Wikileaks and the Worldwide Information War
Power, Propaganda, and the Global Political Awakening
December 6, 2010
Introduction
The recent release of the 250,000 Wikileaks documents has provoked unparalleled global interest, both positive,
negative, and everywhere in between. One thing that can be said with certainty: Wikileaks is changing things.
There are those who accept what the Wikileaks releases say at face value, largely due to the misrepresentation of the
documents by the corporate-controlled news.
There are those who see the documents as authentic and simply in need of proper interpretation and analysis.
Then there are those, many of whom are in the alternative media, who approach the leaks with caution and suspicion.
There are those who simply cast the leaks aside as a ‘psy-op’ designed to target specific nations that fit into U.S.
foreign policy objectives. Finally, then, there are those who deplore the leaks as ‘treason’ or threatening ‘security’.
Of all the claims and notions, the last is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous. This essay aims to examine the nature
of the Wikileaks releases and how they should be approached and understood. If Wikileaks is changing things, let’s hope
people will make sure that it changes things in the right direction.
Media Propaganda Against Iran: Taking the Cables at Face Value
This perspective is perhaps the most propagated one, as it is largely influenced and undertaken by the mainstream
corporate media, which present the leaked diplomatic cables as ‘proof’ of the media’s take on major world issues; most
notably among them, Iran’s nuclear program. As per usual, the New York Times steps center stage in its unbridled
contempt for truth and relentless use of propaganda to serve U.S. imperial interests, headlining articles with titles
like, “Around the World, Distress Over Iran,” which explained how Israel and the Arab leaders agree on Iran as a nuclear
threat to the world, with the commentary in the article stating that, “running beneath the cables is a belief among many
leaders that unless the current government in Tehran falls, Iran will have a bomb sooner or later.”[1] Fox News ran an
article proclaiming that, “Leaked Documents Show Middle East Consensus on Threat Posed by Iran,” and commented that,
“the seismic document spill by WikiLeaks showed one area of profound agreement -- that Iran is viewed in the Middle East
as the region's No. 1 troublemaker.”[2]
This, it should be understood, is propaganda. Yet, we need to properly refine our understanding of propaganda in order
to assess what is specifically propagandistic about these stories. While one should remain skeptical of sources and
disinformation campaigns (as those who critically analyze the media have known take place time and time again), one must
also consider the personal perspective of the source and decipher between authenticity and analysis. These documents, I
truly believe, are authentic. In this sense, I do not adhere to the notion that these are a part of a psychological
operation (psy-op) or propaganda effort, in terms of the actual release of the documents. We must keep in mind that the
sources for these cables are U.S. diplomatic channels, and thus the statements within them reflect the perspectives and
beliefs of U.S. diplomatic personnel. The documents are an authentic representation of their statements and beliefs, but
that does not imply that they are an accurate representation of reality.
This is where the media comes in to propagandize the information within the leaks. The two above examples claim that the
leaks show that there is a “consensus” on Iran, and thus, that the U.S. and indeed Israeli positions on Iran for the
past several years have been “vindicated,” namely in that they fear Iran is making nuclear weapons. This is nonsense.
The media has essentially read and propagated the documents at face value, meaning that because U.S. diplomats, Middle
Eastern and Arab leaders all agree that Iran is a “threat” and is trying to make a “nuclear weapon,” it therefore must
be true. This is a non sequitur. If a military general tells several soldiers to commit a raid on a house because there
are “suspected terrorists” inside, the fact that the soldiers carry out the raid – and that they believe there are
terrorists inside – does not make it so. In contextualizing this example with the current Wikileaks release, just
because Middle Eastern and Arab leaders see Iran as a threat, does not make it so.
Again, consider the sources. What makes the Arab leaders trustworthy sources for ‘unbiased’ information? For example,
one ‘revelation’ that made its way around the world was the insistence of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to America to
“cut off the head of the snake” of Iran, and urging America to launch military strikes against Iran.[3] This has largely
been interpreted in the media as “proof” that there is a “consensus” on the “threat” posed by Iran to the Middle East
and the world. This has been the propaganda line towed by the New York Times, Fox News and the Israeli government, among
many others. Yet, we need to properly contextualize this information, something which the New York Times has a long
record of failing to properly do (intentionally, I might add). I do not doubt the authenticity of these statements or
the beliefs of the Arab leaders that Iran is a ‘threat’. Iran, on the other hand, has claimed that the leaks are
“mischievous” and that they serve US interests, and claimed that Iran is “friends” with its neighbours.[4] This too, is
propaganda. Again, we need to contextualize.
Iran is a Shi’a nation, while the Arab nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, are predominantly Sunni. This presents a
means of division among these nations in the region, at least on a superficial basis. The reality, however, is that
Saudi Arabia and Iran are far from “friendly”, and have not been on good terms since the Shah was deposed in 1979. Iran
is Saudi Arabia’s primary contender and competition for power and influence in the region, and thus Iran is, inherently,
a threat to Saudi Arabia, politically. Further, the Arab states, whose claims against Iran have been widely publicized,
such as those of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, the UAE and Egypt, must be understood in their relation to the United
States. The Arab states are American proxies in the region. Their armies are subsidized by the American military
industrial complex, their political regimes (all of which are dictatorships and dynasties), are propped up and supported
by America. The same goes for Israel, although it has at least the public outward appearance of a democracy, much like
the United States, itself.
The Arab nations and leaders know that the only reason they have and maintain their power is because the United States
allows them and helps them to do so. Thus, they are dependent upon America and its political, financial and military
support. Going against America’s ambitions in the region is a sure way to end up like Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The
history of the Middle East in the modern era is replete with examples of how one-time puppets and personal favourites of
the American Empire can so easily turn into new enemies and “threats to peace.” American sponsored regime change takes
place, and a new puppet is installed. If Arab leaders said that Iran was not a threat to peace, they would soon find
themselves targets of Western imperialism. Further, many, like King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, are so virulent in their
hatred and distrust of Iran simply because they are regional competitors for influence. One thing can be said of all
states and their leaders, they are inherently self-interested and obsessed with self-preservation and personal power
expansion.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, is not a passive actor in the regional battle of influence with Iran. In Yemen, Saudi
Arabia is involved in another American imperial war of conquest, in suppressing secessionist and indigenous liberation
movements in the North and South of Yemen. Yemen, ruled by an American supported dictator, Saleh, who has been in power
since 1978, is also working with the Americans to suppress its own population in order to maintain its hold on power.
Much of the presentation of the conflict, however, is in propagandizing the conflict, portraying it as a regional battle
for influence between Saudi Arabia and Iran. While there is no doubt, and clear admissions, of Saudi Arabia’s
involvement in the war, there has been no information that Iran has had any involvement, yet it is constantly accused by
both Saudi Arabia and Yemen of being involved. This may be an attempt to draw Iran into a regional proxy war, if not to
simply demonize the nation further. In the midst of this new Yemeni war, America made an arms deal with Saudi Arabia
which broke the record as the largest U.S. arms deal in history, at $60 billion. The deal, of which it is no secret, is
aimed at building up Saudi Arabia’s military capabilities in order to both engage more effectively in the Yemen war, but
primarily to challenge and counter increased Iranian influence in the region. In short, America is arming its proxy
nations for a war with Iran.
[For a detailed examination of the war in Yemen, see: “Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the American Empire.”]
