WikiLeaks and the politics of
embarrassment
|
It’s hard to know at what stage to start judging the overall tenor of the WikiLeaks revelations. We’re not even at 1% yet. It’s also hard to find an objective vantage point from which to judge. Foreign policy insiders might blithely dismiss revelations of extensive US spying at the UN as unsurprising, for example, but the rest of us might be more than a little surprised at the sheer volume of information — passwords, credit card numbers? — that US diplomats were apparently expected to gather. And few of the free personality assessments offered by the cables contain any surprises — Berlusconi parties hard, Kevin Rudd’s a control freak, Russia’s run by crooks. But it’s hard to read about, say, Shell boasting of knowing everything the Nigerian Government does courtesy of its operatives embedded in that government, or US military involvement in Yemen, and declare it to be “old news”. You also have to filter for the media’s own coverage, and not just in the extreme case of The Australian, which, in its now-usual style, is engaged in a petulant attack on a journalist who had scooped it, while its journalists took to Twitter to downplay the material obtained by Fairfax. Fairfax itself, in failing to provide access to the cables on which its coverage is based, is both acting without the transparency that is supposed to be a core motivation of WikiLeaks and refusing to permit an objective assessment. That’s why any judgement about Mark Arbib must await the documentary evidence Fairfax has declined to provide, since we have no idea whether a US embassy official is big-noting conversations over rubber chicken dinners at functions or a more concrete relationship existed between Arbib and officials of a foreign power — albeit one for whom we’re a vassal state. Fairfax needs to change its strategy on releasing the cables themselves, or continue to undermine its own journalists who have done well to obtain the material. In any event, the best description is “embarrassing”. Many of us have learnt the hard way the truth of the adage that it’s best not to put into a work email anything you couldn’t defend if it was printed off and stuck up in a public place. That rule must now surely apply to anyone talking to US officials (indeed, Shell’s Ann Pickard is doubtless now ruing failing to heed her own misgivings about talking to “leaky” US officials). WikiLeaks have revealed a credibility gap not merely between US words and actions, but between those of politicians and officials all over the world. The difference between the Australian government’s official optimism on Afghanistan and its private and apparently very deep pessimism is only the latest example. This credibility gap — ya’ll know the origin of that phrase I’m sure — as much as loose security and over-classification within the US government and military, is what needs to be addressed as a result of WikiLeaks. Why didn’t US taxpayers know from their own government that their armed forces were deeply involved in action in Yemen? Why do Australians have to rely on leaked cables to find out just how pessimistic both politicians and bureaucrats are about a conflict that is costing the lives of our young men? Why do Nigerians need to rely on WikiLeaks to find out their government has been extensively infiltrated by agents of oil companies? No reasons of statecraft or national security could justify the gaps between publicly-stated positions and privately-held beliefs among decision-makers. All politicians and senior officials face a clear decision in the wake of WikiLeaks — either they can gamble that never again will such material make it into the public domain — beyond, um, the other quarter-million cables yet to be released — or they can start closing the gap between what they tell the public and what they actually think. Not all of the embarrassment has been inflicted by the cables themselves. Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland have embarrassed themselves in their rush to declare WikiLeaks guilty of some crime, somewhere. McClelland’s effort to describe quite what WikiLeaks might be guilty of yesterday — explaining that they might be guilty of something under Australian law and so because the Americans might have similar laws — he didn’t know for sure — therefore it might be guilty of something under US law — was humiliating. In contrast, the much-maligned Kevin Rudd’s reaction — in short, that the Americans should tighten their security up, you’ll always cops some knocks in diplomacy and Julian Assange will receive the protection to which he is entitled as an Australian citizen — was a model of common sense, however little we might believe his repeated protestations that he doesn’t give a damn. None of this will fade away. It will continue, for however many months or years it will take for these cables to be released. This isn’t a news event, it’s an entirely new environment for political leaders. Their best bet is to start adjusting. And so, for that matter, should some in the media. |
|
|
|
98 Comments
thanks - nice summary of the issues here.
enjoying your pointers on twitter too.
Pardon my cynicism but as John Ralston Saul and many others have been pointing out for years - Corporations run the world.
Politicians are selected, groomed, installed and if necessary - deposed - at the whim of their corporate masters.
A successful politician is one who does the bidding of his or her corporate sponsors - certain in the knowledge that after their political career is over a comfortable board position with all the accompanying perks will be found for them.
The boasting of Shell Australia chairman Ann Pickard WRT Nigeria says it all.
For many citizens the ‘Credibility Gap’ has become an unbridgeable gulf as every day our so called ‘Political Masters’ demonstrate their duplicity, hypocrisy and deceit.
I personally don’t care if Julian Assange turns out to be another false messiah. Remember – it’s the message that counts – not the messenger. All power to Wikileaks.
The revelation about the Afghan pessimism of Australian leaders was illuminating. It’s fascinating to ponder the potential difference in the Parliamentary debate over our involvement in the war if this information had been available at the time.
BK wrote:
Bernard probably knows but Crikey readers may be interested to know that Fairfax actively take out references and hyperlinks (even to their own journal) in published articles — though the process seems arbitrary. I have had complaints in Comments about this but authors no doubt give up going to the trouble when the sub-ed simply pulls them all out. It is deeply mysterious but I don’t think it has anything to do with BK’s implied deliberate lack of transparency or anything sinister. It is probably a result of simple woeful ignorance of the trend in online publication/journalism, combined with overworked editing staff, plus legal paranoia (the same as the previous point because this would need careful verification of each link/ref).
But I should be a bit tolerant because independent writers such as myself do not even bother going through the ritual of submission/non-reply/eventual dismissive rejection that one gets from News Ltd.
At last I know why Conroy was trying to get an internet filter.
I think it goes to a failure of the polity of this country that has existed for nearly as long as I can remember and I think Laurie Oakes summed it all up beautifully last night.
The problem in Australia is that our media seem to be unable to analyse anything, with very few exceptions.
If anyone wants to check out the letters pages they will discover that the rabid friends of Israel are outraged, yet Israel is reporting anything concerning them.
