QotD: Daniel Ellsberg on Wikileaks

Manufacturing consent, US Foreign Policy
Published on

Daniel Ellsberg was the man most responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers back in 1971, which showed that the US government had systematically lied about the War on Vietnam. It was a defining moment in American politics, as important if not moreso as Watergate and, like Watergate, it has become part of Boomer mythology. So it’s not surprising that it’s now being used against Wikileaks, as the golden standard that Assange and co’s leaks don’t measure up to. Ellsberg himself however knows better:

As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

Terrorists attack here

Manufacturing consent, US Foreign Policy, War on Terror
Published on

Wikileaks has released a list of locations of strategic interest to the United States which has prompted a flood of criticism from the US and its bootlickers, like Malcolm Rifkind accusing Wikileaks from aiding terrorists:

The list is “a gift to any terrorist (group) trying to work out what are the ways in which it can damage the United States,” said Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee in Britain.

“It is grossly improper and irresponsible” for Assange and his website to publish that information, he said.

Oh Rly?

Let’s look at the Dutch locations on that list, shall we?

Netherlands: Atlantic Crossing-1 (AC-1) undersea cable landing Beverwijk, Netherlands TAT-14 undersea cable landing, Katwijk, Netherlands Rotterdam Port

Two internet connection points and the Rotterdam harbour. Inconcievable that terrorists would think of these targets on their own.

More seriously, the target list here might be of strategic interest to the US, but it’s of little value to any really existing terrorists, rather than the phantom menace conjured up by State Deparment spokepersons. Yes, terrorists could more easily attack a soft target like the e.g. anti-snake venom plant in Italy that’s also mentioned than something like the Statue of Liberty, but this assumes that terrorists select their targets to cause maximum damage for minimal risk rather than for maximum publicity and, well, terror. Moreover,thinking that releasing this list is supporting terrorists because we need to hide important targets for them is the worst sort of security by obscurity. If your strategy depends on keeping that sort of basic information secret, you’ve lost already, as any sysadmin worth their salt knows already.

But then this is just outrage theatre and nobody responsible actually believes this, do they? Do they?

Cablegate: Holland has nuclear weapons

Dutch politics, US Foreign Policy
Published on

It’s been an open secret for years that there are still tactical nuclear weapons stationed in the Netherlands, probably at Volkel Air Base. Politically embarassing for both the Nehterlands and the US, their existence has never been confirmed or denied, though it is public knowledge that the Dutch airforce still has a nuclear strike task within NATO. One of those things everybody in the business knows, but the great unwashed can’t be allowed to know for sure. But thanks to Wikileaks, now we do. A cable from the American embassy in Berlin contained the following passage confirming the existence of tactical nuclear weapons in not just Holland, but also in Germany, Belgium and Turkey:

In response to Gordon’s question about how the government planned to take forward the commitment in the coalition agreement to seek the removal of all remaining nuclear weapons from Germany, Heusgen distanced the Chancellery from the proposal, claiming that this had been forced upon them by FM Westerwelle. Heusgen said that from his perspective, it made no sense to unilaterally withdraw “the 20” tactical nuclear weapons still in Germany while Russia maintains “thousands” of them. It would only be worth it if both sides drew down. Gordon noted that it was important to think through all the potential consequences of the German proposal before going forward. For example, a withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Germany and perhaps from Belgium and the Netherlands could make it very difficult politically for Turkey to maintain its own stockpile, even though it was still convinced of the need to do so.

On the one hand, this is not actually news, as everybody concerned knew this already. On the other hand, it’s now official out in the public domain and might therefore be embarassing for the governments involved. On the gripping hand, this also enables them to finally question their continued deployal openly. Why keep nuclear weapons meant to stop the Russian Tank Guard Armies crossing the Rhine when those armies have long gone and the Russians are almost incapable of keeping their recruits alive, let alone organise a new Cold War?

Leaked cables neither diplomatic nor surprising so far

US Foreign Policy
Published on

I expect that browsing through the leaked diplomatic cables at Wikileaks will soon remind you of that old Bismarck saying about law and sausages; that if you’re fond of diplomacy, you’d better not know what went into the making of it. For those who think of aristocrats in powdered wigs spoiling their guests with chocolately treats, the revelation that diplomats might actully dislike the foreign heads of state they come in contact with may be a bit shocking, though hardly surprising. Judging from the examples already up at the Guardian, there are a lot of well, duh observations of “world leaders” in these cables. Yer average man in a pub could’ve told you that Berlusconi”‘s “frequent late nights and penchant for partying hard mean he does not get sufficient rest” or that he’s a “physically and politically weak” leader.

Circlejerk journalism

Israel/Palestine, Wingnuts
Published on

Professional anti-semitism accusers Just Journalism want you to read their report on how the London Review of Books has covered Israel in all its tl;dr glory and come away convinced of how prejudiced the LRB is towards poor old Israel. Yet if this was their goal, the presentation of the report lets them down. The long, long text is enlivened by quotes from various LRB articles and photos of various Israeli and Palestinian outrages. All of which, with chapter headings like “The Second Lebanon War: 2006” gives the impression to a casual reader that this is some sort of lefty analysis of the Israel/Palestine situation, rather than a critique of the LRB’s supposed anti-Israel attitude.

You do wonder why they extract quotes like this 2003 Edward Said one: Almost a decade after the end of South African apartheid, this ghastly racist wall is going up with scarcely a peep from the majority of Israelis, rather than quote from their own report. As if they believe the quotes themselve are so horrifying as to make their case for them, that any neutral reader will immediately see how outrageous they are. It’s something you also see in socalled “Decent left” sites like Harry’s Place where the bloggers and their readers have disappeared so far up their own assholes that just mentioning the enemy du jour is reason enough for a two minute hate, without having to explain that they’re wrong and evil or why they are. That’s the danger of the circlejerk: you spent so much time talking to people who always agree with you that you’re no longer able to convince others.