
Dagan observed, it did not help that Russia is playing a 
"very negative role" in the region.  He observed that all of 
these challenges have to be addressed globally -- they could 
not be dealt with individually.  Returning to Jordan as an 
example, he noted that the more than one million Iraqi 
refugees in Jordan were changing Jordanian society, and 
forcing it into a new relationship with Saudi Arabia.  This 
is evidenced by Saudi King Abdullah's recent visit to Jordan, 
which implies greater understanding between the Jordanians 
and the Saudis. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
DISCUSSION OF THE GULF SECURITY DIALOGUE 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (S) Turning to the Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD), Dagan 
said that enhancing the capabilities of the Gulf states "is 
the right direction to go," especially as they are afraid of 
Iran.  Such a U.S. commitment will be a stabilizing factor in 
the region.  Dagan clarified that he would not oppose U.S. 
security assistance to America's Arab partners.  He expressed 
concern, nevertheless, about the current policies of those 
partners -- especially with regards to Syria and Iran.  Dagan 
added that if those countries must choose between buying 
defensive systems from the U.S. or France, then he would 
prefer they buy systems from the U.S., as this would bring 
them closer to the U.S. 
 
¶9. (S) Dagan observed that the challenge facing the U.S. now 
is how to unite the Gulf states under a shared policy, and 
pointed to Qatar as the weakest link in the chain, trying to 
play all sides.  Under Secretary Burns replied that the U.S. 
is trying to get Qatar and its neighbors to look at issues 
from a regional perspective, and to focus on threats in a 
unified way.  Acting PM Assistant Secretary Mull expressed 
understanding for Israel's frustration with how the region 
looked, but stressed nevertheless that if America did not 
engage the Gulf states through the GSD, the situation would 
become much worse.  It is critical to get the Gulf states 
focused on the Iran threat, and to adopt a regional approach 
to countering it.  Encouraging and supporting their 
counterproliferation efforts would be crucial.  Dagan said he 
agreed with this approach, stressing that the threat of 
radical Islam is real. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
IRAN: DAGAN REVIEWS ISRAEL'S FIVE PILLAR STRATEGY 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶10. (S) Dagan led discussion on Iran by pointing out that the 
U.S. and Israel have different timetables concerning when 
Iran is likely to acquire a nuclear capability.  He clarified 
that the Israel Atomic Energy Commission's (IAEC) timetable 
is purely technical in nature, while the Mossad's considers 
other factors, including the regime's determination to 
succeed.  While Dagan acknowledged that there is still time 
to "resolve" the Iran nuclear crisis, he stressed that Iran 
is making a great effort to achieve a nuclear capability: 
"The threat is obvious, even if we have a different 
timetable.  If we want to postpone their acquisition of a 
 
TEL AVIV 00002652  003 OF 005 
 
 
nuclear capability, then we have to invest time and effort 
ourselves." 
 
¶11. (S) Dagan described how the Israeli strategy consists of 
five pillars: 
 
A) Political Approach: Dagan praised efforts to bring Iran 
before the UNSC, and signaled his agreement with the pursuit 
of a third sanctions resolution.  He acknowledged that 
pressure on Iran is building up, but said this approach alone 
will not resolve the crisis.  He stressed that the timetable 
for political action is different than the nuclear project's 
timetable. 
 
B) Covert Measures: Dagan and the Under Secretary agreed not 
to discuss this approach in the larger group setting. 
 
C) Counterproliferation: Dagan underscored the need to 
prevent know-how and technology from making their way to 
Iran, and said that more can be done in this area. 
 
D) Sanctions:  Dagan said that the biggest successes had so 
far been in this area.  Three Iranian banks are on the verge 
of collapse.  The financial sanctions are having a nationwide 
impact.  Iran's regime can no longer just deal with the 
bankers themselves. 
 
E) Force Regime Change:  Dagan said that more should be done 
to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of 
student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (e.g., Azeris, 
Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime. 
 
¶12. (S) Dagan clarified that the U.S., Israel and like-minded 
countries must push on all five pillars at the same time. 
Some are bearing fruit now; others would bear fruit in due 
time, especially if more attention were placed on them. 
Dagan urged more attention on regime change, asserting that 
more could be done to develop the identities of ethnic 
minorities in Iran.  He said he was sure that Israel and the 
U.S. could "change the ruling regime in Iran, and its 
attitude towards backing terror regimes."  He added, "We 
could also get them to delay their nuclear project.  Iran 
could become a normal state." 
 
¶13. (S) Dagan stressed that Iran has weak spots that can be 
exploited.  According to his information, unemployment 
exceeds 30 percent nationwide, with some towns and villages 
experiencing 50 percent unemployment, especially among 17-30 
year olds.  Inflation averages more than 40 percent, and 
people are criticizing the government for investing in and 
sponsoring Hamas, saying that they government should invest 
in Iran itself.  "The economy is hurting," he said, "and this 
is provoking a real crisis among Iran's leaders."  He added 
that Iran's minorities are "raising their heads, and are 
tempted to resort to violence." 
 