I fail to see any difference between WikiLeaks reporting confidential information it has received to that typically received by newspapers everyday and boldly publicised under the usual heading ‘EXCLUSIVE’. Hardly a week goes by without a Fairfax or News Ltd newspaper publising EXCLUSIVE details from confidential documents obtained about a government department doing something wrong.
Australia’s Attorney-General Robert McClelland needs to explain his legal position above and beyond his political bias accusing WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
As Attorney-General, McClelland on 4th December 2010 made public statements to the effect:
* ‘Julian Assange may have broken Australian law and may not be welcomed back to the country if convicted’
* ‘that United States laws may have been breached’
* ‘the Australian Federal Police are looking at whether any Australian laws have been breached’
* that ‘the Australian government had considered cancelling Mr Assange’s passport.’
Then yesterday on 9th December, McClelland in his legal capacity as Attorney-General, made further public statements accusing WikiLeaks and Julian Assange:
* ‘WikiLeaks has engaged in criminal activity’
* ’ “unauthorised obtaining” of classified US files might, in itself, have been an offence.’
McClelland like his boss Gillard, need to produce the legal basis for their public accusations, else start worrying about their exposure to defamation action.
The pollies are furious and out to get Assange because he threatens their long standing practice of filtering, spinning and controlling information. This is why there is a worldwide campaign of pollies and bureaucrats engaging in every nefarious trick known to get him.
What gives hope is the structure of the net. Its virtually impossible to shut down information once its put up. Wikileaks content is on over 500 mirror sites. And powerful corporate bullies like MasterCard and Visa are finding out that normally powerless plebs can extract revenge with Denial of Service attacks. As greed motivates these arrogant manageralists the more money the lose as their servers go down .
The comments on the Murdoch press are of course but hardly news. Everyone knows that, to the Murdoch press views the truth the way a potter approaches wet clay: raw material that can be shaped into virtually anything. No doubt the right wing ranters at that sheltered workshop at THE AUSTRALIAN will soon be rubbishing Wikileaks. But then that mob could probably out suck the American Labor Party parliamentarians at a U S Embassy reception.
shepherdmarilyn
Good on Laurie for pointing out the bleedin’ obvious last night.
WRT the lack of intelligent media analysis (apart from Crikey – of course!) – media companies are corporations and as such their agenda is to maximise profit and discredit their rivals, whilst entertaining the masses. Not to get to the truth of the matter.
HTTP links has become both a legal and technical minefield. Beyond the problem with defamation and copyright, many ‘bots’ will post links in the user comments linking to website which will infect your computer with viruses.
The Nigerians do not need Wikileak to discover Shell’s link to the government., as they experiences it first hand. Despite the media hype, the diplomatic cables merely reflect the opinions of the authors : they neither consistute ‘the truth’, nor do they represent official US policies. The real fun will start when they release the cables between the US and Israel. Mr Assange may get a suprise visit from the Mossad.
Speaking of bias, last night’s Walkley Awards conspicuously ommitted all independent journalism, and handed its prize for the ‘Best Online Journalism’ to old school in Fairfax’s Andrew Meares of the Sydney Morning Herald for a few candid angles of pollies using his iPhone!
..not even a mention of Crikey & co. out here in independent journalism land.
Yes, I think it is interesting to look at the reactions of various Australian politicians. Julia Gillard has been totally unimpressive, embarrassing even. Malcolm Turnbull and Bob Brown have made very intelligent and well considered responses. Kevin Rudd managed to keep his head up in the face of major embarrassment. I wonder what Mark Arbib thinks about it all though.
I recall the brave actions of Andrew Wilke re the Howard Govt’s intention to invade Iraq, and that Andrew Wilke believed that Howard was not telling us the truth. He was right, but he was not charged with any crime. Surely, his action may have been considered as at best not being a loyal member of the organisation that he was working for? Surely, Julian Assange has not committed any crime - like many media outlets, both newspapers and electronic, he’s just put the information in the public domain. If he’s charged so should the NYT, Fox, SMH, The Australian etc, plus TV - ABC, SBS etc.
There’s no logic in the calls for his arrest let alone calling for him to be assassinataed - I find that chilling indeed! So much for the US claims of upholding democracy blah blah. Isn’t that why they invaded Afghanistan & Iraq? To bring democracy etc? Bring misery and death is the reality!
I find the positive responses by many national and international people encouraging - renewed my faith in people’s judgement and outrage over injustices. If anyone or country has put peoples’ lives at risk it’s Bush/Blair/Howard, who are responsible for killing well over a million people in a few years. I notice, that these people and their descendants haven’t uttered one word of regret or remorse for the absolute misery they’ve caused. They’ve put our lives at risk by creating people who are crazed with grief and the desire for revenge - who can blame them? They’re only concerned for their hides and lust for careers and power. Sickening!
Great call on Wikileaks as a new environment for news, BK.
The average media personality is averse to serious investigative journalism. Dig too deeply and you might unearth skeletons that can be tied back to the multinational parent organisation, or upset people who can can make life uncomfortable.
Wikileaks is a low risk means through which the mainstream media can perform its intended function of shedding light into dark corners. Steaming piles of facts that might challenge or embarrass the establishment are scooped, bagged, and delivered by Wikileaks to the inboxes of talking heads paid far too well to get their hands dirty.
By exploiting the corporate media’s tendencies towards cowardice, laziness, and greed for ratings, Wikileaks has incentivised them to report on news they wouldn’t normally touch with a ten foot pole. Genius!
So far Rudd has appeared Prime Minister like, Gillard clumsy, floundering and stupid. Now Oakshott has joined Wilkie in voicing crticism in pulic of both the PM and McClelland. It would be very tactiful and sensible to keep the Indies on side here. It is obvious how Mr Wilkie feels about Wikileaks, his collegues on the cross benches will be more than interested in his ongoing remarks. JG should be mindful of the robots warning…”DANGER WILL ROBINSON”
So, what is McClelland saying — that Assange is no longer an Australian citizen and will not be provided with a visa, or that he is a citizen and will be exiled?