Israel did not denounce the arms deal as it was taking place, simply because it ultimately served Israel’s interest in
the region as well, of which its main target is Iran. Further, Israel is left subdued to American interests, as an
American proxy itself. If Israel’s military financing and hardware comes from America (which it does), thus making it
dependent upon America for its own military power, Israel is in no position to tell America to not arm its other
regional proxies. If indeed there is a regional war against Iran in the making, which it has appeared for some time that
there is, it is certainly in Israel’s interest to have allies against Iran in the region.
Is Wikileaks a Propaganda Effort?
The leaders of Israel have been very adamant that the Wikileaks documents do not embarrass Israel to any extent. Prior
to the release, the U.S. government briefed Israeli officials on the type of documents that would be released by
Wikileaks regarding Israel.[5] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “there is no disparity between the
public discourse between us and Washington, and the mutual understanding of each other’s positions.”[6] The Israeli
Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, claimed that the documents “show a more accurate view of reality.”[7] One top Turkish
politician stated that looking at which countries are pleased with the releases says a lot, and speculated that Israel
“engineered the release” of documents in an attempt to advance its interests and to “pressure Turkey.”[8]
Further, the Internet and various alternative news organizations are abuzz with speculation that Wikileaks itself may be
a propaganda front, perhaps even a CIA front organization, a method of “controlling the opposition” (which, historically
we know, is no stranger to CIA activities). Yet, this speculation is based upon the use of the information that is
released in the cables, and it strikes me as a lack of contextualizing the documents.
So, how should one contextualize this? Let’s begin with Israel Certainly, Israel is without a doubt a criminal state (as
all states essentially are), but its criminality is amplified more so than most states on this planet, possibly outdone
only by America, itself. Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is one of the most horrific and long-lasting crimes
against humanity seen in the past 50 years, and posterity will view Israel as the vicious, war-mongering, dehumanizing
and abhorrent state it is. Yet, for all that Israel is, one thing Israel is not, is subtle. When the Israeli PM states
that the Wikileaks releases are not embarrassing to Israel, he is mostly correct. This is not because Israel has nothing
to hide (remember, the Wikileaks documents are not ‘top secret’ documents, but merely diplomatic cables), but because
the diplomatic exchanges Israel makes largely reflect the reality of the public statements Israel makes. Israel and its
political elite are no strangers to making absurd public statements, to constantly threatening war with Iran and other
neighbours, or to propagandizing their beliefs that Iran is making nuclear weapons (something which has never been
proven). Thus, the leaks do not ‘hurt’ Israel’s image, because Israel’s image, internationally, is already so abysmal
and despicable, and because Israeli diplomats and politicians are generally as brazen in what they say publicly as they
say to each other, that Israel’s image has largely remained the same. Of course, Israeli leaders – political and
military – are using the leaks to suggest that it “vindicates” their perspective on Iran as a threat, which of course is
an absurd propaganda ploy, the exact same technique taken on by the corporate media, in taking the cables at face value.
While Iran has slammed the Wikileaks releases as Western propaganda aimed at Iran, this statement itself should be taken
as a form of propaganda. After all, Iran claimed that it is “friends” with all its neighbours, a claim which is an
historical and present falsity. Iran, like all states, uses propaganda to advance its own interests. Iran is not by any
means a wonderful nation. However, compared to the American favourites in the region (such as Saudi Arabia), Iran is a
bastion of freedom and democracy, which isn’t saying much. Those who attempt to battle the spread of misinformation and
propaganda, myself included, must remain highly critical of media representations and campaigns against Iran, of which
there are many. Iran is firmly in the targets of America’s imperial ambitions, this is no secret. Yet, there is nothing
in the current batch of Wikileaks releases that strikes me as inauthentic in relation to Iran, especially those
documents pertaining to the perspectives of Western diplomats and Arab leaders in relation to Iran. No doubt, they have
these perspectives simply because they reflect the policy priorities of America and the West, itself, not because they
are factual in their substance. In this, we must decipher between authenticity and accuracy.
Iran stating that the Wikileaks documents are propaganda is a misnomer and is misleading. Analysts must not only
critically assess the authenticity of documents (and the sources from which they come), but also, and perhaps even more
importantly, they must critically analyze the interpretation of those documents. So while I do not doubt the
authenticity of documents pertaining to Western and Middle Eastern perceptions of Iran (as it fits in with the wider
geopolitical realities of the region), it is the interpretation of the documents that I view as active propaganda
efforts on the part of Western governments and media. The methods of this propaganda effort, however, are in depicting
the documents as ‘factual assessments’ of the on-the-ground reality, which they are not. The documents are factual in
how they represent the views of those who wrote them, which does not mean that they are factual in their substance.
There is a difference, and acknowledging this difference is incredibly important in both the exposure of propaganda and
assessment of truth.
The Truth About Diplomacy
Craig Murray is one voice that should be heard on this issue. Craig Murray was a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan
who made a name for himself in exposing intelligence from Uzbekistan related to al-Qaeda as entirely unreliable, due to
the methods of torture used to get the information (such as boiling people alive). This intelligence was passed to the
CIA and MI6, which Murray said was “factually incorrect.” When Murray expressed his concerns with the higher-ups in the
British diplomatic services, he was reprimanded for talking about “human rights.”[9] The British Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO) told Murray that he had one week to resign, and was threatened with possible prosecution or
jail time for revealing “state secrets.”[10] He was subsequently removed from his ambassadorial position, and has since
become something of a political activist. In short, Murray is exactly the type of diplomat a person should want: honest.
But he was also exactly the type of diplomat that Western imperial powers don’t want: honest.
In the midst of the latest Wikileaks releases of diplomatic documents, Craig Murray was asked to write an article for
the Guardian regarding his interpretation of the issue. As Murray later noted, the paper placed his article, largely
reduced, hidden in the middle of a long article which was a compendium of various commentaries on Wikileaks. Murray,
however, posted the full version on his website. In the article, Murray begins by assessing the claims of government
officials around the world, particularly in the United States, that Wikileaks exposes the United States to “harm,” that
it puts lives at risk, and that they will “encourage Islamic extremism,” and most especially, the notion that
“government secrecy is essential to keep us all safe.” Murray explains that having been a diplomat for over 20 years, he
is very familiar with these arguments, particularly that as a result of Wikileaks, diplomats will no longer be candid in
giving advice, “if that advice might become public.” Murray elaborates:
Put it another way. The best advice is advice you would not be prepared to defend in public. Really? Why? In today's
globalised world, the Embassy is not a unique source of expertise. Often expatriate, academic and commercial
organisations are a lot better informed. The best policy advice is not advice which is shielded from peer review.
What of course the establishment mean is that Ambassadors should be free to recommend things which the general public
would view with deep opprobrium, without any danger of being found out. But should they really be allowed to do that, in
a democracy?[11]
Murray pointedly asked why a type of behaviour that is considered reprehensible for most people – such as lying –
“should be considered acceptable, or even praiseworthy, in diplomacy.” Murray explained that for British diplomats,
“this belief that their profession exempts them from the normal constraints of decent behaviour amounts to a cult of
Machiavellianism, a pride in their own amorality.” He explained that diplomats come from a very narrow upper social
strata, and “view themselves as ultra-intelligent Nietzschean supermen, above normal morality” who are socially
connected to the political elite. In criticizing the claims made by many commentators that the release of the leaks
endanger lives, Murray pointedly wrote that this perspective needs to be “set against any such risk the hundreds of
thousands of actual dead from the foreign policies of the US and its co-conspirators in the past decade.” Further, for
those who posit that Wikileaks is a psy-op or propaganda operation or that Wikileaks is a “CIA front”, Murray had this
to say:
Of course the documents reflect the US view – they are official US government communications. What they show is
something I witnessed personally, that diplomats as a class very seldom tell unpalatable truths to politicians, but
rather report and reinforce what their masters want to hear, in the hope of receiving preferment.