¶14. (S) Dagan suggested that more could be done to get the 
Europeans to take a tougher stand against Iran.  Under 
Secretary Burns agreed, and suggested that Israel could help 
 
SIPDIS 
by reaching out to the Europeans.  Dagan said that Israel is 
already doing this, and would continue to do so.  Dagan 
reiterated the need to strike at Iran's heart by engaging 
with its people directly.  Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts 
are important, but more radio transmissions in Farsi are 
needed.  Coordination with the Gulf states is helpful, but 
the U.S. should also coordinate with Azerbaijan and countries 
to the north of Iran, to put pressure on Iran.  Russia, he 
said, would be annoyed, but it would be fitting, as Russia 
appears bent on showing the U.S. that it cannot act globally 
without considering Russia. 
 
¶15. (S) Under Secretary Burns stressed that the USG is 
focused on Iran not only because of its nuclear program, but 
also because it supports terrorism and Shiite militias in 
Iraq.  The U.S. approach is currently focused on the 
diplomatic track and increasing pressure on Iran through 
sanctions.  Work in the UNSC helps to define the Iranian 
nuclear threat as one that affects international security, 
and not just that of Israel.  While UNSC members Russia, 
China and Qatar will water down efforts to increase pressure 
on Iran, it is still worthwhile to push for a third sanctions 
resolution.  In the meantime, the U.S. will encourage the 
Europeans, Japan and South Korea to implement unilateral 
sanctions against Iran outside the UNSC framework.  The U.S. 
 
TEL AVIV 00002652  004 OF 005 
 
 
will continue to encourage banks and financial institutions 
to slow down their operations in Iran and financially isolate 
it.  Regarding military pressure, the Under Secretary noted 
that the U.S. has deployed 1-2 carrier battle groups in the 
Gulf over the last six months, and that President Bush has 
stated that he will interrupt Iran's activity in Iraq.  As 
for outreach to the Iranian people, the VOA is now 
broadcasting programs in Farsi, and the USG is trying to get 
more Iranian students to visit the U.S. to promote 
people-to-people relations. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
PAKISTAN:  ISRAEL WORRIED ABOUT MUSHARRAF 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶16. (S) On Pakistan, Dagan said that President Musharraf is 
losing control, and that some of his coalition partners could 
threaten him in the future.  The key question, Dagan said, is 
whether Musharraf retains his commander-in-chief role in 
addition to his role as president.  If not, he will have 
problems.  Dagan observed that there has been an increase in 
the number of attempts on Musharraf's life, and wondered 
whether he will survive the next few years.  Under Secretary 
Burns replied that South Asia has assumed vital importance in 
American foreign policy since September 11.  The U.S. is 
committed to denying Afghanistan as a safe-haven for Taliban 
and Al-Qaeda activity.  The USG will continue to support 
Pakistani President Musharraf, and is seeking to boost his 
military defensive capabilities.  At the same time, the U.S. 
is encouraging Pakistan and Afghanistan to work with each 
other militarily.  Turning to India, Under Secretary Burns 
noted that U.S.-Indian economic cooperation is growing, and 
that the USG is working effectively to reduce tensions 
between India and Pakistan. 
 
----------------------------- 
LEBANON:  DAGAN URGES CAUTION 
----------------------------- 
 
¶17. (S) Dagan urged caution with respect to Lebanon, noting 
that the results of efforts there to bolster the Siniora 
government would impact Syria and Iraq.  The U.S. and Israel, 
he said, are on the edge of achieving something in Lebanon, 
and so cannot afford to drop their guard.  What is necessary 
is finding the right way to support PM Siniora.  "He is a 
courageous man," Dagan said.  Syria, Iran and Hizballah are 
working hard against him.  Dagan noted that much of what is 
animating the leadership of Lebanon to take on Syria is 
personal:  "Hariri, Jumblat and others had their parents 
executed by the Syrians."  This anti-Syrian sentiment has 
forged an alliance based on personal and national interests. 
Siniora has worked well with the situation, but Dagan 
suggested that the odds are against him.  Under Secretary 
Burns replied that the U.S. is trying to give PM Siniora as 
much support as possible, and that we would continue to 
consult closely with Israel on Lebanon.  He noted that he 
would return to Israel in October. 
 