And this guy calls himself the Attorney-General. Jerk-General would be a more fitting title. He deserves to be pilloried out of office.
Socratease, in a shambles of a press conference earlier today, in which McClelland was full of contradictions, he has ordered the Feds to investigate Assange and the cables, then declared he has the right to remain innocent, until proven guilty (appears he is doing his damn best to do that)…then said Assange is receiving full consular support, but doesn’t know what support, or if it was asked for. He, the Attorney General has not spoken to our High Commission in London.
Added he was unsure yet if Australian law has been broken but was sure American Law had.
My bet is the US has been on the phone to both the PM and the AG with instrucgtions to be prepared to get him.
If I was Assange Australia would be the last place, apart from the US I would be heading for., if and when he is released.
This Govt it pains me to say, is becoming a major disappointment under Gillard.
I did find it vaguely inspiring that Rudd and Howard had pointed out the obvious in that the responsibility for said likes does fall on with the USofA. Beyond that OZ politics has an opportunity to come clean and be a little more honest with its citizenry. The alternative is yet to show itself as we are only at the beginning of this fiasco but I do think we have had a gut-full of the lies and everything being beholden to corporate whims.
We are all individuals want the same things in life and for the most part we’re not a greedy people in OZ. We teach our kids to be truth full and to respect others. Is it not time the ruling class thought the same.
What a bunch of tossers. A weak and vacillating PM, an Attorney-General who doesn’t know the law and a minister who has seemingly breached teh Official Secrets Act. It’s only that the Libs are worse that stops me calling for a change in government.
@DAVID - This government and the Rudd govt has been a big disappointment to me. Should’ve known better I believe. This is disgusting behaviour for a so-called democratic government. I’m waiting for some leaks about the Howard administration. I’d love to read what the comments were about Downer, Howard, Ruddock and Co. I was surprised and pleased to hear Laurie Oakes comments - renews my faith too. I find this whole situation pretty disgusting, as do others. It’s sad, that in 2010 politicians are proven to be so disgraceful in their behaviour, and who have such contempt for anyone who stands in their way, re lust for either personal and/or national greed/power etc.
As AXEEGENE said, what do we teach our kids about the truth, let alone respect for our fellow human beings who share this planet with us.
Perhaps a bit off topic - but I wonder if anyone else is amazed at how quickly the mainstream media has already lost interest in Arbib’s in-house blabbing to US operatives about the Rudd’s shaky tenure and his probable challenger.
The dialogue is highly shonky to my my mind- and even more shonky that “loose lips” Loosley and the aspiring Bill Shorten come out so virulently in Arbib’s defence. People should read “Legacy of Ashes”- a history of the CIA- to understand the historical US modus operandi.
Not that Obama is likely to have been told anything- I wonder if the words ‘not to be trusted” appear on his file.
An Attorney General who doesn’t know the law is OK.
An AG who thinks he knows it all, even when he’s making it up, is out of his depth.
An AG who thinks out loud about cancelling the passport of — in other words, outlawing — an Australian citizen who maybe broke a law or maybe not, should resign.
In other news, see this story on Wired.com in September about internal discipline within Wikileaks.
Wonderful: the Leak Master, leaked. The electronic grilling of Domscheit-Berg by Assange is at that link. It seems authority and discretion does have a legitimate role in Assange’s world after all. It just depends on whose authority, and whose discretion.
“Assange Calls For Obama’s Resignation If Confirmed President Approved UN Spy Ring.”
This is like a foot soldier calling for Ulysses S. Grant to resign during the Appomattox campaign of 1865. President Obama is keeping a steady hand on the till of world affairs. Julian Assange is acting like an anarchist gossip merchant.
I repeat…
Some things must remain private and confidential. In any organisation whether it be a corporation, government, defence force or charity there is a hierarchy of awareness and responsibility. Certain people are invested with executive decision making. Obviously these people should be employed on merit. Pure anarchic openness of all information sources leads to mass confusion, as people are unable to prioritise and process the data. A happy child trusts his parents to make good decisions on his/her behalf. That is why we need command and control structures in place around the world. When people feel that their confidences can be betrayed at the click of a mouse they are loathe risking authentic connections with others. I’m sure that Mr.Assange and his associates have a problem with the word “sovereignty”. We actually need more respect for intellectual property and healthy boundaries everywhere right now, not less.
P.S. What does it say about Mr.Assange’s respect for healthy boundaries and the concept of sovereignty that he recently had casual, unprotected sex ?
Gillard and McLelland are, as stated before, just doing what their U.S. masters are telling them to do and Assange would be wise to give his home country a wide berth for the time being or at least until this mob have been thrown out of office. Just think that she now has the taxpayer support available to any ex-prime minister once she’s out. Please, oh please, make it soon.
I want my money back.
This is the circus of the year. Forget the Rudd dismissal, the hung Parliament, and Adam “Bambi” Bandt becoming the President of Australia. Look what we’ve got here:
1. The country which led the world in the sexual revolution comes within inches of being the first Western nation to ban sex;
2. The Australian Attorney General speculates out loud about effectively outlawing — striking out from the protection of the law — an Australian citizen, without being able to allege any particular law that he may have broken;
3. Thanks to Crikey’s Luke Buckmaster for this one … The faceless man behind the Rudd sacking asks for protection as a confidential informant for the Americans, which “makes sense, when you think about it. It’s easier being a confidential informant if you have no face.”
4. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange conducts an internal investigation of a security leak to the media, of internal opinions within his own organization.
Can it get any better than this?
ADAMN: You repeat? Bad luck poppet! I recommend those wotsit tablets, they are excellent for that.
“Certain people are invested with executive decision making. ” Are they indeed?
These ‘certain people’ have the capacity to end the lives of others,-not their own. As such they are accountable.
They have not been, but accountability is long overdue-;that is why there is such global outrage at the current moves. A fair slab of folks are saying that they’ve have had enough.
“……………………..leads to mass confusion, as people are unable to prioritise and process the data. A happy child trusts his parents to make good decisions on his/her behalf. “
This is a joke?? You are taking the waters??
