tip off

Rundle: the world changed this week. And it’s only Monday

Wikileaks has commenced a release of its file of US diplomatic cables, with The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel and other outlets publishing reports based on around 250,000 key documents in the cache.

They reveal a range of facts and statements that will be embarrassing and more, not only to the US administration, but to a range of other governments. Prominent among the cables are instructions to US diplomats to spy on other nations’ delegates to the UN, and find ways to gain key information about them including their fingerprints and credit card numbers. Other nations’ government officials were also to be spied on by US diplomatic staff in national missions elsewhere.

Other key revelations from the cache include the widespread fear and loathing among the Arab world for Iran and the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with Saudi Arabia reportedly urging the US to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability by any means necessary.

The 250,000 documents were passed on to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning, a former military intelligence analyst based in Iraq, who copied the files – as well as the files that became the site’s earlier Iraq and Afghanistan war logs releases – in 2009 and 2010, and later passed them on to Wikileaks. Manning is currently on remand, awaiting trial, after bragging about the release to an ex-hacker, who turned him in.

Predictably, much of the media focus has been on the lurid details – that Ahmadinejad is routinely referred to as ‘Hitler’, that Barack Obama thinks David Cameron is a lightweight, and that Muammar Qaddafi is accompanied everywhere by a blonde Ukrainian nurse. And some commentators have mocked claims made for the documents, suggesting that they reveal only the usual business of statecraft. “Also on #wikileaks “global diplomatic crisis”: British royals an embarrassment; Afghan govt corrupt; X-factor a bit dull” tweeted the fanatically pro-Blair UK journalist John Rentoul.

If you’re looking for a signed confession from Alexander Haig that he killed the Kennedys to cover up the faked moonshot, you won’t find them. But as with earlier releases, it’s the accumulation of detail that’s devastating, as well as direct evidence of what was previously deniable.

Other revelations in the cache include massive money laundering and corruption by the Afghan government, close co-operation and fusion between the Russian intelligence service and local mafias, fears of nuclear leakage from Pakistan should the state collapse entirely, and the abysmal failure of the UK military effort in Afghanistan as assessed by US representatives.

But there are several areas where the cables reveal or confirm potential military and espionage action in chilling detail.

One ‘seam’ is the instructions to US diplomats to spy on their opposite numbers that is truly devastating, with so-called ‘national human intelligence collection directives’ issued by both Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton. These demanded ‘biometric information’ on UN figures, and representatives of more than 33 countries elsewhere, including DNA, fingerprints and iris scans, as well as tech specs of information systems, passwords, encryption keys and the like. The UN effort was to involve the CIA, the NSA and the FBI, a clear breach of the immunity afforded the UN for its presence in New York.

Other cables explicitly discuss an Israeli attack on Iran, quoting Ehud Barak as saying that 2010 would be the essential year to attack, as Iranian nuclear sites would otherwise be too well defended. The exchange was in the context of a delivery of bunker busting GBU-28 5,000 pound bombs which the US wanted done ‘discreetly’, so that it wouldn’t look like they were preparing for a military strike.

The quarter of a million cables are ‘Sipdis’ communiques, loaded on the military’s ‘Siprnet’ internet and secure embassy websites. Eleven thousand of the cables are marked ‘secret’, and nine thousand of those are marked ‘noform’ – ‘no foreigners’.

The US and other governments have repeatedly petitioned Wikileaks not to release the cables, and argued that it would put ‘countless’ lives at risk. In an exchange of letters between Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange and the US ambassador to the UK, Assange claims that all material will be redacted for vulnerable personal names, and suggests that the unwillingness of the US to help with this is sign that they are more concerned with secrecy than human life.

Commentators have been running thick and fast since the first rank of stories was released on Sunday afternoon, due to an inadvertent early release by Der Spiegel. Some officials suggest that the release is no biggie; others are less restrained, with the Italian foreign minister declaring it the ‘9.11’ of diplomacy, making secure national communications impossible.

That comment goes to the heart of the Wikileaks project, which, as per Assange’s theorising, has been more directed to the quantity of information released as the quality of it. Assange’s arguments tend towards the techno-anarchistic, arguing that the state (as conspiracy) is simply a product of the ratio of information within to information outside it. As these approach 1, the conspiracy’s energies become increasingly consumed with plugging the leaks – while, by contrast, the ‘exterior’ gains greater power from increased access to information. When the ratio is 1:1, and access to information is equal, the conspiracy by definition has ceased to exist.