There is therefore a huge amount about Iran's putative nuclear arsenal and an exaggeration of Iran's warhead delivery
capability. But there is nothing about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal. That is not because wikileaks have censored
criticism of Israel. It is because any US diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes would very
quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.[12]
Murray concluded his article with the statement that all would do well to keep in mind: “Truth helps the people against
rapacious elites – everywhere.”[13]
World Order and Global Awakening
In attempting to understand Wikileaks and its potential effects (that is, if the alternative media and citizens
activists use this opportunity), we must place Wikileaks within a wider geopolitical context. Our human world exists as
a complex system of social interactions. As powerful and dominating as elites are and have always been, we must
understand that they are not omnipotent; they are human and flawed, as are their methods and ideas. There are other
forces at work in the human social world, and these various interactions created and changed the world into what it is,
and will determine where it is going. In effect, nothing is preordained; nothing is exact. Plans are made, certainly, by
elites, in designing ideas and reshaping and controlling society. However, society – and in the globalized world, a
‘global society’ – react and interact with elite forces and ideas. Just as the people must react to and experience
repercussions from changes in elite processes, so too must the elite react to and experience repercussions from changes
in social processes. Today, we can conceptualize this dichotomy – the geopolitical reality of the world – as ‘The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order’:
There is a new and unique development in human history that is taking place around the world; it is unprecedented in
reach and volume, and it is also the greatest threat to all global power structures: the ‘global political awakening.’
The term was coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and refers to the fact that, as Brzezinski wrote:
For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically
interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world
scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.
It is, in essence, this massive ‘global political awakening’ which presents the gravest and greatest challenge to the
organized powers of globalization and the global political economy: nation-states, multinational corporations and banks,
central banks, international organizations, military, intelligence, media and academic institutions. The Transnational
Capitalist Class (TCC), or ‘Superclass’ as David Rothkopf refers to them, are globalized like never before. For the
first time in history, we have a truly global and heavily integrated elite. As elites have globalized their power,
seeking to construct a ‘new world order’ of global governance and ultimately global government (decades down the line),
they have simultaneously globalized populations.
The ‘Technological Revolution’ involves two major geopolitical developments. The first is that as technology advances,
systems of mass communication rapidly accelerate, and the world’s people are able to engage in instant communication
with one another and gain access to information from around the world. In it, lies the potential – and ultimately a
central source – of a massive global political awakening. Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has allowed
elites to redirect and control society in ways never before imagined, potentially culminating in a global scientific
dictatorship, as many have warned of since the early decades of the 20th century. The potential for controlling the
masses has never been so great, as science unleashes the power of genetics, biometrics, surveillance, and new forms of
modern eugenics; implemented by a scientific elite equipped with systems of psycho-social control.
Brzezinski has written extensively on the issue of the ‘Global Political Awakening,’ and has been giving speeches at
various elite think tanks around the world, ‘informing’ the elites of this changing global dynamic. Brzezinski is one of
the principle representatives of the global elite and one of the most influential elite intellectuals in the world. His
analysis of the `global politicl awakening`is useful because of his repesentation of it as the primary global threat to
elite interests everywhere. Thus, people should view the concept of the `global political awakening`as the greatest
potential hope for humanity and that it should be advanced and aided, as opposed to Brzezinski`s perspective that it
should be controlled and suppressed. However, it would be best for Brzezinski to explain the concept in his own words to
allow people to understand how it constitutes a `threat`to elite interests :
For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and
politically interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and
engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world. The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and
economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination...
The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political
awakening.
...America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world's population is experiencing
a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power. The need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America an historic dilemma: What
should be the central definition of America's global role? ... The central challenge of our time is posed not by global
terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.
... It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething
with unrest. It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of
its perceived lack of political dignity. The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing
global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.
... The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well. With the exception of Europe, Japan and
America, the rapidly expanding demographic bulge in the 25-year-old-and-under age bracket is creating a huge mass of
impatient young people. Their minds have been stirred by sounds and images that emanate from afar and which intensify
their disaffection with what is at hand. Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated
in the often intellectually dubious "tertiary level" educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million "college" students. Typically originating from the socially
insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are
revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen
Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred.
Brzezinski thus posits that to address this new global “challenge” to entrenched powers, particularly nation-states that
cannot sufficiently address the increasingly non-pliant populations and populist demands, what is required, is
“increasingly supranational cooperation, actively promoted by the United States.” In other words, Brzezinski favours an
increased and expanded ‘internationalization’, not surprising considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the
Trilateral Commission. He explains that “Democracy per se is not an enduring solution,” as it could be overtaken by
“radically resentful populism.” This is truly a new global reality:
Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy can enhance, but political dignity also
encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights, all in a
world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic inequities. The quest for political dignity, especially through
national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of self-assertion by the world's
underprivileged.
Thus, writes Brzezinski, “an effective response can only come from a self-confident America genuinely committed to a new
vision of global solidarity.” The idea is that to address the grievances caused by globalization and global power
structures, the world and America must expand and institutionalize the process of globalization, not simply in the
economic sphere, but in the social and political as well. It is a flawed logic, to say the least, that the answer to
these systemic problems is to enhance and strengthen the systemic flaws that created them. One cannot put out a fire by
adding fuel.
Brzezinski even wrote that, “let it be said right away that supranationality should not be confused with world
government. Even if it were desirable, mankind is not remotely ready for world government, and the American people
certainly do not want it.” Instead, Brzezinski argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global
governance, “in shaping a world that is defined less by the fiction of state sovereignty and more by the reality of
expanding and politically regulated interdependence.” In other words, not ‘global government’ but ‘global governance’,
which is simply a rhetorical ploy, as ‘global governance’ – no matter how overlapping, sporadic and desultory it
presents itself – is in fact a key step and necessary transition in the moves toward an actual global government
structure.
[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order, Global Research, 24 June 2010]
Conceptualizing Wikileaks
I feel that Wikileaks must be conceptualized within our understanding of this geopolitical reality we find ourselves in
today. While indeed it is necessary to be skeptical of such monumental events, we must allow ourselves to remember that
there are always surprises – for everyone – and that the future is nothing if not unknown. Anything, truly, can happen.
There is of course logic behind the automatic skepticism and suspicion about Wikileaks from the alternative media;
however, they also risk losing an incredible opportunity presented by Wikileaks, to not only reach more people with
important information, but to better inform that information itself.
For those who view Wikileaks as a conspiracy or plot, as a psy-op of some kind, while indeed these things have taken
place in the past, there is simply no evidence for it thus far. Every examination of this concept is based upon
speculation. Many nations around the world, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia, are pointing to the Western
nations as engaging in a covert propaganda campaign aimed at creating disunity between states and allies. Iran, Turkey,
Pakistan and Afghanistan have made such claims. It is no surprise that most of these are nations, particularly Iran, are
targets of U.S. imperial policy. Since, however, the Wikileaks releases speak heavily and negatively about Iran,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Venezuela, etc., one must remember that these are ‘diplomatic cables’, and
represent the ‘opinions and beliefs’ of the diplomatic establishment, a social group which is historically and presently
deeply enmeshed and submissive to elite ideology and methodology. In short, these are the foreign imperial envoys, and
as such, they are ideological imperialists and represent imperial interests.