………..ah sod it!! It isn’t worth dissecting such crap.
How low is Amazon! They won’t host the site but they will sell the cables to Kindle users! http://xurl.at/2h1
ADAMneira
I fail to see any connection with sex and sovereignty and to make any is absurd. Strange how people against wikileaks play the man and not the substance in the leaks. JL didn,t fabricate the leaks or steal them. WL makes it possible for others to whistleblow just as say Bolt does or various other jounos. By the way Bolt did an article that was secret provided no doubt by some Howard government staffer or minister yet no such fuss or accusations levelled at him. So leaks are ok when its the government doing the leaking but criminal when the leak is embarrassing such as the airport security.
It’s not all comedy, though. Following the 25 July release of Afghanistan war files on Wikileaks, an open letter from Reporters Without Borders slammed the web publisher for endangering the lives of Afghan collaborators able to be identified using the online material.
That’s the same point I’ve made elsewhere: professionalism, responsibility, and selection of information that genuinely increases the public’s knowledge. Anyway, the New York Times later reported that the Taliban took a great interest in Julian Assange’s work.
If Stephen Conroy had even a slim chance of getting his internet filter legislation passed then he’s got Buckley’s now.
For anyone interested its still possible to donate to WIKILEAKS using a credit card. The details are at:
http://213.251.145.96/support.html
After listening to McClelland’s press conference, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. The man is an utter disgrace. If Paul Keating served with him, perhaps he inspired Keating’s barb, Slow Moving Dope. Legal friends tell me that if his name comes up at dinner parties, widespread laughing quickly follows. I’m not a great fan of George Brandis — who can forget his disgraceful attacks at the Children Overboard hearings — but at least he can put together coherent sentences, unlike Potato Head Bob.
Zut Alors, Reporters Without Borders disagrees. After having protested to PM Rudd about the internet filtering plan, and designating Australia a “country under surveillance” on its “Internet Enemies” watchlist, the press-freedom watchdog suggested in the above letter that Wikileaks was playing into their hands:
Freecountry,
Reporters Without Borders are entitled to their opinion but Gillard will never get the legislation through the House of Reps - let alone the Senate after next July.
The ‘intelligence assets’ are only referred to by code name, and only their handler knows who the person is. The Taliban on the other hand will use any excuse to kill so they can intimidate the rest of the population. Any Afghan who is suspected of talking with the US cables will most certainly die. This is how the Taliban generates fear. Everyone on Taliban’s ‘hit list’ will be killed, Wikileak will merely make it happen sooner.
Well I guess you’re not in ASIO counterintelligence, Ronin, because by looking at who would have known what at a certain time, and seeing what sources didn’t say, you can sometimes narrow it down to just a few people, and the Taliban torturers can take it from there.
Gillard is in a bind. She is so eager to suck up to the yanks that she has forgotten that here it is Australian law which applies.
Have we got a secret Cabal of US spies working at the top of the Government?
Arbib and Howes have already been implicated (both sleazy bastards anway). But the cables also assert that Gillard goes “out of her way to assist the US embassy”.
A far cry from her ‘radical’ past.
At least Latham had the guts to express justified criticism of the US.
LIZ: I have just discovered that Astrid wrote an open letter to you. I am so sorry if you felt any embarrassment.
The woman, her sister, and their husbands have been collecting information against me for the past 16-17 years in order to contest a 15 year old will left by my dead husband.
Everything I have written to you in the past has been the truth.
Bear with me for however long, and however many years it takes to clear my name.
Most sincerely.
@ Damien “The revelation about the Afghan pessimism of Australian leaders was illuminating. It’s fascinating to ponder the potential difference in the Parliamentary debate over our involvement in the war if this information had been available at the time.”
Even more illuminating in light of the fact that no parliamentary debate about the war had occurred prior to The Greens pushing it through post-election. Without the Greens consistent stance on this matter, full parliamentary debate may never have occurred.
To all the people who believe everything should be made available at all times and at all costs, I ask you, now that you know that:
* There’s concern among the US and other foreign officials over the fitness of President Karzai to govern;
* A number of Arab leaders called on the US to attack Iran to stop its suspected nuclear weapons programme;
* China is frustrated with North Korea;
* Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi made threats to halt all trade deals if Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi died in jail;
* US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that donors in Saudi Arabia are the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide”;
What are you going to do about them?
There’s a responsibility that comes with owning or being privy to information - a responsibility that doubtless won’t be taken up by the many who just think “we should be entitled to know everything”.
MLF:
So, upon reading all the available Wikileaks material on Afghanistan, you should be well-informed enough to advise who can govern in Karzai’s stead. Plenty of good people, but how many of them can hold enough alliances to make it work? I’m sure the answer must be in there, surely Wikileaks is a comprehensive compendium of everything we need to know. Or if all else fails, maybe we can send them Kevin Rudd, see if they’ll follow him. Or I know — Paul Hogan, they’ll love him, as long as he wears his hat.
HOW IS THIS?.
Months ago I sent an Email to Stephen Smith, concerning Afghanistan, it bounced, and suggested that I try the minister for defense, so being DIPLOMATIC , I copied the reply and sent it to Julia, and the Mad Monk, asking who was the minister.
Just yesterday I got a reply, of bull, but the interesting thing was that the letter was an attachment.
In red at the bottom was IMPORTANT this Email remains the property of the Department of Defense and is subject to the jurisdiction section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this Email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the Email
Re. source documents:
A major Danish newspaper, Politiken, has opened its own Wikileaks database to the public - can be accessed here - search in published Wikileaks/cablegate docs.
The newspaper imports and stores wikileaks documents in its own database to keep them available to its journalists despite closure of source databases etc, and then recently decided to take a stand for information freedom and open the database to all Danes.
Politiken’s Wikileaks news articles also now consequently links to the source Wikileaks document the story is based on - like in this articlethis one (in Danish) about Pfizer manipulating the Nigerian government to abandon an investigation into a medical experiment with children.
Note that “DOKUMENTATION Se Pfizer-dokumentet her (engelsk)” means: “DOCUMENTATION - See the Pfizer document here (in English)” and links directly to the Wikileaks source document in Politiken’s database.