-------------------- 
MEETING PARTICIPANTS 
-------------------- 
 
18, (SBU) Accompanying Under Secretary Burns in the meeting 
were: 
-- Ambassador Richard H. Jones 
-- Acting PM Assistant Secretary Stephen Mull 
-- Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Affairs Mary Beth Long 
-- NEA/IPA Deputy Director Nicole Shampaine 
-- Embassy Tel Aviv Counselor for Political Research 
-- Embassy Tel Aviv Political-Military Officer (notetaker) 
 
¶19. (SBU) Accompanying Mossad Chief Meir Dagan in the meeting 
were: 
-- Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Salai Meridor 
-- Advisor to Foreign Minister Livni Omer Caspi 
-- Two unidentified Mossad officials 
 
¶20. (U) Under Secretary R. Nicholas Burns cleared on this 
cable. 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv 
 
TEL AVIV 00002652  005 OF 005 
 
 
 
You can also access this site through the State Department's 
Classified SIPRNET website. 
********************************************* ******************** 
JONES

WikiLeaks to release Israel documents in six months

The Peninsula reports:

DOHA: WikiLeaks will release top secret American files concerning Israel in the next six months, its founder Julian Assange disclosed yesterday.

In an excusive interview with Al Jazeera, Assange said only a meagre number of files related to Israel had been published so far, because the newspapers in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish many sensitive information about Israel.

“There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,” said Assange in the nearly one-hour interview telecast live from the UK.

Asked if Israel had tried to contact him though mediators, Assange said, “No, no contacts with Israel but I am sure Mossad is following our activities closely like Australia, Sweden and the CIA.

“The Guardian, El-Pais and Le Monde have published only two percent of the files related to Israel due to the sensitive relations between Germany, France and Israel. Even New York Times could not publish more due to the sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US,” he added.

Excerpts from the interview:

An Arabic newspaper called Al Haqeeq conducted an interview with one of your former colleagues who said you have a deal with Israel not to publish these secret files.

This is not true. We have been accused as agents of Iran and CIA by this former colleague who was working for Germany in the past and was dismissed from his job after we published American military documents related to Germany.

We were the biggest institution receiving official funding from the US but after we released a video tape about killing people in cold blood in Iraq in 2007, the funding stopped and we had to depend on individuals for finance.

When will you publish the files related to Israel on your website?

We will publish 3700 files and the source is the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu was traveling to Paris to talk to the US ambassador there. You will see more information about that in six months.

Do these Israeli files speak about the July 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon?

Yes there is some information about that and these files were classified as top secret.

Is there any relation with these files and the assassination of Hamas military leader Al Mabhoh in Dubai?

Yes there are some indication to this and may be some special reports published by newspapers. Mossad agents used Australian, British and European passports to travel to Dubai and there are diplomatic files about that.

Are there any security service companies providing information to international airports and monitoring passengers even in the Arab countries?

There are some files about American and Israeli security companies that tried to intervene in certain areas. For example, in Brazil, the American embassy put some Israeli security companies during the Olympic Games.

Are there any files about agencies providing intelligence information about famous personalities in the Arab world?

I am not sure about that but there are files about Hezbollah in Lebanon. In one of these files Lebanon government complained against cables passing near the French embassy. American are always very much worried about the telecommunications network.

Are there any files about Israeli agents in the Arab world including some Arab royal palaces.

Most of the files related to Mossad are classified as top secret but there may be some files related to the role of Mossad in killing Lebanese military leader in Damascus by sniper bullets.

There 2,500 files related to Mossad and I have read only 1000. So I don’t know about everythiong, I need more journalists including Arabs to read and analyse and put everything in the context for the benefit of the readers.

We have 17,000 files where the word Qatar has been mentioned, the source of 3,000 of these files is the American embassy in Doha.

What is the most interesting file about Qatar that was not published?

There is a lot to be read. The name of Waddah Khanfar has been mentioned in 504 files. Some of these files have been published by The Guardian.

How do the Americans view Al Jazeera in these files?

There were some meetings between people from Al Jazeera and the US embassy where the latter suggested coverage of certain things in a certain way.

There are files about a TV channel in Dubai which the Americans said can be used against Al Jazeera and when this channel tried to move in the American direction, people stopped watching it.

The Americans despite having a base here were angry about the presence of an Iranian bank in Qatar but Qatar said it would not close it but would not open new banks. Despite that this bank established many more branches in Doha. Qatar is trying to create a balance between the Arab world and the America.

The Americans appreciate having their largest base in Doha but Qatar does not agree with all American requirements and Al Jazeera is a good example for that.

Very interesting interview of Julian Assange by David Forst on al-Jazeera

New Zealand accused of Israel 'flap' to boost Arab trade

by Richard Adams for The Age

US diplomats  accused the New Zealand government of overreacting to Israeli agents trying to get NZ passports fraudulently so Wellington could sell more lamb to Arab countries, according to leaked cables.

The arrest and conviction in 2004 of two Israeli citizens who were caught using the identity of a cerebral palsy sufferer to apply for a NZ passport caused a rift between NZ and Israel, with allegations that the two men and others involved were Mossad agents.

But American diplomats disparaged NZ's reaction as a ''flap'' and accused the then government of prime minister Helen Clark of grandstanding to boost trade to Arab states.

''The New Zealand government views the act carried out by the Israeli intelligence agents as not only utterly unacceptable but also a breach of New Zealand sovereignty and international law,'' Ms Clark said after the arrests.