Even if one takes that as an ideal type, to describe a fuzzy reality, one can see that it usefully describes some of the effects taking place. The three early releases – the ‘collateral murder’ videos, and the Afghan and Iraq war logs – appear to have categorically dissolved any trace of ‘war mystique’ that those conflicts held. The old trick of suddenly revealing a new terrifying reason why we must stay the course appears to have been undermined as much by public knowledge of the amateurish and chaotic texture of the war operation, as anything else.

The ‘cablegate’ releases go a step further, moving forward a historical shift that has long been obvious – once information is no longer paper-bound, there is a categorical and qualitative change in its character and the relationship of power to information. When the diplomatic correspondence of an entire nation can be loaded onto a memory stick, then security is only as good as the least ‘dependable’ individual in the whole chain.

Mass whistleblowing used to be massively difficult – it took your correspondent two weeks to steal, photocopy and replace the whole Victorian government file on the ‘multifunction polis’ in 1989, and that was 3,000 pages. Increasingly it will be difficult not to, ie for someone to resist the temptation.

Here the US was hoisted on its own petard, for Bradley Manning was a less-than-stable teenager rendered so by middle American homophobia – when he joined the forces, the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy effectively encouraged him to develop a double life. The shadow side of that led him to hackers and libertarians intersecting with the Boston gay community, and he became convinced by their arguments that ‘information wants to be free’. Whether he still is, after eight months solitary, will remain to be seen. But governments across the world must be quietly freaking out at the sudden porousness of their entire apparatus. National security now relies on the mood of its least gruntled operative.

There’s more to come in the days ahead, and eventually Wikileaks will dump the whole file on their site, suitably redacted.

I can’t help but yell ‘huzzah’ at all this of course – but equally I can’t pretend that it sets a general rule. I is no anarchist, and there are states whose monopolies – on violence, on classified information – one would want to support.

Were someone to do an indiscriminate document dump on the socialist government of Bolivia for example, I’d be comfortable with them being locked up and welded in. So what are the ethics and politics of such dumps? Who knows, but it’s fair to say the world changed this week. And it’s only Monday.

28
  • 1
    Paul Ferraro
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    The US and other governments have repeatedly petitioned Wikileaks not to release the cables, and argued that it would put ‘countless’ *lies* at risk.”

    Freudian slip, perhaps?

  • 2
    moonkid
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    it would put ‘countless’ lies at risk

    Lovely slip :)

    I too, can’t help but applaud the release of this information. If it can do something to shatter the illusion that many people still seem to have that there are “good countries” and “bad countries”, then that will be a huge win.

  • 3
    moonkid
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Ha, beaten to the punch, Paul.

  • 4
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Ditto (Paul and the Moon) - and probably the main concern?
    If your actions are the sort that you are not prepared to own up to and defend in public, if they cause you shame - if you’ve been carrying on like those you publicly stand against - as so many “governments” have been doing operating in this twilight moral-free zone, while wallowing in hypocrisy - what are you doing “playing the game”, “democracy”, representing voting constituents? “Everybody” might be doing it but some are doing more than others to get ahead, going one step further each time, what is “at the bottom”?

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    The White House”?
    Who leaked Plame’s (one of their own) name in retalliation for her husband, Joe Wilson, telling a few more embarrassing truths?

  • 6
    CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Tell me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Dick Cheney suffering a moment’s doubt before outing Valerie Plame, putting all of her contacts in jeopardy, simply to get back her husband for disclosing the truth to the public.

    When the VP of the USA is prepared to use these techniques for political intimidation, it’s rather ironic that the current administration should cry foul about the possibility of someone being put at risk, especially as Assange has offered to redact the documents to protect them.

  • 7
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    I listened to the moronic woman at ABC today interview the journo at the NYT whining about “putting lives at risk” with these documents.

    Again. Do these morons not get that it is because of the lies in we are peddled that are revealed in these cables that more than 1 million people have been slaughtered, millions are homeless, millions are widowed and orphaned and maimed and their countries destroyed.

    Talk about snivellingly stupid.

  • 8
    zut alors
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Guy, you originally wrote this (before the typo was corrected to ‘lives’ on the website):

    The US and other governments have repeatedly petitioned Wikileaks not to release the cables, and argued that it would put ‘countless’ lies at risk.”