That is the way to go!
KENNETHROBINSON2,
All business emails I have received from any official body (e.g. federal and state government departments, banks, the ABC) in Australia and in other countries contain similar notices about confidentiality and deleting the email and contacting the sender if I am not the intended recipient. The same notice appears on personal emails from any individuals working for such official bodies. Presumably the notices are part of the email templates used by the respective organisations.
Sometimes a legal warning or notice is included, but I do not recall ever seeing anything in red or anything about the Crimes Act, perhaps because I have not had correspondence with the Department of Defence or any other security body which would require this extra warning.
Incidentally, our Department is the Department of Defence — the Department of Defense is the American department. Do you really have something from our department with an American spelling in it?
KennethRobinson2,
Try communicating with politicians via letters not email. Letters carry more gravitas and you will definitely receive a response (ah yes, often bullsh*t but at least you’ve made your point and given some genuine feedback). It takes only slightly more effort to print out a letter on your computer than composing an email.
I have never failed to receive a reply to my letters - usually within a month.
Incumbent Laboralists who succumb to political influence from vestrd interests should start alternate career planning.
LIZ45: I’ve asked Amber Jamison to forward to you a letter explaining my daughter’s (Astrid Southey) open letter to you on Monday 9 June ‘10.
I am waiting for my solicitor’s permission to explain the truth about my late husband, Martin Alstergren.
Until I receive this permission I shall just have to leave it to your own good judgement as to whether or not I am a congenital liar. (I can assure you I’m not)
It was quite memorable to read Laurie Oakes’ summation of Wikileaks in today’s Hun. It certainly made the efforts of Andrew Bolt look as shonky as the man himself.
Interesting piece by Jonathon Holmes on The Drum (ABC Online): “Julian Assange and the slow stupefaction of the state:”
Venise said:
Over the years I have never been a great fan of Oakes, but I find myself in agreement with just about everything he’s written to date on in the Wikileaks matter. In the Hun/Daily Telegraph article his closing point is right on the mark:
“More serious, though, is the implied threat to Australian journalists. Over the years, I have broken a number of important stories on the basis of leaked classified documents.
Most other political journalists worth their salt have done the same. Is McClelland saying we should be in jail? Is that the Gillard Government’s view of press freedom? In her eagerness to impress the Americans, our pragmatic PM is entering dangerous territory.”
I can’t get the Hun/Tele, and unlike you Soc, I am a Laurie fan - but is he just writing this today? About the threat to journalists? Isn’t that PM/AG story like a week old now? Gotta move quicker than that my friend!
@Free - am I misreading, or are you having a dig at me?
@MLF - seems you are having a dig at me.
It’s available online with this byline: * Laurie Oakes * From: The Daily Telegraph * December 11, 2010 12:00AM
@SOCRATEASE, the ABC article - Julian Assange and the slow stupefaction of the state is great, thanks for the tip.
@Anne1024,
I’m reading Assange’s 2006 essays on conspiracy (as linked at zunguzungu), at the moment.
@SOCRATEASE,
I am reading the Zunguzungu analysis of his essay - very interesting thinking by Julian Assange. US should adopt his thinking to improve their “war on terror” strategies … instead of wasting all their money on ineffective and unpopular wars.
@VENISE - I haven’t seen any email from this woman!
Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government” by Zunguzungu
As mentioned by someone in another thread, there’s some good coverage (in English) of the cables on Spiegel Online.
Put http://www in front of this:
spiegel.de/international/topic/wikileaks_diplomatic_cables/
As mentioned by someone in another thread, there’s some good coverage (in English) of the cables on Spiegel Online.
spiegel.de/international/topic/wikileaks_diplomatic_cables/
I am truly surprised. As a relatively recent American immigrant to Australia, I made quite a push to convince my family that Australia would provide us a better life. The negative reaction of the Australian public regarding the actions of Gillard and McClelland has stunned me.
For years in America, I had grown accustomed to the government arresting citizens suspected of “terrorism” and sending them off to God knows where with no trial or rights to have the truth tortured out of them. Some of the politicians in the USA are openly calling for Assange’s assassination. What Gillard has done to set off the Australian public was just a normal day for Bush, and Obama is not much better. I had grown accustomed to guilty until proven innocent and trial by media.
It is heartening to see a country whose citizens understand their rights, and will fight for them when the politicians inevitably start trampling on them.
@Meowt said:
It is heartening to see a country whose citizens understand their rights, and will fight for them when the politicians inevitably start trampling on them.
I’m aware that many (perhaps the majority?) of Americans believe that the government is out to get them. The US Bill of Rights seems to be front of mind for many of its citizens. Here, although there is no Bill of Rights as such, there has always been a healthy disrespect for authority and authoritarianism — particularly British authority — from the early days of settlement. Politicians are tolerated and/or ignored by the great unwashed as professional bullshitters as long as they are not grossly ripping us off, dipping their snouts outrageously into the trough or trying to impose big brother type laws on us.
My own view of politicians is that they are the price of democracy; a necessary evil. I don’t give a toss for the great majority of them, regardless of party.
The notion of the “fair go” runs deep with most Australians so when one of our citizens is effectively disowned by our government — indeed effectively handed over to a foreign government — in an act of crass political expediency then they can expect to be lambasted and pilloried long and hard by a whole range of their constituents.
LIZ: I’m the woman who is sending an e-mail to you via Crikey. In it I am telling you something about an impending court-case. Also I am refuting my daughter Astrid Southey’s -but written under the name Astrid Alstergren Mon 9 June ‘10- an open letter to you refusing to believe her late father was a wife beater.
Also, he was a compulsive gambler. A fact which was widely known throughout Melbourne and half of Victoria.
@Soc - I wasn’t having a dig at you. I was suggesting if Laurie Oakes (who I like) was writing about the PM/AG thing a week after it happened then it was a bit late in the day…
Compared to Assange, every journo in the world is a dilettante.