As has been the case both historically and presently, imperial objectives are hidden with political rhetoric. Since,
politically, these are target nations of the American imperial elite, America’s diplomatic representatives will focus on
these nations, and adopt the same ideas and beliefs. How many people have ever been given a raise by questioning and
then disregarding their superior’s management technique? Thus, in their respective nations and operations, the diplomats
will seek information that targets these nations or serve specific American imperial objectives. If all the information
they come up with are rumours and conjectures and repeated talking points, that is what will be seen in the diplomatic
cables. Indeed, that was exactly the case. The cables are full of rumours and unsupported allegations. So naturally,
they would target these specific nations – deemed geopolitically significant by American imperial interests – and why
there would be far less information on Israel and other allied nations. This is why it seems to me that these cables are
authentic. They seem to represent the reality of the ‘diplomatic social group’, and thus they are a vivid exploration in
the study of imperialism. We have been given the opportunity to see the ‘communications’ of imperial diplomacy. It is in
this, that we are presented with an incredible opportunity.
Further, in regards to many Middle Eastern and Asian nations framing Wikileaks as a “Western plot,” as critical thinkers
we must take note of the geopolitical reality of the ‘global political awakenng.’ All states are self-interested, that
is the nature of a state. Elites all over the world are aware of the reality and potential political power of the
‘global political awakening’ and thus, seek to suppress or co-opt its potential. States which are often viewed by the
critical press as ‘targets’ by Western imperial powers (such as Iran), may seek to use this power to its own advantage.
They may attempt to steer the ‘global awakening’ and the ‘alternative media’ to their favour, which gives them political
power. But the alternative media must not ‘pick sides’ in terms of global elites and power structures, we must remain
critical of all sides and all actors.
Wikileaks is receiving an incredible readership and is reaching out to new audiences, globally, in the American homeland
itself, and to the youth of the world. People’s perceptions are beginning to change on a variety of issues. The question
is: will the alternative media ignore Wikileaks and isolate itself, or will they engage with Wikileaks, and prevent the
mainstream corporate media from having a ‘monopoly of interpretation’, which becomes inherently propagandistic.
Wikileaks is having global repercussions, and has been very good for the newspaper and mainstream news industries, which
have been on a steady decline. This too, can be an issue to reach out to this new and growing audience, and to bring
them to a new perspective. If we do not reach out, we are left talking to each other, further isolating ourselves, and
ultimately becoming subverted and ineffective for change. We need to reach out to new audiences, and this is an
incredible opportunity to do so. People are interested, people are curious, people are hungry for more.
Wikileaks and the Media
Instead of deriding Wikileaks as “not telling us anything we didn’t know” before, perhaps the alternative media should
use the popularity and momentum of Wikileaks to take from it the documentation and analysis that further strengthens our
arguments and beliefs. This will allow for others, especially new audiences of interested people worldwide, to place the
Wikileaks releases within a wider context and understanding. The reports from Wikileaks are ‘revelations’ only to those
who largely adhere to the ‘illusions’ of the world: that we live in ‘democracies’ promoting ‘freedom’ around the world
and at home, etc. The ‘revelations’ however, are not simply challenging American perceptions of America, but of all
nations and their populations. The fact that these people are reading and discovering new things for which they are
developing an interest is an incredible change. This is likely why the corporate media is so heavily involved in the
dissemination of this information (which itself is a major source of suspicion for the alternative media): to control
the interpretation of the message. It is the job of the alternative media and intellectuals and other thinking
individuals to challenge that interpretation with factual analysis. The Wikileaks releases, in fact, give us more facts
to place within and support our interpretations than they do for the corporate media.
We must ask why the Wikileaks releases were ‘revelations’ for most people? Well, it was surprising simply for the fact
that the media itself has such a strong hold on the access, dissemination and interpretation of information. They are
‘revelations’ because people are indoctrinated with myths. They are not ‘revelations’ to the alternative media because
we have been talking about these things for years. However, while they may not necessarily be ‘revelations’, they are in
fact, ‘confirmations’ and ‘vindications’ and bring more information to the analysis. It is in this, that a great
opportunity lies. For since the leaks support and better inform our perspectives, we can build on this concept and
examine how Wikileaks adds to and supports critical analysis. For those who are newly interested and looking for
information, or for those who are having their previous perceptions challenged, it is the alternative media and critical
voices alone who can place that information in a wider context for everyone else. In this, more people will see how it
is the alternative media and critical perspectives which were more reflective of reality than say, the mainstream media
(for which Wikileaks is a ‘revelation’). Thus, more people may soon start turning to alternative media and ideas; after
all, our perspectives were vindicated, not those of the mainstream media (though they attempt to spin it as such).
We are under a heavy propaganda offensive on the part of the global corporate and mainstream media to spin and
manipulate these leaks to their own interests. We, as alternative media and voices, must use Wikileaks to our advantage.
Ignoring it will only damage our cause and undermine our strength. The mainstream media understood that; so too, must
we. Wikileaks presents in itself a further opportunity for the larger exposure of mainstream media as organized
propaganda. By ‘surprising’ so many people with the ‘revelations’, the media has in effect exposed itself as deeply
inadequate in their analysis of the world and the major issues within it. While currently it is giving the mainstream
media a great boost, we are still immersed in the era of the ‘Technological Revolution’ and there is still (for now,
anyway) Internet freedom, and thus, the tide can quickly turn.
Like the saying goes, ‘the rich man will sell you the rope to hang him with if he thinks he can make a buck on it.’
Perhaps the mainstream media has done the same. No other organized apparatus was as capable of disseminating as much
material as quickly and with such global reach as the mainstream media. If the leaks initially only made it into
alternative media, then the information would only reach those whom are already reading the alternative press. In that,
they would not be such grand ‘revelations’ and would have had a muted effect. In the mainstream media’s global exposure
of Wikileaks material (never mind their slanted and propagandistic interpretations), they have changed the dynamic and
significance of the information. By reaching wider and new audiences, the alternative and critical voices can co-opt
these new audiences; lead them away from the realm of information ‘control’ into the realm of information ‘access’. This
is potentially one of the greatest opportunities presented for the alternative and critical voices of the world.
Wikileaks is a globally transformative event. Not simply in terms of awakening new people to ‘new’ information, but also
in terms of the effect it is having upon global power structures, itself. With ambassadors resigning, diplomats being
exposed as liars and tools, political rifts developing between Western imperial allies, and many careers and reputations
of elites around the world at great risk, Wikileaks is creating the potential for an enormous deterioration in the
effectiveness of imperialism and domination. That, in itself, is an admirable and worthy goal. That this is already a
reality is representative of how truly transformative Wikileaks is and could be. People, globally, are starting to see
their leaders through a lens not filtered by ‘public relations.’ Through mainstream media, it gets filtered through
propaganda, which is why it is an essential duty of the alternative media and critical thinkers to place this
information in a wider, comprehensive context. This would further erode the effectiveness of empire.
With the reaction of several states and policing organizations to issue arrest warrants for Julian Assange, or in
calling for his assassination (as one Canadian adviser to the Prime Minister suggested on television), these
organizations and individuals are exposing their own hatred of democracy, transparency and freedom of information. Their
reactions can be used to discredit their legitimacy to ‘rule’. If policing agencies are supposed to “protect and serve,”
why are they seeking instead to “punish and subvert” those who expose the truth? Again, this comes as no surprise to
those who closely study the nature of the state, and especially the modern phenomenon of the militarization of domestic
society and the dismantling of rights and freedoms. However, it is happening before the eyes of the whole world, and
people are paying attention. This is new.