US officials in Wellington told colleagues in Washington that NZ had ''little to lose'' from the breakdown in diplomatic relations with Israel and was instead trying to increase its exports to Arab states.

In cables released by WikiLeaks, former US ambassador to NZ Charles Swindells is disparaging about its stance over the theft and forgery of NZ passports by suspected Israeli spies.

Relations between Israel and NZ chilled after two reported Mossad agents, Eli Cara and Uriel Kelman, were caught and jailed for trying to illegally obtain passports in 2004.

A third suspected agent was a former Israeli diplomat based in Europe, Zev William Barkan, who stole the identity of a tetraplegic Aucklander to fraudulently obtain his passport.

Police also sought a fourth person.

Ms Clark said there was no doubt the men were Mossad operatives and suspended high-level diplomatic relations for more than a year until Israel apologised in 2005.

In the cables Mr Swindells talked about the case and how the offenders tried to use the birth certificate of a cerebral palsy sufferer.

In a cabled dated July 16, 2004, he details Ms Clark's reaction. Mr Swindells said the reaction was the NZ government's ''strongest diplomatic retaliation in 20 years'', since the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

''The GoNZ [the government of NZ] has little to lose by such stringent action, with limited contact and trade with Israel, and possibly something to gain in the Arab world, as the GoNZ is establishing an embassy in Egypt and actively pursuing trade with Arab states.

''With Israeli government officials eager to repair the relationship, and no time limit on the GoNZ's restrictions, it is possible the issue may be resolved in six months, when Cara and Kelman have served their time, and leave the country.''

In another cable, on July 19, 2004, he writes about praise from Hamas being an unwanted consequence of NZ's condemnation.

''New Zealand continues to voice its strong support of the Roadmap [the plan for Middle East peace], but is loathe [sic] to take actions that would identify it as a supporter of Israel and, by proxy, the United States. The GoNZ prides itself on its multi-lateral credentials (ref B) but has been increasingly trying to stand alongside 'Non-Aligned' countries.

''Its overly strong reaction to Israel over this issue suggests the GoNZ sees this flap as an opportunity to bolster its credibility with the Arab community, and by doing so, perhaps, help NZ lamb and other products gain greater access to a larger and more lucrative market.'' 
-------
Commentary: this is an interesting peace not so much because it reveals something we did not know about the US, Israel, New Zealand or any other country, but because it perfectly illustrates the kind of "show of loyalty" to Israel and its policies which US diplomats churn out day after day after day during their entire careers.  What we see here is the creation of an organizational culture which constantly self-selects the kind of people it will attract, co-opt and promote within its ranks.  Just as we know that every US Senator has to pledge his/her allegiance to "Jerusalem As The Eternal And United Capital Of The Jewish State Of Israel", every US diplomat has to constantly maintain his/her status by indicating at every opportunity his/her "Israel friendly" attitude.  Frankly, this is a tedious and energy and time consuming ritual.  It would be far simpler to follow the North Korean example and have every US government official wear a star of David on his/her lapel.  I suspect that the reason why this has not been implemented is that, just like in the case of North Korea, that would not be proof enough.  After all, what is more convincing, leaving a small flag on a lapel, or genuflecting for 8 hours a day?

Seriously, having known many US diplomats in my career, I can attest that they are mostly rather mediocre apparatchiks who will fully buy into whatever ideology the US Establishment and its corporate media happens to promote at any point in time.  There are, of course,  also some smart diplomats at Foggy Bottom, but they keep quiet until they retire.  Then they often speak out on the Israel topic quite openly, at least amongst friends or small groups of people.

Bottom line: any deviation from the official pro-Zionist ideology is an immediate career-ending crime for any US government official.  Ditto for any questioning of the official 9-11 narrative, I would add. 

The Saker

CIA Launches W.T.F. to Assess Cablegate Damage

by knowledgeempire for WL Central

The CIA has launched a new task force to assess the impact of Cablegate. The Wikileaks Task Force, apparently termed W.T.F., will focus on media exposure and the repercussions of the newest cable releases.

After Wikileaks published its first batch of classified documents, CIA spokesperson George Little had claimed that the CIA was "unconcerned" about the Wikileaks disclosures. Conversely, on November 8, the following press release emerged:

When information about our intelligence, our people, or our operations appears in the media, it does incredible damage to our nation’s security and our ability to do our job of protecting the nation.

It seems it was only a matter of time before Little would announce the emergence of a team devoted entirely to the leaks. At present, WTF is taking inventory of all CIA-related information categorized as "classified" but its focus will be that of ascertaining the potential damage to foreign relations that may have been caused by Cablegate leaks.

Did WikiLeaks reach a secret deal with Israel?

By Abdel Bari Atwan, Special to Gulf News

Absence of cables from US embassies in Tel Aviv is surprising, especially on the Lebanon war and Gaza massacre

The current deluge of WikiLeaks' pirated US diplomatic cables has been a triumph for press freedom and the democratic ideal of open and accountable government, but has mostly served to confirm rather than reveal.