I’ve often said to Crikey that half its time should be spent on mole acquisition, and the other half publishing the results. Squire Beecher has to become a mole-farmer. There’s no future in a chookshed of roosters.
Otherwise Crikey will remain just another comment site.
Online opinion is pub talk without the booze.
Worse, online op-ed sites become little universes of certainty. Their assumptions and agendas confirmed by daily propinquity. Comforting and therapeutic perhaps, but self-deluding.
Consider Crikey’s failure to predict or comprehend the rise of Abbott, or the collapse of climate millenarianism. And its inability to transcend beltway myopia. Or to transcend narrow inner-urban preoccupations. Not to mention its inability to sniff out bad policy before the roof burns- e.g. the litany of bizarre Ruddard “stimulus” and regressive global warming programs…
You can make mountains out of molehills.
MLF: I feel you miss the point. It was his take on the Wikileaks, from the perspective as a political journalist of many years standing, which made it so interesting. Together with the fact that his opinion is diametrically opposed to that of his boss, Rupert Murdoch.
If you have read Andrew Bolt’s nasty little effort-about a week ago-you can hear the heels clacking together and the “”Zeigheil mein Fuehrer”” and the shocking servility revealed by Bolt. Compare this to Laurie Oakes piece, and you will understand Oakes’ refusal to kowtow to Ruptured Rupert.
Like SOCRATEASE, I had never been overly impressed with Laurie Oakes, whereas after reading his article on Wikileaks, I am utterly impressed.
Fair enough. As I said above, I haven’t read it (still cant locate it online). I was only commenting on the single quote provided. Clearly there’s more context to it that I’m missing.
The PM’s original statement regarding Assange was a disgrace. Her clarifications were no less disgusting.
When your stuff-up is of these monumental proportions, only a full and complete apology is close to sufficient.
She as a choice. She can try to avoid the Opposition attacking her over her credibility for the remainder of her career as appears to be her strategy, ignoring the number of votes that will flee to the Greens and/or independents. Or, she can re-affirm in simple language her complete support for the rights of an Australian working overseas.
She might even listen again to the affirmation by her Foreign Minister on the same subject. Her miss-handling of this matter has made Mr Rudd look good.
@ Tamo,
Perhaps, in Julia Gillard’s eyes, Assange’s greatest mistake is that he’s not an ‘Australian working family’ - just being Australian is insufficient to warrant her support.
@ Meowt
I agree with every point made by Socratease @4.18am. From my observations US citizens are more prone to fear than Aussies, therefore their politicians can use this tool effectively to maintain control of the herd. Due to our convict background there’s always been a healthy irreverence of authority in Australia, perhaps we’re now carrying that gene in our DNA…
The last prime minister to use fear was John Howard post Sept 11 attack and, to some degree, it served him for a while. But the mood has changed since 2007 and Australians have no intention of seeing another countryman incarcerated at Gitmo or another hellhole at the behest of the US government (or Sweden etc.)
MLF,
See heraldsun.com.au/opinion/laurie-oakes for links to Laurie Oakes’ Opinion pieces. The one you are looking for is here — heraldsun.com.au/opinion/pm-julia-gillard-plumbing-new-depths/story-e6frfhqf-1225969271859 — with (five) comments from readers.
You can also find it here — dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/labor-ducks-dives-and-jumps-in-deep-end-on-wikileaks/story-e6frezz0-1225969154180 — no comments.
@VENISE - Oh! I see! That’s fine. Look forward to receiving the email.
I’ll go and read Laurie Oakes article too. I was pleasantly surprised by his response to Gillard and McClelland. I try to avoid reading Bolt as I find him to be a very nasty and dangerous little man. I don’t watch Insiders as I can’t stand him or Ackerman - to watch them is more than a body can bear. I wonder what ‘nasty school’ they went to?
Take care, Venise! I’m on your side!
What a remarkable credit to Crikey posters!! There are two discussions going on here. One being the definitive in ‘off topic’ !!
Yet all posters have remained on the main topic as if nothing untoward is happening!
I’ll be damned! That’s class!!!
(This is not a dig VA.) I reckon it’s impressive is all.
Nice one, cheers A.N., have read it now. And yeah, my observation made on a single quote is out of context given the whole. So ta for the link!
I suspect, as Laurie ponders, that yes - there may have been a danger for anyone breaking stories based on leaked classified information. Australia doesn’t have a ‘culture’ of whistleblowing, and I’m sure this is not helped by the fact there are minimal, if any, real protections under the law. We are way behind other OECD countries on this, and Gov really needs to pull its finger out and sort it. (That said, I still don’t think all Wikileaks cables released to date amount to whistleblowing…)
I find @Meowt’s comment and follow-ups interesting. Do you not think the ‘irreverence’ and other traits assigned to Australians above are also because, by and large, we are not familiar with the horror of war, certainly not on our soil. The vast majority have no direct experience of the terror of terrorism. We do not suffer from political or religious persecution, we are not a primary target for political or military attack, we do not live on a continent in the midst of wars going back decades and decades. We have a relatively small population and no civil conflict.
I guess what I’m saying is its good that we are like we are, but we shouldn’t forget we have the luxury to be as we are because of the freedoms we may sometimes take for granted. The rest of the world really isn’t so lucky.
Thank you, Socratease (Sun 1.29am) for the Spiegel link! Looks like a lof fascinating reading!
Glenn Greenwald over at salon.com also has really insightful posts on the WikiLeaks issue, as well as whole lot of other issues:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html
@MLF:
For mine, it dates back to experiences of British rule of the colony of New South Wales and the rotten politicians, magistrates and police force that emerged from those seeds. It also has its roots in the attitudes of many Irish free settlers who had experienced other forms of thuggery under British rule.
ELAN: I didn’t take your comment as being a dig. You spoke the truth.
LIZ: Both Ackerman and Bolt are out of the stable of journalists who are paid to tell it like the boss wants it written.
In the remnants of today’s Hun-I have morning coffee at one of the nearby cafés everyday. Scattered around the different places are newspapers others have left. Invariably I’m left with the Hun-there was, brace yourself, a halfway interesting article by Devine-is her first name Amanda? She believes Wikileaks and the group calling themselves Anonymous who brought down PayPal, Visa and Mastercard et al, delineates the future form of warfare. And, surprise surprise, she agrees with Laurie Oakes.