This is an incredible opportunity to criticize foreign policy (read: ‘imperial strategy’), and to disembowel many global
power structures. More people, now, than ever before, will be willing to listen, learn and investigate for themselves.
Wikileaks should be regarded as a ‘gift’, not a ‘distraction.’ Instead of focusing on the parts of the Wikileaks cables
which do not reflect the perspectives of the alternative media (such as on Iran), we must use Wikileaks to better inform
our own understanding not simply of the ‘policy’ itself, but of the complex social interactions and ideas that create
the basis for the ‘policy’ to be carried out. In regards to the diplomatic cables themselves, we are better able to
understand the nature of diplomats as ‘agents of empire,’ and so instead of discounting the cables as ‘propaganda’ we
must use them against the apparatus of empire itself: to expose the empire for what it is. Wikileaks helps to unsheathe
and strip away the rhetoric behind imperial policy, and expose diplomats not as ‘informed observers’, but as ‘agents of
power.’ The reaction by nations, organizations and institutions around the world adds further fuel to this approach, as
we are seeing the utter distaste political leaders have for ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of information’, despite their
rhetoric. Several institutions of power can be more widely exposed in this manner.
A recent addition to this analysis can be in the role played by universities not in ‘education’ but in ‘indoctrination’
and the production of new ‘agents of power.’ For example, Columbia University is one of the most “respected” and
“revered” universities in the world, which has produced several individuals and significant sectors of the political
elite (including diplomats). In reaction to the Wikileaks releases, Columbia University has warned “students they risk
future job prospects if they download any of the material,” which followed “a government ban on employees, estimated at
more than two-and-a-half million people, using work computers and other communication devices to look at diplomatic
cables released by WikiLeaks.” The University “emailed students at the university's school of international and public
affairs, a recruiting ground for the state department.”[14] Good for Columbia! What do they think university is for,
‘education’ or something? How dare students take education into their own hands, especially students who will likely be
future diplomats. This university reaction to Wikileaks helps call into attention the role of universities in our
society, and specifically the role of universities in shaping the future ‘managers’ of the imperial apparatus.
Wikileaks as an Opportunity
If Wikileaks is a psy-op, it is either the stupidest or most intelligent psychological operation ever undertaken. But
one thing is for sure: systems and structures of power are in the process of being exposed to a much wider audience than
ever before. The question for the alternative media and critical researchers, alike, is what will they do with this
information and this opportunity?
Julian Assange was recently interviewed by Time Magazine about Wikileaks, in which he explained to the inadequately
informed editor of Time Magazine that organizations which are secretive need to be exposed:
If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can
be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to
balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome,
because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.[15]
Assange further explained some of his perspectives regarding the influence of and reactions to Wikileaks, stating that
the Chinese:
appear to be terrified of free speech, and while one might say that means something awful is happening in the country, I
actually think that is a very optimistic sign, because it means that speech can still cause reform and that the power structure is still inherently political, as opposed to fiscal. So journalism and writing are capable of achieving change, and that is why Chinese authorities
are so scared of it. Whereas in the United States to a large degree, and in other Western countries, the basic elements
of society have been so heavily fiscalized through contractual obligations that political change doesn't seem to result
in economic change, which in other words means that political change doesn't result in change.[16]
In the interview, Assange turned to the issue of the Internet and community media:
For the rise of social media, it's quite interesting. When we first started [in 2006], we thought we would have the
analytical work done by bloggers and people who wrote Wikipedia articles and so on. And we thought that was a natural,
given that we had lots of quality, important content.. The bulk of the heavy lifting - heavy analytical lifting - that
is done with our materials is done by us, and is done by professional journalists we work with and by professional
human-rights activists. It is not done by the broader community. However, once the initial lifting is done, once a story
becomes a story, becomes a news article, then we start to see community involvement, which digs deeper and provides more perspective. So the social networks tend to be, for us, an amplifier of what we are doing. And also a supply of sources for us.[17]
As researchers, media, and critics, we must realize that our perspectives and beliefs must be open to change and
evolution. Simply because something like this has never happened before does not mean that it isn’t happening now. We
live in the era of the ‘Technological Revolution,’ and the Internet has changed economics, politics and society itself,
on a global scale. This is where the true hope in furthering and better informing the ‘global political awakening’ will
need to take speed and establish itself. True change in our world is not going to come from already-established or
newly-created institutions of power, which is where all issues are currently being addressed, especially those of global
significance. True change, instead, can only come not from global power structures, but from the global ‘community’ of
people, interacting with one another via the power unleashed by the ‘Technological Revolution.’ Change must be globally
understood and community organized.
We are on the verge of a period of global social transformation, the question is: will we do anything about it? Will we
seek to inform and partake in this transition, or will we sit and watch it be misled, criticizing it as it falters and
falls? Just as Martin Luther King commented in his 1967 speech, Beyond Vietnam, that it seemed as if America was “on the
wrong side of a world revolution,” now there is an opportunity to remedy that sad reality, and not simply on a national
scale, but global.
Despite all the means and methods of power and domination in this world, for every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction. As things progressively get worse and worse, as any independent observer of the world has noticed,
life has a way of creating means and methods to counter these regressions. As ‘globalization’ has facilitated the
emergence of a global elite, and several global institutions and ideologies of global power, so too has this process
facilitated the ‘globalization of opposition.’ So while elites, globally, actively work to integrate and expand global
power structures, they are inadvertently integrating and expanding global opposition to those very same power
structures. This is the great paradox of our time, and one which we must recognize, for it is not simply a factual
observation, but it is a hopeful situation.
Hope should not be underestimated, and it is something that I have personally struggled with in my views of the world.
It is hard to see ‘hope’ when you study so much ‘horror’ in the world, and see how little is being done about it. But
activism and change need hope. This is very evident from the Obama campaign, which was splashed with rhetoric of ‘hope’
and ‘change’, something that all people rightfully want and need However, Obama’s ‘hope’ and ‘change’ were Wall Street
brands and patents, it was a glorious practice in the art of propaganda, and a horrific blow to true notions of ‘hope’
and ‘change’. There is a reason why the Obama campaign took the top prizes in public relations industry awards.[18]
Hope is needed, but it cannot be misplaced hope, as it was with Obama. It must be a hope grounded not in ‘blind faith’
but in ‘honest analysis.’ While indeed on most fronts in the world, things are getting progressively worse, the
alternative media has focused almost exclusively on these issues that they have blinded themselves to the positive
geopolitical developments in the world, namely the ‘global political awakening’ and the role of the Internet in
reshaping global society. While these issues are acknowledged, they are not fully understood or explained within the
wider context: that these are in fact, hopeful developments; that there is hope. Wikileaks strengthens this notion, if
it is to be taken as an opportunity. A critique without hope falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that things are
‘hopeless’, so while an examination of what is wrong in the world is integral to moving forward, so too is an
examination of what is hopeful and positive. This spreads the message and builds its supporters. The Internet as a
medium facilitates the spread of this message, and after all, as one of the foremost media theorists, Marshall McLuhan,
noted, “The medium is the message.”