    This is the better version.

  • 9
    Robert Garnett
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    As Sir Humphey said “If people don’t know what you are doing they don’t know what you are doing wrong”.

    He also said “It’s more democratic to do things secretly”???

  • 10
    Davo
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    No defenders of the Bush administration? No? Carry on.

  • 11
    Harvey Tarvydas
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Great read Guy.

    As @ CHRISTOPHER DUNNE – I can’t buy the hypocritical clap trap warnings of dangerous consequences emanating from a Washington Neanderthal herd who don’t so much as raise a fart when the great US treasonous VP spills a CIA operative in the worlds most amazing and sensational ‘outing’ without getting done for treason and nobody even mentioning it. It makes John Howard’s (who of course would defend them to the death with faithful bulldung) non-outing for his super-racist very public announcement, innocent of course, of Obama as the ‘Al Qaeda’ candidate for US President look like sex behind a Bush in kindergarten.
    That God is kind is beyond reproach making these pricks look as ugly or stupid as they are protecting the rest of us.

    On the other issue of the moment I have invented a totally hack proof security system for my online time at little expense and just a little effort.

  • 12
    Harvey Tarvydas
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @ROBERT GARNETT – you’re so right, God bless Sir Humphrey.

  • 13
    Sexual Lobster
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s a little tenuous to say that don’t ask don’t tell caused him in a roundabout way to believe that information is free.

    Also, can someone explain why leaking US stuff is cool but leaking Bolivian documents would be bad?

  • 14
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Monday, 29 November 2010 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    no SL i was saying that ‘dont ask dont tell’ made it necessary for Manning to develop a double life - and that once he met hackers etc and became convinced of their ideas, made it easier to transition into the double life of being a whistleblower.

    Why US and not Bolivia? Because i support the Bolivian state and what theyre doing. thats my point - if youre not an anarchist, you cant really have a general ethic about what wikileaks is doing

  • 15
    serahunt
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    The 250,000 documents were passed on to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning”??

    That is the charge that the US put against Manning, with a complete lack of evidence, to mantain him illegaly arrested.

    There have been no trial yet (precisely because of the lack of evidences against him), so there is totally wrong to affirm his responsability on these leaks.

  • 16
    Sexual Lobster
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Ok well thanks for replying (journalists seldom do), love your work!

  • 17
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    well serahunt, i dont think stuff in crikey will prejudice his trial. given some fairly extensive claims he made online to the former hacker adrian lamo, one suspects his defence will turn on points other than that….

  • 18
    Gregoire
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 1:49 am | Permalink

    So who actually writes the news at the ABC? On Lateline tonight Assange has already been labelled a “culprit”.

  • 19
    Socratease
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 2:12 am | Permalink

    @Gregoire:

    So who actually writes the news at the ABC?

    A: Poorly trained and unsupervised “journalists”.

  • 20
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    It’s a pretty good rule that if “they” don’t want you to know, you need to.
    Not unlike, never believe a government failing until it’s been officially denied.
    Recall how, in 2005, the Rodent’s government denied there was any problem with security and criminal activity at Sydney airport? In three days DPM Anderson (then also Transport Minister) resigned and the Wheeler Enquiry was set up and confirmed just that.

  • 21
    duke the lost engine
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    The theory of information suggested to be held by Assange is appealing but seems flawed.

    The amount of information available, publicly or privately, is not a fixed amount: instead the supply of information often depends on the exclusivity of the audience. With widespread leaking, there is a risk that the overall amount of information will contract towards what would have been publicly available anyway. In the limit, the public will have no more information than before, and private information-holders will have less.

    (I don’t necessarily dissaprove of these leaks, but the justification should be the belief that the US is acting wrongly enough to have it’s confidentiality violated, rather than a general ‘information should be free’ argument.)

  • 22
    Observation
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    There appears to be a general building of tension throughout the world at present. The Korean Peninsular, Iranian nuclear capability, Pakistan instability, Israel becoming more aggressive and the financial crisis in Europe and USA to name a few. At the risk of sounding paranoid, it all seems to be heading for some kind of big event.

    I am all for transparency of government dealings etc but the information in these documents does not seem to uncover any Watergate type goings on but rather a lot of name calling and stereotyping of global leaders.