I’m trying very hard to take care. U R A pal.
The latest is the the Brits botched the Russians trying to arrest the killers of the man they poisoned.
It’s interesting too to see the conservatives Chris Berg agree with Assange and call for more of it.
There’s also been a terrorist attack in Stockholm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11977524
VENISE - It’s Miranda Devine! She surprises me every now and then. I have to be in ‘the mood’ to read her columns - usually very conservative/right wing.
I find it interesting, that the americans, who worship so-called free enterprise wield so much power re Visa and Mastercard etc. You’d think that would be part of their laws - not to pressurise those financial outlets to cut off Wikileaks? Some corporate lawyer could probably take that Senator or whoever to Court. Would it be allowed in Australia? I could see a damages suit happening.
The US? How interesting to see them confronted by one outlet over leaks that are at worst damaging and/or embarrassing? Pity they didn’t take action over the greedy bastards who caused the GFC!
I’m looking forward to the leaks re the big banks and big companies, like BP? I’m enjoying their discomfort immensely! Pity it didn’t happen decades ago.
I’m taking heart in the fact, that it would appear, that if the charges or alleged crimes committed by Julian Assange aren’t crimes in Britain, then no judge could legally hand him over to the country who want him extraditied - I hope that is true, as it seems, that what he’s alleged to do wouldn’t be a crime here, and we’re supposed to operate judicially like Britain. I’m the last one to defend any person who commits rape, but it doesn’t seem to be such a crime - just perhaps, irresponsibility, which isn’t a crime in this country.
I know I’ll wait until hell freezes before they show some concern for Iraqis or Aghanis? Disgusting!
I’m waiting for someone in the US to be charged with commiting war crimes re that video of Iraqi citizens and journalists being murdered, or knowing that Iraq people were torturing citizens, and they did nothing about it. It just goes on, while the emphasis is placed on accusations of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’ - in that case, every media outlet that reports the leaks should also be charged! This would also include, the NYT, FOX etc. They must really have such contempt for us, as they think we’re stupid!
RoboCop McClelland “..somewhere a crime is being committed”
MLF - I was having a dig not at you but at the notion that all we have to do to be well informed is crack open the secrets someone is trying to keep. I suggest that in the information age, information is cheap. It’s understanding that comes hard.
In the specific case of Karzai, informed observers (of which I am not one) have noted that there are very few alternatives to Karzai and they are all far more gangster-like than he is. The best prospect for a national leader to unify the tribes was Ahmad Shah Massoud (there’s a name to look up in the cables) and failure to support him was a great missed opportunity in the 1990s. But the US was relying on Pakistan to take over local influence, Pakistan’s intelligence service turned out to be almost a wing of the Taliban movement, and there was a pretty big sign hanging over Afghanistan saying “superpowers not welcome”. Massoud was assassinated on 9 Sep 2001 — in fact, this may have been the pivotal event of the year, a death the Taliban (and the Russians) had sought since the 1980s, and in the end only Al Q’aeda was capable of delivering. While Massoud was alive, the Afghans could still dream of unification and decent government, and no amount of money Osama could offer Mohammed Omar would be worth protecting him after the 11 Sep attacks. With Massoud dead the attack on the US could go ahead.
So the choice now seems to be the Karzai government or no legitimate government at all. Julian Assange, who appears to me to be an anarchist based on his own writings, might think the latter is preferable, but anarchy (people living free and organizing themselves without any government as such) is a total fantasy.
In other words, you can fill up the newspapers with grand exposés of corruption in the Karzai government, based on all this leaked material, and people will suddenly delude themselves they are well informed and demand their government stop supporting Karzai. The leaked cables, taken out of context, represent quantity of information, not quality. If you really want to understand the material they touch on, you need to look elsewhere — and there are no easy shortcuts, no missing piece of the puzzle that will suddenly make us all wise and informed.
Massoud was effectively a “Russian asset” by the time of his assasination. He is also a Tajik. Karzai was selected as the ‘puppet’ because he is a Pashtun, and it was hoped that his ethnic links will help with winning over the other Pashtun tribal leaders from the Taliban. It didn’t work out very well.
A full understanding of the dynamics in Afghanistan will require a life time of study : you cannot become an expert just by browsing wiki. However, a full understanding is not necessary to recognize that things are not working!! The US and the Australian government have been lying to their citizens about the military progress in Afghanistan. It is dismal. As soon as the US troop leaves, the Taliban will take over the country again. Karzai has no legitimacy with the Afghan people. He and his family is using the opportunity to loot as much as they can.
There are no good options in Afghanistan.
@FREECOUNTRY - The US refer to the Karzai Government as full of crime and corrupt - don’t have to look for rumours at all. ONe of Karzai’s brothers is reputedly involved with the heroin trade, and another is skimming millions of dollars that should be going to the people? It is beyond any reasonable thought as to why the US/NATO forces are propping up a so-called govt full of war lords, some Taliban people, a couple of dregs left over from when the Russians were there - the result as far as the people are concerned, particularly women and girls is horrific. The US must know the background of these people, the thousands of people they killed during the civil war, and some are living good lives in the US! What are US troops dying for?
Why is Australia remaining silent with all this violence going on? They trained some members of another bloke who also has blood on his hands. And Australian troops are risking their lives for what? We’re not even abiding by the Geneva Conventions in regard to being occupiers. It would be an absolute joke if not for the fact, that people are dying, being brutalised and living in poverty!
The bloke you refer to doesn’t get a good report card from Malalai Joya from what I recall from reading her book, ‘Raising My Voice’? She should know, she was born there just after the Russians invaded her country. She was thrown out of the Parlt, even though she was one of a few who was democratically elected, for speaking out against the war criminals, rapists and murderers! She’s had at least 5 attempts on her life. I went to listen to her in Sydney recently, sharing with us the realities of living in her country. She/they(majority of Afghanis) want the troops out!