Appendix of ‘Revelations’ and ‘Vindications’: A Call to Action for Alternative Media
So what are some of the supposed ‘revelations’ which can be used as ‘vindications’ by the alternative media? Well, for
one, the role of royalty as a relevant and powerful economic and political actor in the world today. And by this I do
not simply refer to states where monarchs remain as official rulers, such as in Saudi Arabia, but more specifically to
West European and notably the British monarchs. For those who have studied institutions like the Bilderberg Group and
the Trilateral Commission, the relevance of European royalty in international affairs is not a new concept. For the
majority of people (who haven’t even heard of the Bilderberg Group or Trilateral Commission), these monarchs are largely
viewed as symbolic figures as opposed to political actors. This is, of course, naïve, as all monarchs have always been
political actors, however, it is a naivety that has now been challenged on a much wider scale and to a much wider
audience There was a time when I would discuss the relevance of monarchs in the modern world, and it would be a subject
that would be treated by many others as an absurd notion: “but the Queen has no real power, she’s a figurehead,” etc.
Wikileaks has exposed that notion as a falsity, and it should be an issue that is expanded upon.
For example, within the Wikileaks cables, take the British Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, who has been
subject to many cable ‘revelations.’ The U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan wrote a cable regarding a meeting she attended
with several British and Canadian businessmen and Prince Andrew, who is a special U.K. trade representative to the
Middle East and Central Asia. At the meeting, Prince Andrew ranted against “those [expletive] journalists ... who poke
their noses everywhere,” and he “railed at British anticorruption investigators, who had had the 'idiocy' of almost
scuttling the al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia,” particularly “referencing an investigation, subsequently closed, into
alleged kickbacks a senior Saudi royal had received in exchange for the multi-year, lucrative BAE Systems contract to
provide equipment and training to Saudi security forces.” When he ranted against the media – specifically the Guardian
paper – for making it harder to do business abroad, the U.S. Ambassador noted that the businessmen in attendance “roared
their approval” and “practically clapped.”[19] Again, evidence for how elites despise true representations of democracy
and freedom.
At that same meeting, Prince Andrew made another startling claim, and one which had not been as widely publicized in the
media to date. He stated that to the U.S. Ambassador that: “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you
Americans too) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game,” and, “this time we aim to win!” Further, Prince
Andrew – the ‘Duke of York’ – “then stated that he was very worried about Russia's resurgence in the region,” and
referred to Chinese economic and political expansion in the region as “probably inevitable, but a menace.” On the way
out of the meeting, one British businessman said to the U.S. Ambassador, “What a wonderful representative for the
British people! We could not be prouder of our royal family!”[20] Well, there you have it, a rich prince running around
the world with rich businessmen promoting their economic interests in foreign countries and referring to it as the
age-old imperial competition between Britain and Russia in the “Great Game” for dominance over Central Asia. And we call
our countries ‘democracies’ and exporters of ‘freedom’?
This is quite typical behaviour of the royal family, however, as a former South African MP and anti-corruption
campaigner, Andrew Feinstein, explained, “the royal family has actively supported Britain's arms sales, even when
corruption and malfeasance has been suspected,” and that, “the royal family was involved in trying to persuade South
Africa to buy BAE's Hawk jets, despite the air force not wanting the planes that cost two and a half times the price of
their preferred aircraft. As an ANC MP at the time, I was told that £116m in bribes had been paid to key decision-makers
and the ANC itself. The royal family's attitude is part of the reason that BAE will never face justice in the UK for its
corrupt practices.”[21]
The British royals are also very close with Arab monarchs, which makes sense, considering it was the British Empire (and
the ‘Crown’ behind it) that created the Arab monarchs and gave them power in the first place. Prince Andrew went on
hunting trips with the King of Jordan and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the UAE.[22] Further, Prince Charles
is considered a strategic diplomatic figure in regards to Saudi Arabia, as the cables reveal. The British media
headlined with the ‘revelation’ that Prince Charles is not as “respected” as Queen Elizabeth, but the real story was
buried in the same article beneath the royal gossip, as cables revealed that Prince Charles and his wife “have helped to
overcome ‘severe strains’ following Saudi Arabia's imprisonment and torture of five Britons from December 2001 to August
2003 and the UK's official fraud investigations of British Aerospace operations in Saudi Arabia in 2004.” As one U.S.
diplomatic cable explained, the British royals “helped re-build UK-Saudi ties” as “the House of Saud and the House of
Windsor build upon their royal commonality.” In other words, they both represent unelected and unaccountable elite
dynastic power, and so they should naturally work together in ‘their’ own interests. How ‘democratic’ of them. Further,
a Saudi royal threw a lavish party for Prince Charles in Saudi Arabia with the help of an unnamed British
businessman.[23]
It looks, however, like the British royals will have to again move in to “smooth out” ties with Saudi Arabia, as
‘revelations’ about the country and its monarch paint a picture of a not-so-helpful Western ally. In short, Saudi Arabia
and its monarch have received one of the largest public relations disasters in recent history. The British monarch may
be too busy cleaning up their own mess, or have too much light on them at the moment, to be able to ‘gracefully’
maneuver through yet another ‘imperious’ royal visit. What am I referring to here in terms of bad PR for the Saudis?
It’s quite simple, the Saudi royals, good friends of the British monarch, are incidentally the principle financiers of
Sunni terrorists (which includes what we commonly refer to as ‘al-Qaeda’) worldwide.
While this comes as no surprise to those who have critically analyzed al-Qaeda or the “war on terror,” it is indeed a
‘revelation’ to the majority of people. While Western governments and media propaganda machines have for years blamed
terrorist financing and support on ‘target’ nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and more recently, Pakistan and Yemen,
the Wikileaks cables ‘vindicated’ the historical and present reality that it is in fact the main Western allies in the
region, especially Saudi Arabia, but also the other major Gulf Arab states (and their monarchs), who are the main
financiers and supporters of terrorism, and most notably, al-Qaeda. A memo signed by Hillary Clinton confirmed that
Saudi Arabia is understood to be “the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan
Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba,” as well as al-Qaeda itself. Further, three other Arab states, Qatar, Kuwait, and the
United Arab Emirates are listed as other chief terrorist financiers. As the Guardian put it, “the cables highlight an
often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative
donors across the Arabian Sea.” While Pakistan is largely blamed for aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is in fact
Saudi Arabia as well as UAE-based businesses which are its chief financiers. Kuwait, another staunch U.S. ally, is a
“source of funds and a key transit point” for al-Qaeda.[24]
While the New York Times was busy declaring Wikileaks as providing a “new consensus” on Iran, with the Saudi King urging
America to attack and “cut the head off the snake,” they mentioned only in passing, how “Saudi donors remain the chief
financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.”[25] Now, while these are indeed ‘revelations’ to many, we must place
these facts in their proper context. This is not simply to be taken as Saudi Arabia and Arab states being responsible,
alone, for support of terrorism and al-Qaeda, but that they are simply playing the role they have always played, and
that diplomacy is sidelined and kept in the dark on this issue as it always has been.
What I mean by this is that the contextualization of these facts must be placed in a comprehensive historical analysis.
Looking at the history of al-Qaeda, arising out of the Soviet-Afghan War, with major covert support from America and
other Western allies, the center of this operation was in the ‘Safari Club,’ which constituted a secret network of
Western intelligence agencies (such as those of France, Britain and America) and regional intelligence agencies (such as
those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), in carrying out the financing, training, arming and operational support of the
Mujahideen, and subsequently the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The ‘Safari Club’ was established in 1976 (with the help of CIA
director at the time, George H.W. Bush, another close friend of the Saudi royals), and was designed to respond to
increasing political oversight of intelligence operations in America (as a result of the Church Committee investigations
on CIA operations), and so the Safari Club was created to allow for a more covert and discreet network of intelligence
operations, with no oversight. Diplomats were kept in the dark about its operations and indeed its existence, while the
quiet covert relationships continued behind the scenes. This network, in some form or another, exists up to the present
day, as I recently documented in my three-part series on “The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda.”