    Therefore I ask myself, do we really need this information out there? What benefit will the outcome produce? You would think the world leaders would employ the “sticks and stones” response or will this create just enough friction somewhere to start a spark.

    And what will happen if we get some really damaging information out in the public domain. Maybe it is best that we wait a while longer before releasing this kind of information or at least until world politics seem a little more stable. Sometimes the dangerous ones just need an excuse to become reactionary to the extreme.

    As I have stated I am all for transparency but I think we know how propaganda machines can be extremely effective and these leaks could be fuel for the fire.

  • 23
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Of course there is the other side - how much “news” is the country getting, filtered and refracted through the views of “Limited Gnus”, with their agenda? And who’s most upset by these leaks against their “franchise”?

  • 24
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Why is Paul Sheehan so fat, and Julian Assange so thin?

    Assange is the Jason Bourne of the internet.

  • 25
    Posted Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Valerie Palmer [sic] aka Plame, on 7.30 Report land last night was also great. Her husband is played by Sean Penn in a new movie Fair Game - the boomer version of Wikileaks?

    Probably fatty Sheehan will think it’s allright if it’s boomers doing it. As for his alphabet soup, aka lazy journalism, on the Greens yesterday: Did he mention the fantastic Democracy for Sale website by the Greens, on the intertubes thingy organised by … that ‘villian’ Lee Rhiannon? Guess not.

    Now all we need is a Chinese wikileaks, and fatty Sheehan to go on a strict miracle water (!) diet for a year.

    Certainly fatty’s article was an eloquent articulate submission for why the Greens must build their own media machine, and avoid being mendicants to overpaid boomer fatties in the old media rusted on to old parties.

  • 26
    freecountry
    Posted Wednesday, 1 December 2010 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Very interesting discussion, Mr Rundle. Three points:

    Assange claims that all material will be redacted for vulnerable personal names, and suggests that the unwillingness of the US to help with this is sign that they are more concerned with secrecy than human life.

    Perhaps the US government had legal advice that to do so might arguably be to give consent and lose the power to prosecute official secrets charges against its employees.

    When the diplomatic correspondence of an entire nation can be loaded onto a memory stick, then security is only as good as the least ‘dependable’ individual in the whole chain.

    The ideal response one might hope for is to improve the quality of discussion until every written word can bear scrutiny without embarrassment. A more practical response might be to reduce the size of the human chain handling any meaningful information at all, converting 99 per cent of the diplomatic service to human mules who stick to the script, ask no questions and see no evil. They could use Lavrentiy Beria’s historical NKVD of trained baboons for an example of how to organize such a service.

    Your closing half-joke about Bolivia illustrates the principle that secrecy is bad except when it serves a necessary purpose, and that that necessity is in the eye of the beholder. I would like to think a more objective basis for secrecy and transparency can be justified. For example, in Australia, the minutes of Cabinet deliberations are top secret, but ministers’ answers to Parliament on the outcomes of those deliberations are so transparent as to be immune from all legal restrictions (defamation damages, Official Secrets, etc).

    You could probably explain the reasons for this more clearly than I could. In the first case, Cabinet has to be able to “brainstorm” and think out loud in a frank manner, without the fear that every passing thought might hit the tabloids, otherwise they simply will not do so and policy formation will be insipid. But once those deliberations are done, the principle of responsible government requires them to justify their decisions; if this requirement is diluted (if, for example, an ALP leader decrees that backbenchers who have something to say must say it in secret Caucus rather than in open Parliament) then Cabinet decisions are likely to tend towards the politically strategic rather than being wise and in the public interest.

  • 27
    MLF
    Posted Wednesday, 1 December 2010 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    @Free, does your final paragraph contradict your third ?

  • 28
    freecountry
    Posted Thursday, 2 December 2010 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    My third being “The ideal response … such a service”?

    I don’t think so. Suppose King Abdullah comments something like, “Man, I wish you Yanks would go and blow up Ahmadinejad’s sh#t.” (I haven’t read the actual document in question.) Diplomats would be obliged to make a note of this comment and pass it on to their government, wether it’s off-the-cuff chatter, a joke, an angry outburst, or a summary of the King’s sentiments. None of which necessarily makes it an official Saudi policy or request to the US.
    Now if everybody starts having to consider all US diplomats as walking public-address systems, then people will start behaving like robots around them and no longer be able to speak their minds.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...