Unlike WikiLeaks' previous scoops (the Afghan and Iraq War Logs), the cables released so far tell us little — in political or military terms — that we did not already know or suspect.

As one would expect, coming from America's diplomatic corps, the cables project a US-centric global vision. Twenty-two-year-old Bradley Manning — who originally downloaded the cache of cables — is already in jail and there are calls to extradite WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange to the US and charge him with treason.

Is the US — as several colleagues in the British press have suggested — in danger of over-reacting?

The world of the embassy cables is actually something of a public relations dreamscape, a scripted universe where Iranian President Ahmadinejad is ‘like Hitler', Libyan leader Colonel [Muammar] Gaddafi is phobic and hot-tempered and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sends ‘suitcases full of money' to that other scourge of imperialism, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega.

What makes the cables mostly interesting is the human dimension, the gossipy detail, the off-the-record frankness, the unguarded passing of judgment. Sometimes it seems that Julian Assange has unpackaged a Hello! magazine version of global news and international diplomacy.

There are sinister moments, certainly — for example Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's instruction to UN diplomats to undertake acts of espionage; or the collusion between the US and China to ensure the failure of last year's Copenhagen climate summit; or Britain's promise to protect US interests during its enquiry into the invasion of Iraq.

A shocking moral bankruptcy sometimes emerges too: Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa is happy to report that the multinational's representatives have infiltrated every ministry in the Nigerian government; another diplomat languidly notes that Asif Rahimi "appears to be the only [Afghan] minister that was confirmed about whom no allegations of bribery exist".

But there is also much to amuse as the sober masks of statesmen and women are torn off to reveal ‘a numbskull' (Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari as described by Sir Jock Stirrup, Britain's then chief of staff) or ‘a practised liar' (Turkmenistan's President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, according to a US diplomat).

Russia's de facto leader Vladimir Putin and its real, elected President, Dmitry Medvedev, are described as ‘Batman and Robin' by one diplomat, while another relates how a ‘too relaxed' French president Sarkozy, on a visit to Rabat, was photographed "crossing his legs and pointing the sole of his shoe at the King — a taboo gesture in the Islamic world".

Naturally, I was most interested in what the cables would reveal about recent events in the Middle East. Of those published to date, a disproportionate 40 per cent deal with the region.

Colourful scandals

There are some colourful scandals and a litany of nefarious intrigues starring the usual suspects. One leaked cable from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton manages the challenging feat of incorporating the entire ‘Axis of Evil' in one report, with North Korea providing missile technology to Iran and Syria who in turn pass it on to Hamas and Hezbollah.

The cables clearly demonstrate how American interests dovetail with those of Israel: Arab leaders urge an attack on Iran, Pakistan's nuclear capability is of great concern and allegations of the Turkish government's involvement with Al Qaida are made repeatedly.

Yet it is the absence of cables from US embassies inside Israel that is most telling. Despite the intense world focus on Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon in 2006, there is nothing from the US Embassy in Beirut during that period. Similarly, the Embassy in Tel Aviv and the consulate in Occupied Jerusalem apparently fell silent during the 2008-09 onslaught on Gaza.

Rumours are circulating on the internet that Assange made a deal with Israel allowing it to censor and ‘cherry pick' the cables prior to publication, repackaging them to serve its own regional interests. Israeli premier Netanyahu confirmed, in a November 30 Haaretz article, that his government had ‘worked in advance to limit any damage from leaks'. WikiLeaks' second-in-command, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, was among several disenchanted former members who recently left the group to set up OpenLeaks. Among their complaints were "concerns about its [WikiLeaks] neutrality" and the increasing propensity for Assange to take ‘solitary decisions'.

There are other, credible, explanations for the missing cables about Israel. In a recent post on Facebook, Ed Abington, former US consul-general in Occupied Jerusalem, mentions ‘a special channel US embassies use for very sensitive information' which WikiLeaks has not had access to; Remy Ourdon of Le Monde (one of the five international newspapers that were given advance copies of the cables by Assange) says there are "tens of thousands of cables and many surprises still coming". It is also possible that the so-called ‘Insurance Files' — which will be released if Assange is ‘incapacitated' — contain embarrassing revelations for Israel.

Israeli politicians and cheerleaders have seized on the PR opportunities the present situation affords. In the wake of the flotilla massacre earlier this year and the 2008 invasion of Gaza, Israel's reputation on the world stage was undoubtedly tarnished. Now website Israelly Cool can boast "WikiLeaks show that Israel is the only country in the Middle East with an open and honest foreign policy".

Yet, I prefer the vision of Assange as a doughty fighter for freedom of information and global justice. It seems inconceivable that he would protect Israel from censure when the WikiLeaks website categorically states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes... and unethical behaviour [by] governments and corporations".