Further evidence — not that its really needed — of McClelland’s “competence” are statements by Rudd about Assange’s passport. In his frequent media appearances to denounce Assange as guilty — of what the ALPs choice for A-G just couldn’t say — he threatened to cancel Asange’s passport. Rudd has indicated that under law he is responsible for passport cancellations , not the Attorney-General. So there we have it: McClelland threatening to do something he cannot under law do. All those reports that his colleagues refer to him as “potato Head” are looking well-founded.
Ronin, there’s no doubt a great deal I don’t know about who Massoud was dealing with; without any help from the US he had to deal with somebody, and the politics in places like Afghanistan is always far more convoluted than the average American or Australian can begin to understand.
But we do know this: he was one of the most important resistance fighters who defeated the Russians during the 80s, and after that he was the most important opposition to the Taliban. It’s doubtful he was as perfect as some of his followers (who belonged to many ethnic groups, not just Tajik) would like to believe; it’s equally doubtful that many of the rumours put out about him by the Taliban, Al Q’aeda, and the Pakistani ISI were true. Calling him a Russian asset would be an obvious place to start destroying his name (a task even more important than killing him) and I have seen all sorts of wild claims on blogs about his private affairs making him into a monster. These lack credibility.
By the way, about 25 per cent of Afghans are Tajik, that is to say, people of Persian origin. Modern Russia is not the USSR and it has a very different relationship with Central Asia today than it did in the 80s, just as China has a very different relationship with Korea today than it did in the 1950s. To go around repeating someone’s r@cist or demonizing labels adds nothing to understanding. All the evidence I’ve read suggests that when Massoud fell, the whole world was shaken, and the cause of freedom for which so many Muslims — Afghan and foreign — had fought in Afghanistan, was all but shattered.
So how about some of the smart-arses denouncing this or that leader from afar, suggest how a shattered country can be put back together, or explain why simply leaving it to its own devices will lead to stability in the hub of Central Asia and better lives for the Afghan people. You can’t do it, because the answer is not in Wikileaks.
Botswanna,
I’m almost sorry that McClelland didn’t cancel Assange’s passport because that would mean the Attorney-General had done something illegal. Then perhaps McClelland’s passport may have to be cancelled?! What a potentially entertaining farce…
Arrest McClelland: criminal stupidity.
He can share a cell with Julia.
Gillard is living proof that cunning isn’t related to intelligence.
But she’s perfect for the corporatist ALP. An opportunist inside an ideological shell.
Anne1024 has posted some very interesting links above. These lead to commentaries on, and links to, some papers written by Julian Assange in 2006 which, if he still believes today what he wrote then, place the Wikileaks project in a very interesting context.
I strongly recommend readers follow Anne1024’s links through to Assange’s papers and read what’s there. Last week I commented that the main effect of exposing the diplomatic cables would be a reduction in the ability of US diplomacy to function. The papers describe US foreign policy as a “conspiracy” and suggest how it can be defeated by causing the flow of information between its nodes (diplomatic missions, etc) to congeal.
I strongly recommend that readers do not.
The zunguzungu link is a tad problematic. By all means go there if you have a spare hour or two to waste-or be prepared to unplug your computer just to get out of the bloody place!
In that case, don’t worry about the zunguzungu URL, all you need to see is the copy of Julian Assange’s essays retrieved from iq.org and archive.org, and if you like, the discussion byJonathan Holmes at the ABC website.
Campbell.
Gillard as “the perfect corporatist ALP” indeed. Yes, the connections are all too obvious and I wonder who the others lurking in the shadows might be?
Democracies have their puppets too.
@Free - thanks for earlier clarification. We are, in fact, on the same page on this point.
As for the essays - if they are for real, all I can say is… Crikey. That is some weird conspiracy s — t going on there.
And actually brings back something I asked last week - do we have to view this whole extravaganza in light of motive?
“Socratease” at 12 December 2010 at 4:18 am, and Zut Alors at 12 December 2010 at 10:55 am,
Oh please, not again these tired old cliches about the Australian character and its convict-bred “distrust of authority”. The Labor government found it very easy to convince voters recently that the mining industry was dragging down the economy, and that the banks were responsible for their high mortgage payments. Extremely gullible. Just because on this occasion people are siding with another individual (whom they believe to be some sort of comic book hero) against the government, does not qualify them all as some sort of born-and-bred freedom fighters.
Instead of patronising the American with self-congratulatory cliches you would do well to learn from him/her. One of the big differences between them and us is that Australians are forever turning to one politician to save them from another politician. For readers of Crikey, it’s either (a) Gillard will save you from Abbott, or (b) Bob Brown will save you from Gillard, or some variation.
It is beyond the sophistication of most Australians (and I say this with all fondness for my countrymen) to mistrust all of the politicians and put their trust in a system of laws. It seemed to me Meowt was describing an assault by politicians on the law itself in the US, making it an ineffective restraint on the politician’s power over the citizen.
LIZ: The thing which I find most worrying is that occasionally the ABC veers off it’s right-wing bias, and shows us a bit of reality TV. More than once, on Four Corners, they have interviewed Afghanis, and shown us the connection between the USA and the corrupt government of Afghanistan, and how America props up the Karzai government.
Does anyone look at these programmes? Hell no! Nothing must be allowed to penetrate the Stygian gloom of their fixed opinions. Perhaps it’s asking too much to hope that the average Ocker might question something?
Off-topic, but, sad times:
Veteran US diplomat Richard Holbrooke has died following a second round of surgery to treat a torn aorta. Mr Holbrooke was best-known for helping to broker the Dayton Peace agreement in 1995 which ended the Bosnian war. At the time of death he was President Barack Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11988233
I didn’t mention convicts.
Huh? If I needed instruction on being patronising, I’d turn to you. Physician heal thyself.
If you’re going to act as a spokesman for the Australian character, at least change that ridiculous, embarrassing moniker.
Sir, I served with Socrates, I knew Socrates, Socrates was a friend of mine. Sir, you’re no Socrates.
Sir, you’re no Socrates.
… whereas you sir are a wanker.