[See: The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”; Empire, Energy and Al-Qaeda: The Anglo-American Terror Network; 9/11 and America’s Secret Terror Campaign]
In short, there is a reason that while diplomats complain quietly about Saudi and Arab financing and support for
al-Qaeda, nothing is actually done: because through other avenues, the American imperial structure and apparatus
supports and facilitates this process. Diplomacy is more overt in its imperial ambitions, thus the reality of the cables
reflecting a focus on Iran and Pakistan, yet intelligence operations are a much more covert means of establishing and
maintaining particular imperial relationships. This information again should not be taken “at face value,” but rather
placed within its broader geopolitical context. In this sense, the information is not ‘disinformation’ or ‘propaganda’,
but rather additional factual ‘vindication’ and information.
While Western governments and media publicly scorn Iran and accuse it of “meddling” in the affairs of Iraq, and of
supporting terrorism and destabilization of the country, the reality is that while Iran certainly exerts influence in
Iraq, (after all, they are neighbours), Saudi Arabia is a far greater source of destabilization than Iran is accused of
being, and this is from the mouths of Iraqi leaders themselves. Iraqi government officials, reported the Guardian, “see
Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and cohesion of their fledgling democratic state.” In a
cable written by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, it was explained that, “Iraq views relations with Saudi Arabia as among
its most challenging given Riyadh's money, deeply ingrained anti-Shia attitudes and [Saudi] suspicions that a Shia-led
Iraq will inevitably further Iranian regional influence.” Further, “Iraqi contacts assess that the Saudi goal (and that
of most other Sunni Arab states, to varying degrees) is to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote
the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.” In short, that would mean that Saudi Arabia is actually doing
what the West accuses Iran of doing in Iraq. So while Iran certainly has been promoting its own interests in Iraq, it is
more interested in a stable Shi’a government, while Saudi Arabia is more interested in a weak and fractured government,
and thus promotes sectarian conflict. One interesting fact to note that came out of the cables, is the increasing
perspective among Iraqi youth rejecting foreign interference from any government, with diplomatic cables articulating
that, “a 'mental revolution' was under way among Iraqi youth against foreign agendas seeking to undermine the country's
stability.”[26]
It should come as no surprise, then, that one top Saudi royal (in fact the former head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence
agency and thus the man responsible for handling Saudi Arabia’s relationship with terrorists), Prince Turki al-Faisal,
said that the source of the diplomatic leaks should be “vigorously punished.” Turki, who has also been the Saudi
Ambassador to the U.K. and America, said, “the WikiLeaks furor underscored that cyber security was an increasing
international concern.”[27]
What other areas can Wikileaks be used to further inform and ‘vindicate’ the critical media? Well, start with Saudi
Arabia’s neighbour to the south, Yemen. Whether or not most Americans (or for that matter, most people in general) are
aware that America is waging a war in Yemen, just across the water from where America is waging another war against
Somalia (since 2006/07). This past October, I wrote an article about the imperial war in Yemen as a war being fought
under the auspices of the “War on Terror” and fighting al-Qaeda (financed by the Saudi elite); but which in reality is
about America and other Western imperial powers (such as the U.K.) propping up a despotic leaders who has been in power
since 1978, by supporting him in his campaign to eliminate a rebel movement in the North and a massive secessionist
movement in the South. Saudi Arabia entered the conflict in August of 2009 by bombing rebel holdouts in the North along
the Saudi border, as the Saudi elite are afraid of the movement spreading to disaffected groups within Saudi Arabia
itself.
America inserted itself into the war by increasing the amount of money and military aid given to Yemen (in effect,
subsidizing their military, as they do heavily with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, all the Arab states, and dozens
of other states around the world), as well as providing direct special forces training and assistance, not to mention
carrying out missile strikes within Yemen against “al-Qaeda training camps” which American intelligence officials
claimed killed 60 ‘militants’. In reality, 52 innocent people died, with over half of them being women and children. At
the time, both Yemen and America claimed it was an al-Qaeda training camp and that the cruise missile was fired by the
Yemeni government, despite the fact that it had no such weapons in its arsenal, unlike the U.S. Navy patrolling the
coastline. The missile strike was carried out by America “on direct presidential orders.”
Several days later, there was the bizarre “attempted terrorist attack” in which a young Nigerian man was arrested
attempting to blow up his underwear (who was helped onto the plane by a mysterious Indian man in a suit who claimed he
was a diplomat, according to witnesses), and who was subsequently linked to “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” (an
organization which started up not much earlier when a Guantanamo inmate returned to Saudi Arabia only to ‘escape’ Saudi
custody, and flee to Yemen to start a new al-Qaeda branch). This provided the justification for America to dramatically
increase its military aid to Yemen, which more than doubled from $67 million to $150 million, and came with increased
special forces training and assistance, as well as increased CIA activity, discussing using drone attacks to kill
innocent people (as they do in Pakistan), and more missile strikes.
This previous September, the Yemen government “laid siege” to a town in the South while the Obama administrations top
counter-terrorism official, John Brennan, was in Yemen for ‘talks’ with President Saleh. The town was claimed to be a
“sanctuary for al-Qaeda,” but it has key strategic significance as well. It is just south of a major new liquid natural
gas pipeline, and the town happened to be home to many people involved in the Southern secessionist movement. The Yemeni
government “barred” any outside or independent observers from witnessing the siege, which lasted days. However, for the
many who fled the conflict and “siege,” they were claiming that the Islamic militants were working with the government
against the rebel movement in the North and secessionist movement in the South, and according to one NPR reporter, “this
is more about fighting or subduing the secessionist movement than it is about al-Qaida.”
[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, “Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the American Empire,” Global Research, 5 October 2010]
The Wikileaks ‘revelations’ further inform and confirm much of this analysis. In regards to the missile strike that
killed innocent women and children on Obama’s orders, Wikileaks cables revealed that Yemeni President Saleh “secretly
offered US forces unrestricted access to his territory to conduct unilateral strikes against al-Qaida terrorist
targets.” As Saleh told John Breannan in September of 2009, “I have given you an open door on terrorism. So I am not
responsible.” Regarding the December 21 strike that killed the innocent civilians, a cable explained, “Yemen insisted it
must 'maintain the status quo' regarding the official denial of US involvement. Saleh wanted operations to continue
'non-stop until we eradicate this disease,” and days later in a meeting with U.S. Central Command head, General David
Patraeus, “Saleh admitted lying to his population about the strikes.” He told the General, “We'll continue saying the
bombs are ours, not yours.”[28]
In regards to Pakistan, while it is important to be highly critical of the validity of the ‘perspectives’ within the
cables in regards to Pakistan and the Taliban, since Pakistan is a current and escalating target in the “War [OF]
Terror,” there are things to keep in mind: historically, the Pakistani ISI has funded, armed and trained the Taliban,
but always with U.S. assistance and support. Thus, we must examine the situation presently and so historically.
Wikileaks revealed (as I mentioned previously), that Arab Gulf states help fund the Taliban in Afghanistan, so the
common claim that it is Pakistan ‘alone’ is immediately made to be erroneous Is it possible that Pakistan is still
working with the Taliban? Of course They have historically through their intelligence services, the ISI, and while they
have never done it without U.S. support (mostly through the CIA), the ISI still receives most of its outside funding
from the CIA.[29] The CIA funding of the ISI, a reality since the late 70s, picked up dramatically following 9/11, the
operations of which the ISI has been itself complicit in financing.[30] Thus, the CIA rewarded the financiers of 9/11 by
increasing their funds.