Abdel Bari Atwan is editor of the pan-Arab newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi.

Wikileaks, Litvinenko and a personal note

Dear friends,

Justin Raimondo has penned a very good commentary on what Wikileaks reveals about the canard about the Russian secret service killing Litvinenko with some Polonium 210.  But I cannot publish it here lest the pretend-libertarians at Antiwar.com try to sue me for doing so.  Still, Raimondo makes so many good points that I will break my self-imposed rule and actually just point to the URL of the original article: here or here.  I always knew that the very idea of the FSB or SVR using Polonium to kill Litvinenko was absolute nonsense (ditto for the 'poisoning' of Yushchenko), but it nice quite gratifying to see that its the Brits themselves who SNAFUed it all.

On a personal note, I have just begun a new job, and an extremely stressful one at that.  I hope that things will get better with time, but right now I am either working or sitting a a near-catatonic state of exhausted stupor.  So I ask you to please forgive me if I post fewer articles or if I do not reply to your comments.  Unlike the folks are Antiwar.com, I am not a 'professional revolutionary' (to use Lenin's expression), and I don't make a single cent from this blog.  That does not mean that I don't needs these cents, however, so I need to find them elsewhere.  As I said, things should settle down in a couple of weeks or so, but until them I ask for your patience and understanding.

Kind regards,

The Saker

Kettling Wikileaks

by Richard Stallman for Defective by Design

Kettling: also known as containment or corralling - a police tactic for the management of large crowds during demonstrations or protests.

The Anonymous web protests over WikiLeaks are the internet equivalent of a mass demonstration. It's a mistake to call them hacking (playful cleverness) or cracking (security breaking). The LOIC program that is being used by the group is prepackaged so no cleverness is needed to run it, and it does not break any computer's security. The protesters have not tried to take control of Amazon's website, or extract any data from MasterCard. They enter through the site's front door, and it just can't cope with the volume.

Calling these protests DDoS, or distributed denial of service, attacks is misleading, too. A DDoS attack is done with thousands of "zombie" computers. Typically, somebody breaks the security of those computers (often with a virus) and takes remote control of them, then rigs them up as a "botnet" to do in unison whatever he directs (in this case, to overload a server). The Anonymous protesters' computers are not zombies; presumably they are being individually operated.

No – the proper comparison is with the crowds that descended last week on Topshop stores. They didn't break into the stores or take any goods from them, but they sure caused a nuisance for the owner, Philip Green. I wouldn't like it one bit if my store (supposing I had one) were the target of a large protest. Amazon and MasterCard don't like it either, and their clients were probably annoyed. Those who hoped to buy at Topshop on the day of the protest may have been annoyed too.

The internet cannot function if websites are frequently blocked by crowds, just as a city cannot function if its streets are constantly full by protesters. But before you advocate a crackdown on internet protests, consider what they are protesting: on the internet, users have no rights. As the WikiLeaks case has demonstrated, what we do online, we do on sufferance.

In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a website we need the co-operation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly establishes this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice.

Reading, too, is done on sufferance. In the physical world, you can buy a book with cash, and you own it. You are free to give, lend or sell it to someone else. You are also free to keep it. However, in the virtual world, e-readers have digital handcuffs to stop you from giving, lending or selling a book, as well as licences forbidding that. Last year, Amazon used a back door in its e-reader to remotely delete thousands of copies of 1984, by George Orwell. The Ministry of Truth has been privatised.

In the physical world, we have the right to pay money and to receive money – even anonymously. On the internet, we can receive money only with the approval of organisations such as PayPal and MasterCard, and the "security state" tracks payments moment by moment. Punishment-on-accusation laws such as the Digital Economy Act extend this pattern of precarity to internet connectivity. What you do on your own computer is also controlled by others, with non-free software. Microsoft and Apple systems implement digital handcuffs – features specifically designed to restrict users. Continued use of a program or feature is precarious too: Apple put a back door in the iPhone to remotely delete installed applications and another in Windows enabled Microsoft to install software changes without asking permission.

I started the free software movement to replace user-controlling non-free software with freedom-respecting free software. With free software, we can at least control what software does in our own computers.

The US state today is a nexus of power for corporate interests. Since it must pretend to serve the people, it fears the truth may leak. Hence its parallel campaigns against WikiLeaks: to crush it through the precarity of the internet and to formally limit freedom of the press.

States seek to imprison the Anonymous protesters rather than official torturers and murderers. The day when our governments prosecute war criminals and tell us the truth, internet crowd control may be our most pressing remaining problem. I will rejoice if I see that day.

Richard Matthew Stallman is a software developer and software freedom activist. In 1983 he announced the project to develop the GNU operating system, a Unix-like operating system meant to be entirely free software, and has been the project's leader ever since. With that announcement Stallman also launched the Free Software Movement. In October 1985 he started the Free Software Foundation.

Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela

By Eva Golinger for Postcards from the Revolution

State Department documents published by Wikileaks evidence Washington's plans to "contain" Venezuela's influence in the region and increase efforts to provoke regime change

A substantial portion of the more than 1600 State Department documents Wikileaks has published during the past two weeks refer to the ongoing efforts of US diplomacy to isolate and counter the Venezuelan government.

Since Hugo Chavez won the presidency for the first time in 1998, Washington has engaged in numerous efforts to overthrow him, including a failed coup d'etat in April 2002, an oil industry strike that same year, worldwide media campaigns and varios electoral interventions. The State Department has also used its funding agencies, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to channel millions of dollars annually to anti-Chavez NGOs, political parties, journalists and media organizations in Venezuela, who have been working to undermine the Chavez administration and force him from power.

When these interventionist policies have been denounced by the Chavez government and others, Washington has repeatedly denied any efforts to isolate or act against the Venezuelan head of state.

Nonetheless, the State Department cables published by Wikileaks clearly evidence that not only has Washington been actively funding anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, but it also has engaged in serious efforts during the past few years to convince governments worldwide to assume an adversarial position against President Hugo Chavez.

"CONTENTION" PLAN AGAINST A "FORMIDABLE FOE"

In a secret document authored by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly, and sent by the US Embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other US embassies in the region, Kelly proposed "six main areas of action for the US government (USG) to limit Chavez's influence" and "reassert US leadership in the region".

Kelly, who played a primary role as "mediator" during last year's coup d'etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies President Hugo Chavez as an "enemy" in his report. "Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends...To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries". Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that President Chavez is a "formidable foe", but, he adds, "he certainly can be taken".

In 2006, Washington activated a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mission Manager for Venezuela and Cuba. The mission, headed by clandestine CIA veteran Timothy Langford, is one of only four such intelligence entities of its type. The others were created to handle intelligence matters relating to Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan/Pakistan, evidencing the clear priority that Washington has placed on Venezuela as a target of increased espionage and covert operations.

Another suggestion made by Kelly in the secret cable, is a recommendation to increase US presence in the region and improve relations with Latin American military forces. "We should continue to strengthen ties to those military leaders in the region who share our concern over Chavez".

Kelly also proposed a "psychological operations" program against the Venezuelan government to exploit its vulnerabilities. "We also need to make sure that the truth about Chavez - his hollow vision, his empty promises, his dangerous international relationships, starting with Iran - gets out, always exercising careful judgment about where and how we take on Chavez directly/publicly".

Kelly recommended US officials make more visits to the region to "show the flag and explain directly to populations our view of democracy and progress". Kelly also offered details on how Washington could better exploit the differences amongst South American governments to isolate Venezuela:

"Brazil...can be a powerful counterpoint to Chavez's project...Chile offers another excellent alternative to Chavez...We should look to find other ways to give Chile the lead on important initiatives, but without making them look like they are our puppets or surrogates. Argentina is more complex, but still presents distinct characteristics that should inform our approach to countering Chavez's influence there".

PRESSURING MERCOSUR

Kelly also revealed the pressure Washington has been applying to Mercosur (Market of the South) to not accept Venezuela as a full member in the regional trade bloc. "With regard to Mercosur, we should not be timid in stating that Venezuela's membership will torpedo US interest in even considering direct negotiations with the trading bloc".

MEXICO, BOGOTA & OTHERS ASK TO "FIGHT" CHAVEZ

The cables published by Wikileaks not only reveal US hostility towards Venezuela, but also the requests made by regional leaders and politicians to work against President Chavez.

One secret document from October 2009 referring to a meeting between Mexican President Felipe Calderon and US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair tells of how Calderon confessed he was "trying to isolate Venezuela through the Rio Group". The Mexican head of state also appealed to the US intelligence chief, "The region needs a visible US presence...the United States must be ready to engage the next Brazilian president. Brazil, he said, is key to restraining Chavez...The US needs to engage Brazil more and influence its outlook".

URIBE REQUESTS "MILITARY ACTION" AGAINST CHAVEZ

In several secret documents authored by the US Embassy in Colombia, efforts by ex President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, to convince Washington to take action against Venezuela are evidenced.

In one cable from December 2007, the US Ambassador in Colombia recounts a meeting between Uribe and a delegation of US congress members, including Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. According to the text, Uribe "likened the threat Chavez poses to Latin America to that posed by Hitler in Europe".

And in yet another report summarizing a January 2008 meeting between Uribe and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, Uribe is quoted as recommending military action against Venezuela.

"The best counter to Chavez, in Uribe's view, remains action - including use of the military".

Later in that same secret cable, Uribe urged Washington to "lead a public campaign against Venezuela...to counter Chavez..."

OPPOSITION BISHOP REQUESTS US ACTION

In addition to regional politicians and US diplomats urging plans against President Chavez, one cable reveals how during a meeting between a Venezuelan Archbishop and the US Ambassador, the religious leader asked for Washington to act against his own government. At the meeting, which took place in January 2005 according to the document, Archbishop Baltazar Porras told Ambassador William Brownfield that the "US government should be more clear and public in its criticism of the Chavez administration" and that the "international community also needs to work and speak out more to contain Chavez..."

The plans and strategies revealed through these official documents confirm what other evidence has already corroborated regarding Washington's increase in aggression towards Venezuela. The US continues to fund opposition groups that act to undermine Venezuelan democracy while escalating its hostile discourse and policies against the Chavez government.

This week's Senate affirmation of Larry Palmer as Ambassador to Venezuela will only make matters worse. Palmer was rejected by the Venezuelan government after he made negative statements about the Chavez administration in August. Washington's insistence of sending Palmer appears to be an effort to provoke a rupture in diplomatic relations.

Do we know "who is behind Wikileaks"?

I am getting emails from readers on an almost daily basis now, pointing me to the article by by Michel Chossudovsky "Who is Behind Wikileaks?"  This is a very good article indeed, and I highly recommend its reading.  But please, let me point out the key segment of this article (emphasis added):

In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration. With regard to financial information, the release of data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via Wikileaks by a rival financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or bankrutpcy of the targeted financial institution.  All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites. While the numerous pieces of information contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks data bank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.  A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a "reliable source", when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth. 

Ok.  So what does Chossudovsky say?

1. The data dump itself is real

2. The corporate media selectively uses it

3. The general public only sees what the corporate media gives it

I agree with all of the above.  But notice that none of that says anything about some mysterious "who" who is "behind" Wikileaks.  None of that makes any claims about Assange himself.  In fact, Chossudovsky ends his article with the words: we should also stand firm in preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US.

Many readers are pointing out that Assange is a self-enamored character who likes to ridicule the 9-11 Truth movement.  That is possibly quite true, but that is also highly irrelevant.  These are most definitely not the reasons why folks like Ron Paul, Vladimir Putin, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, or Evo Morales are expressing their support for him.  Nor I these the reasons why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decries the leaks as 'US propaganda'.

And I would like to lay to rest once and for all (hopefully!) two of the worst of all arguments of the Wiki-doubters: that a) the leaks are parroting the Zionist propaganda lies and b) that they don't contain anything really 'hot'.

The first one is a no-brainer: these leaks come from the SIPRNet, that is a *low* level classified network.  Yes, information like 'confidential' and 'secret' is in reality of *low* level.  In fact, 2,5-3 million people have access to this network.  Now ask yourself a simple question: you are a US government employee with a security clearance, and you are about to contribute an entry to a network which is read by millions of other US government employees, including your bosses.  Do you really want to criticize Israel in any way?  Do you even want to disagree with the Zionist propaganda line?  Of course not!  That would be a career ending mistake.

The second argument is only made by those who never had a security clearance.  Anybody with real access to highly classified documents will tell you that 'confidential' and 'secret' are really riff-raff, stuff which really could be classified as 'for official use only', but which gets the higher level to avoid embarrassment.  This is also why the leaks have mostly only caused embarrassment to Uncle Sam: because by definition anything 'hotter' would be classified much higher and restricted to a dramatically lower number of people, only on a need to know basis.  Think about it - stuff given out to several million folks is, by definition, not a 'need to know' and therefore it cannot be truly 'hot'.

As somebody how did have a high level security clearance in the past, I can assure you that these leaks look *exactly* like the kind of mildly classified chatter which you would expect on this level of classification.

Back to the original argument now.  Point one: there is absolutely no reason to doubt that the person who is behind the data dump to Wikileaks is Bradley Manning or somebody else from the several million of people who had access to SIPRNet.  Point two: all Assange and Wikileaks did is manage the modalities of release of this data dump.  I personally think that they did not do a very good job of it (I would have dumped the full thing in one batch), but there is no reason to suspect that Assange or his friends are puppets of some kind of shadowy intelligence agency.  Point three: Assange himself, his character and his views simply do not matter and saying that there is no reason to suspect Assange is not some plant does not entail endorsing his personality, his views or, in fact, his use (or not) of condoms.  Point four: the same goes for Wikileaks as an organization which matters only to the degree that it is a conduit for the release of the information contained in the data dump.  As I said, I am less then thrilled by how they are doing it all, but the fact that I would have chosen a different strategy does not mean that they are all Mossad agents.

The really bad thing in this entire debate about who or what is behind Wikileaks is that it obfuscates the real issue, and that issue is real: the US government is using all its powers to censor the Internet and, so far, it has had an appalling degree of success.  Worse, it is quite clear that Bradely Manning's basic human rights are being horribly violated and there is a non-trivial possibility that the same might happen to Julian Assange should he be extradited to the 'Imperial Homeland'.

Folks like the EFF or Ron Paul get it right: the real issue here is the nature of the US government and the freedom of the Internet.  The rest is, frankly, counter productive distraction.

YMMV, of course.

The Saker