The trouble with discounting information that does not fit in with your previously conceived ideas is that it does not
allow for evolution or progress in thinking. This should never be done in regards to any subject, yet it is commonly
done for all subjects, by official and critical voices alike. With Pakistan, we must understand that while historically
it has been a staunch U.S. ally in the region, propping up every government, supporting every coup, American
geopolitical ambitions have changed as a result of the changing geopolitical reality of the world. Pakistan has drawn
increasingly close to China, which built a major seaport on Pakistan’s coast, giving China access to the Indian Ocean.
This is a strategic threat to India and the United States more broadly, which seeks to subdue and control China’s
growing influence (while simultaneously attempting to engage in efforts of international integration with China,
specifically economically). India and Pakistan are historical enemies, and wars have been fought between them before.
India and America are in a strategic alliance, and America helped India with its nuclear program, much to the distaste
of the Pakistanis, who drew closer to China. Pakistan occupies an area of the utmost strategic importance: with its
neighbours being Afghanistan, China, India and Iran.
American policy has changed to support a civilian government, kept weak and subservient to U.S. interests, while America
covertly expands its wars inside Pakistan. This is creating an incredible potential for absolute destabilization and
fragmentation, potentially resulting in total civil war. America appears to be undertaking a similar policy in Pakistan
that it undertook in fracturing Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. Only that Pakistan has a population of 170 million
people and nuclear weapons. As America expands its destabilization of Pakistan, the risk of a nuclear war between
Pakistan and India dramatically increases, as does the risk of destabilization spreading regionally to its neighbours of
India, China, Afghanistan and Iran. The American-urged separation of the Pakistani military from official power in
Pakistan (as in, it’s not a military dictatorships), was designed to impose a completely U.S. dependent civilian
government and isolate an increasingly frustrated and antagonized Pakistani military.
As the Wikileaks cables revealed, General Kayani, head of the Pakistani military, threatened to depose the Pakistani
government in a coup in March of 2009, and he discussed this in meetings with the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne
Patterson. The cables revealed that the Pakistani Army Chief disliked the civilian government, but that they disliked
the opposition even more, which was rallying people in the streets.[31] This reveals the intimate nature the U.S. has
with the Pakistani military, as it always has The U.S. did not support this proposal, as it currently favours a weak
civilian government, and therefore a strong military dictatorship is not in America’s (or India’s) interest. Thus, there
was no coup. Hence, Wikileaks can be used to further inform and vindicate analysis of Pakistan. For those who have been
speaking about the destabilization of Pakistan for years, and there have been many, Wikileaks provides more resources to
a critical analysis, and suddenly more people around the world might be interested in new ideas and perspectives, as
Wikileaks has challenged so many of their previously held beliefs.
The list of examples surfacing from the Wikileaks cables is endless in the amount of additional information it can add
in the alternative media’s dissemination of information and analysis. These were but a few examples among many. Make no
mistake, this is an opportunity for the spread of truth, not a distraction from it. Treat it accordingly.
Notes
[1] David E. Sanger, James Glanz and Jo Becker, Around the World, Distress Over Iran, The New York Times, 28 November
2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29iran.htmlin
[2] Fox, Leaked Documents Show Middle East Consensus on Threat Posed by Iran, Fox News, 29 November 2010: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/29/leaked-documents-middle-east-consensus-threat-posed-iran/
[3] Ross Colvin, "Cut off head of snake" Saudis told U.S. on Iran, Reuters, 29 November 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS02B20101129
[4] FT reporters, Iran accuses US over WikiLeaks, The Financial Times, 29 November 2010: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940105fc-fbd1-11df-b79a-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz16zUOP500
[5] Barak Ravid, Netanyahu: Israel will not stand at center of new WikiLeaks report, Ha’aretz, 28 November 2010: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-israel-will-not-stand-at-center-of-new-wikileaks-report-1.327416?localLinksEnabled=false
[6] Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler, Unexpectedly, Israel Welcomes WikiLeaks Revelations, IPS News, 1 December
2010: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53731
[7] JPOST.COM STAFF, Barak: 'Wikileaks incident has not damaged Israel', Jerusalem Post, 30 November 2010: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=197357
[8] Haaretz Service, Senior Turkey official says Israel behind WikiLeaks release, Ha’aretz, 2 December 2010: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/senior-turkey-official-says-israel-behind-wikileaks-release-1.328373
[9] Craig Murray, Extraordinary Rendition, CraigMurray.org, 11 July 2005: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/07/extraordinary_r_1.html
[10] Nick Paton Walsh, The envoy who said too much, The Guardian, 15 July 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk
[11] Craig Murray, Raise A Glass to Wikileaks, CraigMurray.org, 29 November 2010: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/11/raise_a_glass_t.html
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ewen MacAskill, Columbia students told job prospects harmed if they access WikiLeaks cables, The Guardian, 5
December 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/columbia-students-wikileaks-cables
[15] RICHARD STENGEL, Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, Time Magazine, 30 November 2010: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101201/wl_time/08599203404000
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Matthew Creamer, Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the Year, AdAge, 17 October 2008: http://adage.com/moy2008/article?article_id=131810; Mark Sweney, Barack Obama campaign claims two top prizes at Cannes Lion ad awards, The Guardian, 29 June 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/29/barack-obama-cannes-lions
[19] David Leigh, Heather Brooke and Rob Evans, WikiLeaks cables: 'Rude' Prince Andrew shocks US ambassador, The
Guardian, 29 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-rude-prince-andrew
[20] US embassy cables: Prince Andrew rails against France, the SFO and the Guardian, The Guardian, 29 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175722
[21] Rob Evans and David Leigh, WikiLeaks cables: Prince Andrew demanded special BAE briefing, The Guardian, 30 November
2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables
[22] US embassy cables: Prince Andrew hunts with Arab leaders, The Guardian, 29 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/8446
[23] Robert Booth, Wikileaks cable: Prince Charles 'not respected like Queen', The Guardian, 29 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cable-prince-charles-queen
[24] Declan Walsh, WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists, The Guardian, 5 December
2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding
[25] SCOTT SHANE and ANDREW W. LEHREN, Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy, The New York Times, 28 November
2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html
[26] Simon Tisdall, WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia rated a bigger threat to Iraqi stability than Iran, The Guardian, 5
December 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-meddling-iraq
[27] William Maclean, Saudi royal: Punish WikiLeaks source "vigorously", Reuters, 5 December 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B41VA20101205
[28] Robert Booth and Ian Black, WikiLeaks cables: Yemen offered US 'open door' to attack al-Qaida on its soil, The
Guardian, 3 December 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-yemen-us-attack-al-qaida
[29] Greg Miller, CIA pays for support in Pakistan, Los Angeles Times, 15 November 2009: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/15/world/fg-cia-pakistan15
[30] Andrew Gavin Marshall, 9/11 and America’s Secret Terror Campaign, Global Research, 10 September 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va=20975
[31] David Batty and Declan Walsh, Pakistan army reacts to WikiLeaks cables with democracy pledge, The Guardian, 4
December 2010: http://www.guardian.couk/world/2010/dec/04/pakistan-army-supports-government-wikileaks
*************
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with
Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently writing a book on 'Global Government' due to be released in 2011 by Global Research Publishers.